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
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
