News
Tesla Model S, X with “Hardware 3” for Full Self-Driving now in production, inventory codes indicate
Tesla has begun producing Model X and Model S vehicles with the latest Autopilot hardware to support Full Self-Driving capabilities. Dubbed “HW3”, the new hardware is Tesla’s next iteration of its semi-autonomous driving-assist feature that includes Navigate on Autopilot, Advanced Summon, Auto Lane Change, Autopark, and the ability to respond to traffic lights.
Looking at the source code behind Tesla’s New Inventory site, we’re able to see that recently produced Model S and Model X with Autopilot have been given an “APH4” options code, signifying that these vehicles are equipped with the latest Full Self-Driving hardware. Tesla uses the option code sequence “APHx” to denote the type of Autopilot hardware installed in its vehicles. APH2 indicates HW2 and APH3 = HW2.5 (Autopilot 2.5). Thus, APH4 is HW3.
Here’s a side-by-side comparison of two 2019 Model S with and without the new Hardware 3 for Autopilot.
-
- 2019 Tesla Model S with Hardware 2.5 (2019 Tesla Model S with “Hardware 3” (APH3)
-
- 2019 Tesla Model S with “Hardware 3” (APH4)
Source: Tesla New Inventory listing
The tip comes to us from Tesla Info and Inventory, a web site which compiles inventory data for Tesla vehicles around the world, noted that internal vehicle “option codes” indicated a change from Hardware 2.5 to Hardware 3. The site pulls source data directly from Tesla’s car listing pages and analyzes the “config” data embedded in the HTML to determine this information.
This discovery aligns with the schedule for the HW3 installs previously set forth by Tesla CEO Elon Musk. Last October, Musk estimated a 6-month wait before the the new chips would be installed in all new production cars, meaning an April showing.
~6 months before it is in all new production cars. No change to sensors. This is simple replacement of the Autopilot computer. Will be done free of charge for those who ordered full self-driving.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 16, 2018
Musk has touted HW3 as the “world’s most advanced computer designed specifically” for the purpose of self-driving functionality, with Tesla holding a notable lead in the field overall. “If you add everyone else up combined, they’re probably 5% — I’m being generous — of the miles that Tesla has. And this difference is increasing,” Musk said in Tesla’s 2018 Q4 earnings call.
For vehicles without HW3 installed at the time of manufacture, Musk has stressed the simplicity of the upgrade process in Tesla’s 2018 Q2 earnings call. “We take out one computer and plug in the next. That’s it. All the connectors are compatible and you get an order of magnitude, more processing and you can run all the cameras at primary full resolution with the complex neural net.”
The simple upgrade to HW3 does require Tesla cars to have HW2 as the equipment needed for its functionality was included in those vehicles. The software uses an array of 8 cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors, and a forward-facing radar paired with Tesla’s vision and neural net system.
The first features of the Full Self-Driving suite were included in the Version 9 software released in October. “Navigate on Autopilot”, an active guidance feature with Autosteer for highway driving (with driver supervision) came soon after with the release of HW2.5. Improvement in performance from software Version 8.1. to 9.0 was increased by about 400% in useful operations per second; however, the difference between V9.0 and HW3 will make a difference of 500-2000%, according to Musk. Tesla has been releasing iterative over-the-air updates over the last year in preparation for the coming HW3 and complete FSD capabilities.
The current iteration of Tesla’s FSD capabilities includes core highway navigation, autopark, and Summon for car retrieval in parking lots. Recognition of traffic signs and signals as well as city street driving are expected to be coming later this year.
Now that HW3 is on its way to current and future Tesla customers, Full Self-Driving certainly feels right around the corner. However, the biggest obstacle to full implementation still sits on the regulation side, a time-consuming yet necessary part of the consumer vehicle industry, especially when a company is handing over responsibility to a computer. Tesla’s Autopilot page still references full self-driving capabilities as something “in the future” that may happen after regulatory approval which “may take longer in some jurisdictions.”
Tesla’s dominance in the all-electric market will most likely work in its favor to overcome the legal hurdles in the way of autonomous driving. As sales continue to rise with the growing number of customers now able to meet more affordable price points, Tesla will keep accumulating useful data to hone its FSD software and make the case for its much-safer-than-humans capabilities. Other companies may have long been battling the same regulatory demons Tesla is now up against, but the electric car was also “killed off” prior to their very influential arrival on the market. In “Musk World”, there is improbable, but not often impossible.
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
