News
Tesla Australia shop debunks misconceptions about parts and repairs
Over the years, Teslas have garnered an unfortunate reputation for being a carmaker whose vehicle repairs are unreasonably expensive and whose parts availability is a nightmare. As per a Tesla repair shop in Australia, however, the electric vehicle maker’s repair costs and parts availability have reached parity with industry players.
As per Luxury Auto Body, a Tesla-certified repair shop in Melbourne, Teslas are actually not ridiculously expensive to repair. In comments to Drive, Danny, one of the shop’s panel beaters who has over 30 years of automotive experience, stated that with the exclusion of major outliers, Teslas typically cost about AU$4500 (US$3000) to AU$5000 (US$3300) per repair. In fact, some Tesla spare parts are actually very affordable.
“Some of the parts on Teslas are unbelievably cheap. Something like a bumper bar – those parts are cheap. When we talk about airbags and suspension, they’re (a bit pricier) but still considerably cheaper than a BMW or a Mercedes-Benz,” the panel beater noted.
Repairs, if needed, are much less costly than you thinkhttps://t.co/ntX7T9D0NR— Tesla Australia & New Zealand (@TeslaAUNZ) July 1, 2024
Interestingly enough, the auto repair veteran stated that front impacts on Teslas are significantly easier to repair than rear impacts. As per Drive, a vehicle with significant frontal impact in the shop costs about AU$25000 (US$16600) to repair even if it needs a new dash and both its airbags have deployed, but a Tesla that needs repairs in the rear could result in charges of about AUS45000 (US$30000). Despite this, the panel beater noted that similar repairs for a BMW or Mercedes-Benz vehicle would still be more expensive at about AU$50000 (US$33200) to AU$60000 (US$39800).
“If we talk about a rear impact, it’s definitely more involving because Teslas – depending on the model – are glued and riveted on when you’re replacing a quarter panel, for example. So they’d be more on par with repairing a BMW or a Mercedes. They’re pretty basic at the front, but the back is definitely more involving,” the panel beater said. He also noted that “a lot of the sensors and cameras can be calibrated in-house” so Teslas do not really pose any particular challenges compared to other vehicles.
Last year, Tesla Australia put some effort into supporting its customers by opening a sales, service, and delivery parts hub in Auckland with the goal of expediting the repairs of damaged vehicles. Tesla-certified repair shops also have access to the company’s electronic parts catalog, which includes all the necessary information needed to repair a Tesla. And while there are still wait times for some parts, the availability of spare parts for damaged Teslas has become generally good.
“The availability of parts and strike rate are really good, and there’s only been a couple of occasions where you have to wait for parts. On one occasion we had to wait six weeks,” Danny said. The panel beater also mentioned that so far,Tesla’s build quality has generally become comparable to mass market automakers. “Build quality is in line with a mass-produced car – not that that’s a bad thing. They’re a good all-rounder for everyday use,” he said.
Electric vehicle fires tend to spread like wildfire in the news, but the panel beater explained that so far, the shop has not experienced a single battery fire. This is quite impressive as the shop deals with damaged Teslas. “We haven’t had experience with (batteries catching fire). The way the cars come in, (even when) they’ve been in major collisions, there’s been no risk. With the Model Y, they’ve actually got a first responders’ wiring harness that (you can) cut for safety reasons… They go into a shutdown mode in the event of an accident,” he said.
Watch Drive’s video about Tesla repairs below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
