News
Ford’s top brass sit down with Sandy Munro to discuss the F-150 Lightning
Ford CEO Jim Farley and other company executives were interviewed by Sandy Munro earlier this week, highlighting the work done on the F-150 Lightning, its defining features, as well as Ford’s future more generally.
Sandy Munro of Munro Associates runs a YouTube channel where he and his team dive into different models of vehicles and analyze their dependability, durability, and overall engineering design work. However, Sandy and fellow Munro associate Cory Steuben got to sit down with top leaders from Ford, which included Farley, Linda Zhang, who was the Chief Engineer of the all-electric pickup, and Doug Field, the automaker’s Chief Officer of EVs. Mainly focusing on the F-150 Lightning but also talking about the brand’s future and competitors, the interview culminated as Sandy asked the executive team about possible vertical integration within their manufacturing process, possible partnerships with Tesla, and a possible switch to the Tesla connector as the US default.
The video starts with Sandy getting the keys to his new F-150 Lightning, kindly delivered in person by Jim Farley and the team. However, Sandy quickly moves to ask about the truck and its design.
While Sandy was quick to praise the EV drivetrain and the durability of design, foremost thought the interview; the executive team focused on accessory features instead. Doug Field specifically sees the onboard generator, the large frunk, and the bi-directional power (the feature that allows the truck to power the home during a blackout) as the top reasons consumers have flocked to the new truck. Farley continues by noting that, while he didn’t expect the vehicle’s features to be such a crowd pleaser, he believes that they are the reason consumers aren’t asking “why an EV,” but “why not!”
The rest of the interview generally focuses on the market and the Ford brand. The biggest question is the thought of exponential growth in the EV market. Sandy notes explicitly that the US market had recently reached a 5% market share of EVs, what he calls a “tipping point” in the market. Jim responds positively, noting that he is excited about the chance to expand so quickly, expanding older plants such as “The Rouge” and constructing new plants like their new facility in Tennessee to meet demand. Further, he notes he isn’t worried about the brand’s ability to meet demand.
Another big question on the mind of Sandy (and many others who are interested in EVs) is the question of a partnership with Tesla, as well as the executives’ thoughts on the recent proposal to make the Tesla connector the new US standard. “We consider everything,” Doug responds tritely. The team responds to a Tesla partnership, saying that Ford would need a powerful motivating idea to consider abandoning their independence and partnering with another maker, Tesla or otherwise. However, none of the team concretely answered Sandy’s question about standardizing the Tesla Connector.
The group next addresses the possibility of increased verticle integration within their manufacturing. Software, batteries, and powertrain parts were essential parts where they stated the brand would likely continue to pursue verticle integration, going as far as to call other battery makers such as CATL “competitors.” However, Farley notes that he would not compromise the user experience in efforts of verticle integration.
Sandy concludes by lamenting the lack of the $20-$25,000 EV. He mentions that the in-demand Maverick is an excellent example of a vehicle that shows affordable vehicles can still do well and prove profitable for brands like Ford. Doug responds conservatively that, while they see the segment as “very important for global competitiveness,” difficulties remain in acquiring affordable powertrain parts and batteries. And while LFP batteries may offer an avenue into that market, Ford is still in the process of “considering other options.”
Sandy’s interview shows that Ford remains quite dedicated to pursuing EV tech and why they remain ahead of previous rivals such as GM and the Chrysler family of brands. Farley is thinking ahead of many of these other legacy brands, and despite the hurdles that come with that status (cough cough dealerships cough cough), they are positioning themselves well to succeed. Ford’s sales and stock price seem to reflect this.
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!
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
