News
Tesla’s edge in battery and charging tech emerges in Model X vs Jaguar I-PACE range test
With just 15 years of experience under its belt, Tesla remains a neophyte in the automotive industry. Despite its short tenure, the upstart electric car maker continues to establish itself as a leader in battery technology and charging infrastructure. Tesla’s advantages in these fields became prominent in a real-world test between the Model X 90D and the Jaguar I-PACE in Germany earlier this month, when the two vehicles went head-to-head in a battery consumption and charging test.
Batteries are a core part of Tesla’s business. Since the days of the original Roadster, Tesla has gone all-in with its battery technology, from the Model S and X’s 18650 cells to the Model 3’s more energy-dense 2170 cells. The same is true for Tesla’s Supercharger Network. The Silicon Valley-based carmaker has invested heavily in the expansion of its charging infrastructure, to the point where the company’s vehicles today are among the few electric cars that are almost as convenient as fossil fuel-powered vehicles for long-distance driving.
The Jaguar I-PACE is an all-electric crossover SUV that boasts plush interior accents and a 90 kWh battery. With its large battery pack, Jaguar estimates that the I-PACE should be able to travel up to 240 miles per charge. The vehicle is also compatible with DC rapid chargers, including the upcoming IONITY Network, which is capable of providing an output of up to 350 kW. As shown by a range and battery consumption test by German YouTube channel nextmove, though, it appears that the I-PACE’s highway consumption and charging speed leaves much to be desired.
The publication opted to drive both vehicles on the Autobahn at highway speeds, traveling from Jena to Berlin (a distance of 268 km/166 miles). With both vehicles having a 90 kWh battery pack, and with the Model X being larger and heavier, it initially seemed like the I-PACE would have no problem keeping pace with the American-made all-electric SUV. Midway through the test, though, it became evident that the Jaguar I-PACE, despite being smaller and lighter, was less efficient than the Model X. At speeds between 93 km/h (58 mph) and 110 km/h (68 mph), for example, the I-PACE showed an average consumption of 22.5 kWh/100 km (362 Wh/mi). The Model X, on the other hand, had a consumption of 17.5 kWh/100 km (282 Wh/mi). That makes the larger, heavier Model X around 23% more efficient than the Jaguar I-PACE.
The Tesla Model X also outshone the Jaguar I-PACE in terms of charging. The German publication opted to charge the I-PACE at an IONITY station in a Porsche dealership. IONITY’s stations are capable of proving up to 350 kW of output, but despite this, the I-PACE was limited to only 80-83 kW. In contrast, Tesla’s Supercharger Network was able to recharge the Model X 90D with more than 100 kW of output.
While Tesla’s superior battery tech and charging system were notable in the Model X versus Jaguar I-PACE test, it should be noted that the Model X in nextmove‘s video was still equipped with Tesla’s legacy 18650 battery cells, which are incredibly reliable but not as energy-dense as the 2170 cells found in the Model 3. Tesla’s 2170 cells have garnered rave reviews from auto veterans such as Sandy Munro, who noted that the batteries are superior to those currently in the market. Tesla will inevitably roll out its 2170 cells to the Model S and Model X, and once it does, legacy carmakers like Jaguar would likely find themselves chasing a moving target. This was mentioned by Tesla CEO Elon Musk in the third quarter earnings call, when he noted that the Model 3 is currently the “most efficient energy per mile electric vehicle out there.”
“We’ve got the best in terms of miles or kilometers per kilowatt hour, and we also have the lowest cost per kilowatt hour. This makes it very difficult for other companies to compete with Tesla because we’re the most efficient car and the lowest-cost batteries. So I do encourage our competitors to really make a huge investment. And we’ve been saying that for a long time. And then they are only in this competitive disadvantage because they didn’t. We try to help them as much as we could, and they didn’t want to take our help.
“They can use our Supercharger network if they can just have an adapter for our — connector or something. We want to be as helpful as possible to the rest of the industry. The fact of the matter is we made the investment in the Gigafactory, and other companies didn’t. And we put a lot of effort into having extremely efficient cars, which are having the most efficient powertrains, and the other companies didn’t. But that’s what has put us in quite a strong competitive position right now.”
Back when Elon Musk outlined his plans for starting Gigafactory 1 as a facility specifically designed to manufacture batteries for Tesla’s electric cars; many were skeptical. In 2014, for example, the MIT Technology Review published an article expressing reservations about the project, arguing that the Gigafactory would be a risky gambit for Tesla since it would be difficult to determine if demand for Tesla’s electric cars would be consistent. The Supercharger Network was largely dismissed by the company’s skeptics as well, with critics stating that once other automakers like GM decide to go all-in on the electric car movement, they would be able to leapfrog Tesla’s charging system. As legacy carmakers are coming to the realization that it is not so easy to build electric cars, and as vehicles like the I-PACE lag behind Tesla’s legacy battery technology in the Model X 90D, it seems like Elon Musk’s “I told you so” moment in the past earnings call was well-justified.
Watch nextmove‘s test of the Model X 90D and the Jaguar I-PACE in the video below.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
