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.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
-
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
-
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
-
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
-
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
