Mercedes-Benz has seen the sale of its electric vehicles (EVs) increase significantly in the U.S. this year. However, a new report shows that dealers have had difficulty keeping up with inventory levels for the automaker’s EQ lineup, with sales times for the EVs exceeding the luxury segment average.
In the third quarter, Mercedes sold 10,423 EVs in the U.S., marking a 284-percent increase year over year. Despite the gradual increase in EV sales, the German automaker’s EVs are sitting on dealership lots and are not being sold off as quickly as other vehicles.
According to a report from Automotive News citing Edmunds data, Mercedes-Benz battery-electric EQ models took an average of 82 days to sell at dealerships in September. Comparatively, vehicles across the overall luxury segment averaged 57 days, while BMW vehicles took around 38 days to sell.
In various anonymous interviews with Automotive News, Mercedes dealers pointed to the brand’s lack of effort in responding to growing EV competition with sales programs and to the products themselves as the reasons for heightened inventory levels. One person who runs a Mercedes store said he currently has over six months’ worth of EVs and only a 50-day supply of the company’s gas cars.
“The EVs are coming whether or not you asked for them or earned them,” the retail store operator said. “There is too much of a price premium — especially at the top end of the EQ lineup — and almost no [lease] support.”
He added that the EQ models didn’t have the same “lust factor” as some of the automaker’s classic gas cars, including the S-Class sedan and the AMG-GT coupe.
“Our cars need to be ‘want’ cars,” he said. “The S-Class has maintained good loyalty because it’s aspirational. An EQS is not something that most people aspire to own.”
Credit: Automotive News
A Mercedes spokesperson declined to comment on internal discussions with its retailers.
CEO of Mercedes-Benz U.S., Dimitris Psillakis, blamed slow sales on a lack of product variety and on the EV segment being so new. Additionally, he pointed to issues in the supply chain as preventing variety at dealerships and keeping some more affordable models, such as the EQB compact EV, off of their lots.
“We are with a new lineup in a new world,” Psillakis said. “There is no past, there is no experience. We still face challenges around our product lines and have some restrictions coming from suppliers. We don’t always get the volume we want when we want it.”
Psillakis also said that Mercedes didn’t have any supply of the affordable EQB at the beginning of the year. Although this has changed, he says that it still takes time for the EV to reach dealers.
The Mercedes-Benz EV lineup and pricing structure is as follows, according to the automaker’s website:
- EQB (SUV); starts at $52,750
- EQE (sedan); starts at $74,900
- EQE (SUV); starts at $77,900
- EQS (sedan); starts at $104,400
- EQS (SUV); starts at $104,400
Other automakers have also faced difficulty in moving EVs alongside inflation and rising interest rates, and especially in the luxury segment.
The average EV overall sold in 36 days near the beginning of this year, according to a Cloud Theory report cited by Automotive News. By September, the report showed that this number had jumped to 80 days.
The problem is even worse for Mercedes and in the luxury segment overall. The average luxury EV sales time across brands increased by 73 percent in September compared to the same month last year, according to the aforementioned Edmunds data. For Mercedes dealers, the rate increased by 110 percent year over year.
“The ship of early adopters — willing to put a reservation down on virtually any EV announced — has sailed,” says Edmunds Insights Director Ivan Drury.
The report comes after Mercedes delayed its internal goals for electrification earlier this year, now aiming to reach a milestone of half of its auto sales being plug-in hybrids or fully electric by 2026 instead of a year prior. It also comes after Mercedes joined other automakers in adopting Tesla’s charging hardware, dubbed the North American Charging Standard (NACS).
Mercedes-Benz to launch Level 3 automated driving tech in the US by Q4
What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
