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.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
