News
Tesla’s S3XY range updates show how ridiculously far legacy auto has fallen in the EV race
Anyone that has followed the Tesla story over the past few years would know that one of the primary talking points against the electric car maker is the impending competition that’s coming from more experienced, more competent carmakers. Critics argued that once legacy automakers get serious in their electric car efforts, a company as inexperienced as Tesla would easily be overwhelmed. This scenario has not happened at all — and if Tesla’s recent range updates to its S3XY lineup are anything to go by, it is becoming evident that legacy auto has fallen ridiculously behind in the electric car race.
Tesla’s recent range updates, which were rolled out together with the “refresh” of the Model 3, further cemented the company’s place at the top of the EV market. With the new updates, the Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor AWD was able to hit an EPA-estimated range of 353 miles per charge, and even its heftier, heavier sibling, the Model Y, was able to achieve a range of 326 miles. The Model X, an incredibly heavy tank of a vehicle, reached 371 miles per charge, and even the power-hungry Tesla Model S Performance is nearing 400 miles at 387 miles per charge.
It should be noted that Tesla was able to accomplish these improvements without any of the big updates that it announced during Battery Day. During the highly-anticipated event, Tesla revealed its batteries’ new 4680 form factor, which has 5x the volume of the Model 3 and Model Y’s 2170 cells. Tesla also announced a new vehicle manufacturing system that prioritizes single-piece casts and a structural battery pack. Other innovations, such as the use of high-nickel cathodes and silicon anodes, were discussed as well.
None of these innovations are in Tesla’s recently-updated vehicles.
Ultimately, Tesla’s recent updates highlight just how far the company has gone ahead of the pack in the electric vehicle sector. The fact that the electric car maker was able to achieve a 371-mile range for the Model X Long Range Dual Motor AWD with the same 100 kWh battery pack and the same 18650 cells as its Model X 100D predecessor is almost ridiculous. This is especially notable considering that the Audi e-tron, which has a battery pack that’s almost the same size as the Model X, has a range of 222 miles, and that’s the variant with the improved range already.
Tesla’s lead in range becomes even more significant when one considers the Model 3 and the Model Y, both of which utilize a battery pack that pretty much tops up at 75 kWh. A comparison of the two vehicles against the competition shows a stark contrast, with the Polestar 2, a car that’s largely considered as a legitimate rival to the Model 3, having an EPA-estimated range of 233 miles from a 78 kWh battery pack. The Jaguar I-PACE, a crossover that’s pretty close in size to the Model Y, follows the same pattern, having an EPA-estimated range of 246 miles per charge from a 90 kWh battery.
There are likely numerous reasons behind Tesla’s insane lead in the electric car sector today, but a good part of it likely has a lot to do with the company’s intense focus on battery tech and development. Tesla has been focused on improving and optimizing its batteries since Day 1, and as could be seen in the recent range updates of the S3XY lineup, this obsessive pursuit of optimization matters a lot. These efforts are not emulated at all with most legacy automakers, as veterans seem typically content with using off-the-shelf batteries from suppliers for their EV programs.
Yet perhaps the most uncomfortable reason behind legacy auto’s distance from Tesla’s vehicles today is something far simpler: hubris. While legacy automakers have been stating for years that they are serious about their future shift to electric cars, their actions have largely been far less tangible than their words. Today, it is almost as if Tesla’s competitors in the EV sector were far too comfortable just watching the electric car maker improve over the years. And now that Tesla has turned into a force that’s very difficult to ignore, they are scrambling to catch up.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to catch a moving target. By the time legacy automakers can catch up to where Tesla is today, it is almost certain that the electric car maker will be even further ahead. This distance will likely be even farther, too, as Tesla’s next-generation battery technology is yet to enter the picture. Once Tesla’s 4680 cells are in production and its vehicles are being built with structural battery packs, the gap between the electric car maker and its competitors will most definitely be even more significant. And that, at least for legacy auto, is a scenario worthy of the final act of a tragedy.
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
