News
Tesla’s goal of producing 1 million cars per year is closer than everyone thinks
In classic Tesla fashion, Elon Musk shared an almost insane goal back in 2016. While speaking with analysts in a conference call, Musk remarked that he believes Tesla has a shot at achieving a production rate of 1 million cars a year. This statement was met with much criticism, considering that just the year prior, Tesla delivered just over 50,500 vehicles.
As the US auto industry is starting what could very well be a long road to recovery from a pandemic, it is starting to become evident that Musk’s goal may end up being feasible after all.
The year has been cruel to the automotive industry. Back in April, North American car factories that are known to produce about a million vehicles a month ended up producing fewer than 5,000 units. But while the year has been painful for the car industry, some recovery started becoming evident in recent months. Just last month, some large automakers reported sales that beat their 2019 numbers, hinting that an upswing may be on the way.
Amidst this trend is the one outlier in the US auto industry: Tesla. The electric car maker has felt the full brunt of the pandemic, as shown in the extended closure of its Fremont Factory from mid-March to mid-May. Despite this, the company was able to show a profitable second quarter, and this past Q3, it delivered a record 139,300 vehicles, up 50% from Q2 2020. The company also produced 145,036 cars in the third quarter, up 76% from the second quarter.
What is rather remarkable is that Tesla has decided to stand by its initial goal of delivering half a million cars this 2020. This target was already ambitious without the pandemic. With the pandemic, the company’s refusal to adjust its delivery targets seems downright insane. Yet if the company’s Q3 and potential Q4 results are any indication, Tesla may actually be closer to its 1-million-car-per-year goal than expected.
Tesla has delivered about 318,000 vehicles so far this year. For Tesla to meet its goal of delivering 500,000 vehicles in 2020, the company would have to deliver over 180,000 cars in the fourth quarter. This is yet another record for the company, and it is one that would likely be challenging. RBC Capital Markets analyst Joseph Spak, in a statement to The New York Times, noted that while 500,000 cars is “not an unattainable goal,” achieving it now “seems increasingly difficult.”
Yet despite these challenges, the fact that Tesla seems to be in striking distance of its pre-pandemic 2020 delivery goal represents an incredibly notable shift for the company. Just a little over a year ago, after all, Tesla was a much different automaker. It was still an embattled EV company, seemingly scrambling to raise money while TSLA short-sellers circled like sharks smelling blood in the water. Tesla ultimately proved its critics wrong, posting four profitable quarters as of Q2 2020.
If Tesla could come close or achieve its goal of producing and delivering over 180,000 vehicles in Q4 2020, the company would only be 70,000 cars short of a 250,000-vehicle-per-quarter run-rate. Once that is achieved, hitting 1 million cars per year in both production and deliveries will only be a matter of time. Granted, this is a rather ambitious step, but one must note that Tesla is pretty much taking on 2020 with just one and a half factories.
Today, Tesla only produces cars in two sites: the Fremont Factory and Gigafactory Shanghai. And even then, Giga Shanghai is not yet fully ramped, with the facility yet to start Model Y production and the Model 3 line has only started operating with 3 shifts. This means that this year, Tesla has pursued its ambitious goals with a main factory in the US that was closed for over a month and a Chinese plant whose Phase 1 is now just hitting its stride.
These circumstances will likely change by next year. Tesla is in the process of building two new vehicle production facilities: Gigafactory Berlin and Gigafactory Texas. Both facilities are designed to produce high-volume vehicles, with the German plant manufacturing the Model Y and Texas building the Cybertruck, a vehicle that has received well over half a million orders, as per remarks from CEO Elon Musk.
Of course, Tesla’s production and deliveries still only comprise a small part of the auto market. Yet despite this, the company’s rapid rise and the equally quick emergence of the electric vehicle sector means that Tesla is poised to dominate an industry that is still forming. Michelle Krebs, an executive editor at Cox Automotive, a market research firm, said it best in a statement to the NYT.
“Tesla is the EV market right now. It’s still a tiny part of the market, and they are going to face more competition, but they are now well established,” she said.
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
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 to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
