News
Tesla Cybertruck’s ‘V4′ charging hints at Plaid Model S’ monster peak charge rate
During the Tesla Cybertruck’s unveiling last November, CEO Elon Musk subtly commented that the all-electric pickup would be capable of charging at more than 250 kW. Musk did not disclose any other details about the Cybertruck’s possible “V4” Supercharging support, though the innovations that make it possible may very well be tailor-fit for the company’s next-generation of vehicles like the Plaid Model S and Plaid Model X.
The mention of the Cybertruck’s peak charge rate came at the latter part of the vehicle’s unveiling. Unfortunately, Elon Musk was already a bit shaken then due to the vehicle’s failed Armor Glass demonstration. Thus, the CEO’s mention of the key feature almost sounded like an afterthought, with Musk simply stating that the Cybertruck will “be capable of more than 250 kW.” He also mentioned that Tesla will “reveal the actual number later.”
In a way, an improved peak charge rate for the Cybertruck that goes beyond 250 kW is very well within character for the electric car maker. Tesla, after all, appears to be in the habit of introducing upgraded charging systems with every generation of its vehicles. The company’s first and second-generation 120 kW Superchargers were rolled out alongside the ramp of the Model S and Model X, and the 250 kW Supercharger V3 was introduced to support the ramp of the higher volume Model 3 and the Model Y.
With this in mind, there seems to be a pretty good chance that Tesla is preparing “V4” Superchargers for its next generation of vehicles. Tesla’s coming electric cars are expected to have the company’s best and possibly largest battery packs to date, after all, as represented by the Plaid Model S, Plaid Model X, Cybertruck, and perhaps even the Semi. Considering Tesla’s pace of innovation, it may not be surprising if the company’s peak charge rate for the Cybertruck, Plaid Model S, and Plaid Model X ends up being on par or higher than 350 kW.
This who have followed Elon Musk’s tweets over the past years would remember a post back in December 2016 when the CEO mentioned that a peak charge rate of 350 kW was more akin to a “children’s toy.” Musk’s statement may simply be a playful jab at the 350 kW peak charge rates of other charging networks, such as IONITY in Europe and Electrify America, but it does hint that the electric car maker is considering the introduction of a charging system that peaks beyond 350 kW. Since very few vehicles today like the Porsche Taycan are capable of supporting 350 kW charging, a “V4” Supercharger that goes beyond 350 kW would allow Tesla to leapfrog its competitors once more.
Such a strategy is actually well within character for the electric car maker, seeing as the company also has a tendency to give competitors a short-lived edge before leapfrogging them. This was the case with the Taycan’s track capability, which was designed to overcome and crush the capabilities of the Model S. Following the Taycan’s unofficial record run at the Nurburgring, Elon Musk announced that the flagship Tesla sedan was taking on the notorious track too, and sure enough, the Plaid Model S completely walked over the Taycan’s unofficial record.
That being said, and with Tesla’s tendency to innovate in mind, it appears safe to assume that the current V3 Superchargers still have a long way to go. The 250 kW chargers are still quite early in their rollout, and thus, Tesla is almost certain to upgrade them and increase their peak charge capabilities in the future. That was the strategy that the company adopted for its V2 Superchargers, which could now charge up to 150 kW. Regardless of whether the Cybertruck’s over 250 kW peak charge rate is due to a “V4” or an upgraded V3 Supercharger, however, there is very little doubt that the next generation of EV fast chargers will be dominated by Tesla once more.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
