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.
A Texas man has been arrested and charged with manslaughter after his Tesla crashed into a home last month, striking a woman inside and killing her. The driver, Michael Butler, claimed the vehicle was in self-driving mode, but information from Tesla shows that Butler overrode the system.
Butler was arrested on Wednesday and booked at the Harris County, Texas, jail. He remained in custody through Thursday and Friday; he did not enter a plea, and his next court hearing is scheduled for Monday.
Tesla finally clarifies fatal Texas crash, confirms driver manually overrode acceleration
There are a handful of new clues in the case that could clear Tesla of any wrongdoing, especially as the woman who was killed’s family, the Avilas, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Tesla and Butler, seeking at least $1 million in damages.
Charging documents from the Harris County prosecutor now show that Butler, who was working DoorDash the evening of the accident, had been using Full Self-Driving mode without incident through the duration of multiple deliveries that evening.
In the moments leading up to the crash, while in FSD and approaching a left turn, Butler pressed the accelerator pedal, overriding FSD’s speed control, and continued to push it until it reached 100 percent. This caused rapid acceleration; the brake pedal was never pressed, and there is no data to show that Butler aimed to turn away from the curb or house.
The charging documents state:
“I noted that the brake pedal was never pressed in the final minute before the crash. I also did not see any data to indicate that the driver attempted to turn away from the curb that he eventually struck. Further, I observed that no mechanical error was detected or recorded by the vehicle before BUTLER and the Tesla struck the curb.”
Additionally, a forensic analysis of Butler’s phone showed that he searched Google around the time of the crash with queries questioning why FSD was “too timid,” “not aggressive enough,” and even searched, “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving.”
The documents outlined this:
“Investigator Veal also informed me that he had received BUTLER’s cell phone from Deputy Amad and that HDAO digital forensics team had completed a data extraction and download of the phone. Multiple Google searches related to Tesla had been made from BUTLER’s phone in the months leading up the crash. I noted multiple searches in May of 2026 indicating an apparent frustration with Tesla’s FSD mode, including the following searches: “Tesla fsd not aggressive enough 2026 model,” “Tesla fsd not [sic) aggressive enough 2026,” “FSD is not aggressive enough for city driving,” and “tesla fsd too timid.”‘
Tesla had claimed just after the crash that its internal data showed Butler had overridden the system’s speed control and pressed the accelerator completely, causing the vehicle to travel at an excessive rate of speed. Eventually, the car slammed into Avila’s house, killing her.
Butler has now been formally charged with Manslaughter, a felony.
Tesla shocked with its quarterly delivery report yesterday by reporting it delivered 480,126 vehicles in the second quarter of 2026, a 25 percent year-over-year jump that crushed Wall Street estimates of roughly 400,000–408,000 units. Production reached 451,758, with Model 3 and Model Y accounting for the vast majority.
The result ended two years of annual delivery declines and drew down inventory, signaling demand that outpaced earlier production.
Tesla bears had long warned that the expiration of the U.S. federal EV tax credit would hammer demand. Without the $7,500 incentive, they argued, American buyers would balk at higher effective prices, leading to a sharp slowdown.
Will Tesla thrive without the EV tax credit? Five reasons why they might
That narrative has not played out as predicted. While U.S. EV sales faced broader headwinds, Tesla’s global numbers held firm, underscoring the company’s ability to offset domestic pressure through other levers.
There are several plausible factors that explain Tesla’s strength during this quarter. Let’s take a look at them:
Rising Gas Prices
Rising gas prices provided a powerful tailwind, especially in the U.S.
Geopolitical tensions tied to the Iran conflict pushed fuel costs higher earlier in the year, amplifying the lifetime savings of electric vehicles. Even as oil prices later moderated, the psychological and financial impact lingered, encouraging fleet operators and private buyers to accelerate EV purchases. European sales rebounded sharply, helping drive the quarter’s outperformance.
Full Self-Driving Adoption
Advances in Full Self-Driving (FSD) supervised software also appear to have boosted appeal. Tesla expanded FSD availability in select European markets and continued refining the system.
No complaints from me because I finally got to enjoy this drive on FSD; I usually like to manually drive down this mountain https://t.co/RBFniRPSR0 pic.twitter.com/XQ5sOpN1Yg
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 26, 2026
For tech-oriented buyers, the promise of future autonomy and enhanced driver-assistance features adds perceived value beyond the car itself. This differentiation helps Tesla stand out in a crowded market where competitors focus primarily on hardware and basic range.
Pricing Strategy, Affordable Configurations
Tesla’s offerings and its pricing strategy during Q2 further stimulated demand. Tesla introduced lower-cost versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, widening accessibility without sacrificing core margins.
These moves countered affordability concerns and attracted buyers who had been waiting on the sidelines. Combined with attractive financing and leasing options, the pricing strategy converted interest into actual orders more effectively than many analysts expected.
Broad European Recovery
Supported by government incentives, corporate fleet electrification, and easing political headwinds around CEO Elon Musk, Tesla was supplied additional momentum through stronger registration numbers throughout Europe.
Strong exports from the Shanghai Gigafactory and a production ramp at Giga Berlin ensured supply met this resurgent demand. Corporate buyers, in particular, accelerated transitions to EVs to meet sustainability targets, providing a steady volume base.
These elements created a virtuous cycle that delivered the strong deliveries report. While bears correctly flagged the loss of the U.S. tax credit as a risk, Tesla’s diversified playbook demonstrated that it could remain resilient against those headwinds. The Q2 beat suggests the company remains adept at navigating shifting market conditions, even as competition intensifies.
A Tesla Semi was involved in a fatal collision on U.S. Highway 50 in Dayton, Nevada, on Sunday, June 28, 2026, marking the first known fatal crash involving the electric Class 8 truck. The incident occurred around 7:20 a.m. at the intersection with Traditions Parkway, approximately 40 miles east of Reno and close to Tesla’s Gigafactory Nevada.
According to the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office and the Nevada State Police Highway Patrol, a semi-truck struck two passenger vehicles stopped at a traffic signal. The truck hit the vehicles from behind. Two people were pronounced dead at the scene, and a third person suffered life-threatening injuries and was flown to a hospital, Forbes reported.
Preliminary statements gathered at the scene by the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office suggested the truck driver may have fallen asleep at the wheel. However, the Nevada Highway Patrol, which is leading the investigation, stated that the official cause has not yet been determined.
Additional information is expected to be released early the following week. The truck was seized for evidence as part of the ongoing probe.
Responders at the scene included deputies from the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, personnel from the Nevada Highway Patrol, Central Lyon County Fire Department, and the Nevada Department of Transportation. The crash led to the temporary closure of U.S. 50 in both directions.
The Tesla Semi is Tesla’s battery-electric heavy-duty truck, produced at the nearby Gigafactory in Nevada. Authorities initially described the vehicle as a semi-truck; its make was subsequently confirmed through reporting and scene identification; an interesting bit of information here, as the Semi is not yet available publicly and many do not know that Tesla builds electric trucks.
The investigation remains active, with no further official details on contributing factors or vehicle systems released as of early July 2026.
This incident highlights ongoing scrutiny of commercial vehicle safety on Nevada highways, particularly involving fatigue. Law enforcement continues to gather evidence and witness statements.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Tesla’s strong Q2 deliveries: Four key drivers behind the surprise
