GM recently took the wraps off the Hummer EV, its first foray into the budding all-electric pickup truck market. Inasmuch as the vehicle’s five-minute video unveiling was compelling, it soon became evident that the impressive feats being showcased by the Hummer EV in its reveal were not necessarily real. Soon, a GM engineer reportedly admitted that the company doesn’t have a fully-functioning prototype of the Hummer EV yet, and the vehicle shown in the unveiling was computer-generated.
Yet despite this, the Hummer EV has garnered a significant amount of praise, even from veteran auto reviewers. Doug DeMuro, one of the most prolific car reviewers on YouTube, remarked that the Hummer EV seemed to be farther along in its development compared to rivals such as the Tesla Cybertruck and the Rivian R1T. This statement unsurprisingly caught the ire of the Tesla enthusiast community, and it did not take long before legitimate arguments against the Hummer EV were dismissed since they were coming from a “Tesla fanboy” angle.
But let’s forget Tesla and the Cybertruck for a minute.
Even if one removes Tesla and its post-apocalyptic steel triangle on wheels out of the equation, the Hummer EV still fails to do justice to the EV efforts of rival automakers, both veterans and newcomers alike. This is especially notable when it comes to the all-electric vehicles that companies like Ford, Porsche, Rivian, and Polestar have created. Compared to the Mustang Mach-E, the Rivian R1T, the Polestar 2, and the Porsche Taycan—even the Ford F-150 Electric—the Hummer EV is barely more than CGI.
This was highlighted by electric vehicle veteran and enthusiast Sean Mitchell, who noted that the display unit Hummer EV showcased in the all-electric pickup’s early reviews had an electrical cord running from the truck to a plug. This is common practice for vehicles that are placed in displays, as it prevents batteries from being discharged. There is only one issue: the Hummer EV is supposed to be equipped with a massive 200 kWh battery, a pack that could, at least theoretically, power the truck’s electronics for weeks on its own.
Granted, later comments from reviewers such as DeMuro noted that they did see a moving Hummer EV display unit during their initial review of the vehicle. This is a low bar, however, as a small motor and a small battery pack could have been used to propel the vehicle. This is something that has not been done by GM’s competitors. Multiple Porsche Taycans were driven onstage during the car’s unveiling, for example, and the Rivian R1T was fully-functioning when it was showcased for the first time. Even the Mustang Mach-E and Polestar 2 had working units that needed no electrical cord when they were unveiled.
With these in mind, as well as the fact that reports have pointed at the Hummer EV only being 18 months into its development cycle, it does seem to be a stretch to argue that the Hummer EV is farther along in its production than its competitors. The F-150 Electric, a truck that Ford notes will be produced in a few years, already has a prototype that is capable of pulling a train car that weighs 1 million pounds. The Rivian R1T, a truck that has spent years in development, recently completed an eight-day rally over 2,000 kms. That’s something that the Hummer EV seems to be capable of doing only in CGI, at least for now.
GM intends to start delivering the Hummer EV in Fall 2021. Rivian, for its part, is aiming to start deliveries of its very-much-production-ready R1T by mid-2021. The Tesla Cybertruck is also poised to begin deliveries by the end of next year.
Watch Sean Mitchell’s take on the Hummer EV’s unveiling in the video below.
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
