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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
