News
Tesla Effect: Expert dives into EV adoption and the internal combustion engine’s death
When Elon Musk took the helm as CEO of Tesla, he aimed to disrupt the transportation industry to such a degree that electric mobility becomes the preferred, primary form of transportation. It was a lofty goal, near-impossible at the time. Yet, more than a decade and several all-electric vehicles later, Musk’s dream and his all-too-familiar Master Plan are actually happening.
Spurred by the success and the demand generated by vehicles like the Tesla Model S and Model 3, the auto industry is shifting towards electric transportation. Coupled with the ongoing climate emergency, several regions across the globe are also looking to drastically reduce their emissions, and one of the ways they are doing that is by phasing out the internal combustion engine. Paul Eichenberg, managing director of Paul Eichenberg Strategic Consulting and a longtime veteran in the auto industry, discussed these shifts in a recent appearance at Autoline After Hours.
During his discussions, Eichenberg noted that the auto industry, including the companies comprising its large supply chain, is already undergoing a steady departure from ICE technology. Aggressive emissions targets in regions such as Europe and China will eventually make it impossible for gas and diesel-powered vehicles to comply unless they become electric. Technological advancements such as autonomous driving solutions are also becoming a priority. This could be seen in how massive companies such as Volkswagen and Ford are currently partnering in a push towards EVs and full self-driving technology. Eichenberg noted that there would likely be more high-profile collaborations in the near future.
It is at this point that Tesla’s disruption, the “Tesla Effect,” if you may, becomes incredibly evident. Tesla might still be learning the ropes when it comes to running a car business, but it is becoming undeniable that the company has created an objectively superior product. Sandy Munro, who has torn down the Tesla Model 3 and other EVs like the Chevy Bolt and the BMW i3, remarked that Tesla’s electric sedan is at least a generation ahead of what other companies have put on the road in terms of the architecture, the electronic systems, and the software surrounding the vehicle. Tesla still needs to figure out a consistent way to make money, but in terms of the electric cars themselves, the company seems to have everything figured out.
With traditional auto catching up to upstart companies like Tesla, large carmakers are now looking to leverage the innovations from younger, smaller companies. This could be seen in how Ford willingly invested in Rivian, which has developed its own skateboard platform that features much of the same concepts as Tesla’s skateboard chassis. Eichenberg, citing an OEM he spoke with prior to the announcement of Ford’s Rivian investment, stated that building a skateboard similar to Rivian’s and Tesla’s will likely result in a seven-year lead in the marketplace.
With electric cars being far more straightforward in terms of parts and components, a significant number of companies whose businesses rely on the internal combustion engine are currently being faced with a dilemma. Eichenberg gave an example of this in a brief discussion about forgings. “If you look at the forgings, a typical vehicle like the Pacifica — you know, V6, 8-speed — that has 107 forgings in it, in just that traditional ICE engine ecosystem. When you go to an electric vehicle, whether it’s the (BMW) i3, the Teslas, the (Chevy) Bolt, whatever it is, there’s eight or nine. So you have a 90% over-capacitation of an industry. And here’s an industry that’s only 90 billion globally, and half of everything it does is in the engine-transmission ecosystem,” he said.
Elaborating further, Eichenberg mentioned that big-tier corporations such as Honeywell and Delphi, whose businesses are tied to the internal combustion engine, are now positioning themselves through spinoffs as a way to shed their ICE-centered assets. Unfortunately, smaller companies don’t have it as easy, particularly as private equities and investors do not seem interested in ICE innovations anymore. Eichenberg shared the story of Dayco, a private equity-owned business which experienced multiple failed sale processes. Eventually, the company ended up taking the deal to China, where it failed to receive a single bid. Among the key reasons behind these failures was Dayco’s line of business.
“Why is Dayco an indication of what private equities are going to do? It’s because Dayco makes pulley systems that go in front of the internal combustion engine. And of course, what’s been the first element to be electrified? All the pumps and all these systems that run off this pulley system. So, the market has already recognized, ‘Hey you know what, we’re not interested in these types of assets,’” he said.
Overall, it appears that traditional automakers’ decision to “wait and see” if Tesla survives and succeeds was a miscalculation at best. As it turned out, well-designed, long-range electric cars caught on, and with the advent of the Tesla Model 3 Standard Plus, which currently starts below $40,000 with Autopilot as standard, it is now becoming quite evident just how much catching up is needed for traditional auto to thrive (or even survive) in the age of the electric car. Yet, as more large automakers collaborate on technology that companies like Tesla have developed on their own, and as investments flow into young, innovative companies like Rivian, it is becoming a certainty that the internal combustion engine is indeed on its twilight years.
Watch Paul Eichenberg’s segment in Autoline After Hours in the video below.
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
