News
Tesla Autopilot is now a ‘distant 2nd’ to GM Super Cruise: Consumer Reports
Tesla’s Autopilot may have the best performance, capabilities, and ease of use in Consumer Reports’ recent ranking of active driving assistance systems, but it remains “a distant second” to GM’s Super Cruise nonetheless. This was according to the testing organization on Wednesday.
The results echo Consumer Reports’ findings in its first-ever ranking of active driving assistance systems back in 2018, which also ended with GM Super Cruise taking the top spot and Tesla Autopilot taking second place. This time around, the testing organization tested 17 systems from various carmakers, as opposed to the four that were evaluated in 2018. Needless to say, the results were quite interesting.
Each of the active driving assistance systems in this year’s test was evaluated under the following metrics: Capability and Performance, Keeping the Driver Engaged, Ease of Use, Clear When Safe to Use, and Unresponsive Driver. Tesla’s Autopilot aced two of these metrics, specifically Capability and Performance as well as Ease of Use. Autopilot earned an impressive score of 9/10 in Capabilities and Performance and a 7/10 for Ease of Use.
According to Consumer Reports, Autopilot performed the best among the 17 systems it tested in its lane-keeping assist tests. Autopilot was also deemed the best when it comes to how easy it is to use. Kelly Funkhouser, CR’s head of connected and automated vehicle testing, noted that systems that score well in Ease of Use usually require non-complex input from drivers. “One of the last things you want in a system that is supposed to assist the driver is to make things overly complicated,” Funkhouser said.
Unfortunately for Tesla, Autopilot was rated poorly by Consumer Reports when it came to the Keeping the Driver Engaged metric. For this metric, Tesla’s driver-assist system earned a paltry 3/10 score due to Autopilot’s alleged lack of driver monitoring systems. In contrast, GM’s Super Cruise, the highest-ranking system in this metric with a 7/10 score, was praised for its camera-based driver monitoring system that uses eye-tracking technology.
Super Cruise was also the top-ranked system with an 8/10 score in the Clear When Safe to Use metric, since the system could only be used on areas where the driver-assist suite could perform safely. “Cadillac stood out in this category because Super Cruise can be used only on pre-mapped, divided highways. Plus, Super Cruise will even warn the driver in advance when there is an upcoming lane-merge or complex situation that requires extra attention.,” Consumer Reports noted.
Tesla Autopilot earned a 2/10 score in Clear When Safe to Use, due to the system being accessible in areas that are not low-risk. “Active driving assistance systems should only be able to be activated in low-risk driving environments, void of pedestrians and tricky situations, such as intersections and complicated traffic patterns,” Funkhouser said.
Tesla Autopilot earned a 6/10 score for Consumer Reports’ Unresponsive Driver metric. This metric, as noted by the testing organization, evaluates systems based on their capability to operate vehicles safely in the event that the driver falls asleep or encounters a medical emergency. Systems were evaluated based on their escalation process for warnings, steering control, and speed control.
Overall, GM Super Cruise earned a total score of 69 from the testing organization, while Tesla Autopilot earned a total score of 57. Following closely was Ford Co-Pilot 360 at 52 and Audi Pre Sense at 48. Funkhouser, for her part, noted that Super Cruise’s driver monitoring system remains a difference-maker. “Even with new systems from many different automakers, Super Cruise still comes out on top due to the infrared camera ensuring the driver’s eyes are looking toward the roadway,” the head of connected and automated vehicle testing said.
Consumer Reports’ discussion of its recent active driving assistance suite rankings could be accessed here.
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
