News
The Tesla Cybertruck’s tough character can help address a horrible emissions trend
An emissions problem that seems worse than Dieselgate may be brewing in the United States, and it would likely take a perception shift to battle it well. As indicated by a new federal report from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Civil Enforcement, over half a million owners and operators of diesel pickup trucks in the US have been illegally disabling their vehicles’ emissions control technology during the past decade. This trend, which continues to be popular, have allowed excess emissions equivalent to around 9 million extra trucks on the road.
Intentional Emissions
The EPA’s findings in its report echo the shocking revelations of the Dieselgate scandal, which involved Volkswagen admitting to illegally installing defeat devices in millions of passenger cars worldwide to cheat emissions tests. About half a million of these vehicles were sold in the United States. Yet inasmuch as Dieselgate was shocking, what makes the EPA’s recent report quite alarming is the fact that truck owners themselves are the ones–as well as small auto shops–who are willingly installing the illegal emissions-increasing devices on their pickups.
This makes it extremely difficult to accurately measure the scope of the US pickup truck market’s emissions problem. The EPA’s report estimates that there are over half a million pickup trucks in the US equipped with emissions-increasing devices over the past decade. However, the EPA’s study only focused on devices that were installed in heavy pickup trucks like the Chevy Silverado and the Dodge Ram 2500, which weigh between 8,500 to 14,000 pounds. Considering that some owners of smaller trucks like the Ford Ranger may also be engaged in the same practice, there is a good chance that the US’ pickup truck emissions problem may very well be far bigger, involving millions of vehicles nationwide.
“One reason it is difficult to estimate the full extent of tampering nationwide is that the Air Enforcement Division has reason to believe this conduct occurs within most or all categories of vehicles and engines, including commercial trucks, passenger vehicles, pickup trucks, motorcycles, forestry equipment, and agricultural equipment,” the report read.
Worse than Dieselgate
According to the report, the modifications that “diesel tuners” in the US place in pickup trucks could result in the release of over 570,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide, a substance associated with diseases like heart and lung disease, over the lifetime of the vehicles. This is more than 10x the excess nitrogen oxide emissions attributed to Volkswagen’s Dieselgate vehicles that were sold in the United States. The report further stated that the modified pickup trucks will hit 5,000 excess tons of industrial soot over their lifetime. Industrial soot, also known as particulate matter, is linked to respiratory diseases and higher death rates for COVID-19 patients.
John Walke, an expert in air pollution law at the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted in a statement to The New York Times that the EPA’s findings came at the worst time possible. “A global respiratory pandemic is the worst time to find out that there is this massive cheating by the makers of these devices. That is an astronomically high level of smog-forming pollution. It’s happening at ground level where people are breathing the fumes. And if the problem extends to other vehicles it’s almost unimaginable what the health impact will be,” he said.
Phillip Brooks, a former EPA emissions investigator and a veteran of the Dieselgate case, shared his thoughts on the US pickup truck market’s budding emissions controversy. “The aftermarket defeat device problem is huge. A lot of people just don’t understand what the problem is — your average person buys a vehicle and says, it’s my vehicle, I can do what I want with it. They may not even be aware that these devices are illegal,” he said. “But the real question is impact. If 10 people do it, there’s no impact. But these are numbers that are meaningful for air quality. This is not a great way to express how to be a free American, but there are a lot of people out there who think that way.”
The Need for a Diesel Pickup Predator
To battle such a horrible emissions trend, a change of perception is needed that is not that different from what the Model S ushered in for the high-performance sedan market. Diesel tuners, after all, equip vehicles with illegal emissions-increasing equipment largely to improve a pickup truck’s performance. If a vehicle were to be introduced in the pickup truck market that is so far ahead in durability, power, and performance compared to the veterans of the pickup segment, then large diesels could end up going the way of horse-drawn buggies. There are few vehicles that are better at leading this charge than the Tesla Cybertruck.
Similar to the next-generation Roadster, the Tesla Cybertruck has the potential to be a “smackdown” of sorts to the diesel pickup truck market. It’s a large vehicle with a domineering stance designed to look like a futuristic armored personnel carrier. Avid diesel aficionados tend to poke fun at EVs due to their tame, sleek, looks. There’s nothing of that in the all-electric pickup. The Cybertruck, with its XY, origami-like exoskeleton, is a steel beast: tough, unapologetic, and it looks like something that even a large diesel truck should not cross. This trend continues to the Cybertruck’s performance and utility, with its 0-60 mph time of 2.9 seconds, its 6.5-foot truck bed, its 14,000-lb towing capacity, and 500+ miles of range.
Assuming that Tesla does release the Cybertruck with specs that meet those that were announced during the vehicle’s unveiling, the all-electric pickup could utterly outperform diesel rivals to such a degree that it would be embarrassing for traditional trucks to stand toe-to-toe against the steel monster. And once this is established, perhaps the time would soon come when diesel-powered modified trucks could become laughable in the face of superior vehicles that just happen to have zero emissions. Such a time, while unfortunate for the US’ long history of large diesel trucks, would likely be appreciated by the environment and the populace as a whole.
Read the EPA’s report on tampered US pickup trucks and their emissions below.
EPA-US Emissions Scandal Pickup Trucks by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
