Last week, Elon Musk tweeted in a series of updates that Tesla would be attempting to service two-thirds of customer requests “same day.”
One of the many benefits of owning an electric vehicle is the lack of service required. According to Autoblog, of the top 5 most common car repairs – oxygen sensor replacement, inspection of loose fuel cap causing engine light, catalytic converter replacement, mass airflow sensor replacement, and spark plug replacement – none of them are even possible on an electric vehicle. Nonetheless, due to a range of issues, Tesla has had a consistent problem with servicing its ever-growing group of customers’ needs. Musk is set out to change this, and owners should have many reasons to be optimistic!
Working on Tesla North American service.
Goal is 2/3 of cars receive same-day service, no wait.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 4, 2022
Looking at Tesla’s service problem, it is multifaceted and often self-feeding in nature. To start off, quality control at Tesla has been a known problem, with customers experiencing everything from missing badges to paint issues to panel gaps. All of these issues must be serviced, and much of this service will be done at one of the company’s service centers.
Quality control (QC) service requests, when combined with normal service load, mean that Tesla service centers’ availability is often impaired. Tesla Motors Club forum even has a thread dedicated for service center wait times. This means that customers may be forced to wait longer periods before service, and if the service is not done 100% correctly the first time, the service center doesn’t have the capacity to bring them back immediately.
This lack of availability is compounded by Tesla’s lack of service centers as a whole, some states having only single-digit numbers of service centers available. This means that the service centers that do exist are responsible for a larger number of vehicles. And while independent service centers exist commonly throughout the US, many refuse to work on Tesla products or any electric vehicles for that matter, even when they have the capability to do the work. Once again, this forces more service requests to Tesla service centers.
Credit: Tesla
Finally, because new car QC requests are often covered by Tesla at no cost, this incentivizes customers to go to service centers for free work instead of going to independent shops that may be able to help them.
These problems have not been ignored by Elon Musk, and since 2018, Tesla has addressed many of these concerns. Most predominantly, since 2018, the number of service centers and the area that they cover has increased drastically. Looking at a map of 2018 and comparing it to now, areas such as New England, the Pacific Northwest, and the South have all seen massive increases in capacity. Tesla aimed to open one new Service Center per week in 2021, and, in general, the automaker has experimented with many different specialized service programs.
-
- Map of Tesla service centers in the US as of 2018.
-
- Map of Tesla service centers in the US in 2022
This is combined with an increase in capacity in Tesla’s mobile repair teams, who can often address service requests before the customer has to come to a service center. And in more recent news, Tesla has even made their repair manual free for customers to access, allowing more repairs to be done outside of service centers.
Another obvious change consumers have seen is an improvement in QC. Even according to JD Power’s rankings of brands by initial quality, from 2020 to 2021, Tesla has reduced the number of “problems per 100 vehicles” from 250 in 2020 to 231 in 2021, a number that is competitive with brands like Audi (240) and VW (213).
Service centers themselves have also been changed over the past 4 years with the inclusion of F1 style pit lanes that allow customers to be more quickly addressed and hence allow the service team to address more requests in a day.
Nonetheless, many have been concerned that these changes have not been enough to fix the Tesla service issue. Leading many to think about what could be done to improve the situation. A couple of options have been put forward by industry professionals and Twitter users alike. One such suggestion has been the expansion of the Tesla START program, a program that teaches individuals how to work on Teslas and then places them with a full-time job at a Service Center location across the country. Currently, the program is offered at eight colleges across the country: Rio Honda Community College in Los Angeles, Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, North Carolina, Shoreline Community College in Seattle, Evergreen Valley College in San Jose, California, Suffolk Community College in Selden, New York, Miami Dade College in Florida, Texas State Technical College in Waco, Texas, and Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio.
Overall, the changes made in the past 4 years should give Tesla’s current and future customers much to be optimistic about. QC has improved, the speed of service operation has increased, service manuals are free and open to anyone, and the number of service centers has increased. The only question is, what is Elon Musk planning on implementing next to improve Tesla’s Service department?
What do you think of the article? Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns? Shoot me an email at william@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @WilliamWritin. If you have news tips, email us at tips@teslarati.com
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
