News
Legacy auto needs a ‘Tesla Approach’ on EVs because it’s quality, not quantity, that buyers want
Amidst the automotive segment’s ongoing shift to electric cars, it is almost common to see a carmaker announcing dozens of EVs coming in the coming years. Yet while such announcements are great for headlines, it appears that the time is nigh for legacy auto to shift to a “Tesla Approach” when it comes to their EV strategy. Carmakers can do this by focusing not on quantity, but on the quality of their electric cars.
Quantity Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Quality
Just recently, South Korean automaker Hyundai announced that it will have 23 global electric vehicles by 2025. This announcement is impressive, and it echoes the same theme as American automaker General Motors’ plan, which calls for 30 EVs by 2025. Even premium carmakers like BMW and Daimler seem to be taking the same approach, with the former pledging nine EVs by 2025 and the latter working on six electric vehicles today.
Yet inasmuch as these announcements warrant a lot of praise, it is pertinent to note that not all of the EVs coming out of legacy auto will necessarily be on the level of Tesla’s electric cars. Take GM’s best-selling electric car today, for example, the Wuling Hongguang Mini EV, which is sold in China. The vehicle outsold the domestically-produced Model 3 in China several times this year, but it’s important to highlight that the Mini EV is a bare-bones electric car that doesn’t even have airbags installed.
The Tesla Approach
Tesla’s approach to its electric cars is not unlike what tech giant Apple adopts. That is, the company releases only a few products, but each is extremely competitive in its respective segment. This could be seen in Tesla’s S3XY lineup, all of which could be described as premium electric vehicles in their own right. Critics could point out that the build quality and interior materials of Tesla’s electric cars are not yet in the level of veterans like Mercedes-Benz, but there’s no doubt that the Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y are a cut above in terms of tech, performance, and features.
Apart from releasing just a few good electric cars, Tesla also focuses heavily on software and vertical integration. Tesla’s vehicles are not the only ones that can receive over-the-air updates today, but they are arguably the ones that receive them most frequently. The vertical integration that Tesla applies to its operations is pretty insane as well, with the company now looking to produce its own batteries and hardware.
One Good Electric Car
What seems to be lost among some legacy automakers today is the fact that the EV market is growing, and as it grows, it probably will not require dozens upon dozens of EVs being offered to customers. This is especially true if some of those electric cars are substandard or underwhelming at best. Instead, it may be a better idea for veteran carmakers to focus on creating only a few electric cars, with each one being good enough to stand against leaders like the Model S, or upstarts like the Lucid Air and the Rivian R1T. Even one good electric car will be better than dozens of uninspired EVs, after all.
Fortunately, this concept seems to be making its way to some carmakers now, albeit slowly. Porsche does not seem to be in a hurry to release a bunch of EVs, with the company focusing on the Taycan, the Taycan Cross Turismo, and the Macan EV. Ford seems to be focusing right now on the Mach-E and the F-150 Electric. These vehicles so far are being received pretty well by the electric vehicle community, with the Taycan and the Mach-E even receiving a personal welcome from Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
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
