Tesla remained the dominant seller of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) in the U.S. last year, with early estimates showing that the company sold more than most of its competitors combined. While data isn’t yet available for every automaker selling BEVs in the U.S., we took the time to compile some of the earliest estimates available for 2024 BEV sales, giving us an idea of where Tesla’s competitors landed in the year’s sales.
According to Cox Automotive, automakers sold 1.3 million BEVs in the U.S. in 2024, making up 8 percent of the total market share of nearly 16 million vehicles sold across powertrain types. EV sales also jumped in Q4 to 356,000 vehicles, marking a 12 percent jump year over year.
Cox also expects EV deliveries to surpass 1.5 million in the U.S. in 2025, while 2023 deliveries topped out at 1.2 million.
General Motors (GM) and Ford took up the second and third spots in U.S. BEV sales in 2024, both following Tesla, which held first place decisively. GM’s BEV sales were made up of the Chevy Equinox EV, the Chevy Blazer EV, the Chevy Silverado EV, the Cadillac Lyriq, the GMC Hummer EV, the GMC Sierra EV, and the BrightDrop EV600 commercial van. Ford’s BEV sales were comprised of the Mustang Mach-E, the F-150 Lightning, and the E-Transit.
Toyota was one of the few other manufacturers to release specific U.S. and BEV data, with the latter being made up of those from the BZ4X and Lexus RZ. The vast majority of Toyota’s “electrified” vehicles is comprised of hybrid and plugin hybrid powertrains, along with the Mirai which sports a fuel cell powertrain. All of these electrified vehicle types are excluded from the figure below.
Hyundai’s BEV figure was made up of Ioniq 5, Ioniq 6, and Kona BEV sales, the latter of which is also offered in a hybrid version. The company’s subsidiary Kia had BEV sales including the battery-electric EV6 and EV9, and while the automaker also sells a BEV version of the Niro, it did not separate the vehicle’s hybrid and BEV versions in its report released last week.
It’s worth noting that Tesla doesn’t share figures for individual market sales, though the maker was estimated by Cox Automotive to have sold about 633,000 units to remain the clear leader in the market. Others, such as Lucid and Rivian, deliver the vast majority of their vehicles in the U.S., though they do not break out region-specific figures. Meanwhile, similar estimates for the brands have not yet been shared publicly.
READ MORE ABOUT U.S. BEV SALES: Colorado becomes the #1 state for EV sales, beating California
Audi had 23,152 BEVs sold in the U.S. made up of its e-tron Q4, Q6, Q8, and GT lineups, while its parent company, Volkswagen, sold blank units comprised of the ID.4 and newly launched ID.Buzz, which was only sold in the market in the fourth quarter. BMW sold its battery-electric i4, i5, i7, and iX models in the U.S. last year.
Nissan’s BEVs included the Leaf and the Ariya, which saw year-to-date sales increases of 57 and 47 percent, respectively.
Cox Automotive is also expected to unveil its 2024 EV Sales report in the coming weeks, which should shed light on many of the automakers that have not shared market-specific figures.
You can see the recent estimates from Cox Automotive on the top EV makers in the U.S. in 2024 below, along with some figures directly from each automaker. Additionally, the source of the figures are linked near the bottom of the page.
How many BEVs did automakers sell in the U.S. in 2024?
- Tesla: 633,762
- GM: 114,432
- Ford: 97,865
- Hyundai: 61,797
- Kia: 56,099
- Rivian: 51,442
- BMW: 50,981
- Nissan: 31,024
- Toyota: 28,267
- Mercedes-Benz: 21,154
- Audi: 23,152
- Volkswagen: 18,183
Top 10 EV models sold in the U.S., according to Cox Auto estimates
- Tesla Model Y
- Tesla Model 3
- Ford Mustang Mach-E
- Hyundai Ioniq 5
- Tesla Cybertruck
- Ford F-150 Lightning
- Honda Prologue
- Chevy Equinox EV
- Cadillac Lyriq
- Rivian R1S
You can see detailed estimates from Cox Automotive, which were released on January 13.
Audi | BMW | Ford | GM | Hyundai | Lucid | Nissan | Rivian | Tesla | Toyota | Volkswagen
Updated 1/19: Added the latest figures from Cox Automotive estimates.
What are your thoughts? Did I miss any automakers or U.S. sales figures? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.
Study reveals less than 1% of EV owners wish to switch back to ICE
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
