News
Tesla Gigafactory 3 in China to exclusively produce Model 3 and Model Y variants
Tesla’s groundbreaking event for Gigafactory 3 showcased the company’s current lineup of vehicles and a personal appearance from CEO Elon Musk. As could be seen from images uploaded of the ceremony, Musk shared the stage with the first vehicle expected to be produced in the upcoming facility — a Tesla Model 3.
Unlike Tesla’s first Gigafactory in Nevada, which produces the Model 3’s drive units and battery packs, Gigafactory 3 is set to be equipped with production lines for both batteries and electric cars. As confirmed by Elon Musk earlier today prior to the facility’s groundbreaking ceremony, the Shanghai facility will be producing the Model 3 sedan and the Model Y SUV.
In a follow-up tweet, though, Musk also mentioned a particularly notable detail about Gigafactory 3’s output. In his update, Musk stated that the upcoming Shanghai facility would be exclusively producing “affordable” versions of the Model 3 and Model Y. Higher-end versions of the vehicles, such as the Model 3 Performance, would still be built in the United States and exported to international markets, including China.
Shanghai Giga will produce affordable versions of 3/Y for greater China. All Model S/X & higher cost versions of Model 3/Y will still be built in US for WW market, incl China.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 7, 2019
Such an announcement bodes well for Tesla’s strategy in the Asian economic superpower. Tesla’s vehicles in the country, after all, have so far been higher-priced than EVs produced by local electric car makers. By producing its lower-end Model 3 and Model Y in Gigafactory 3, Tesla would be able to price the vehicles very competitively in the country, mainly as the electric cars would not be subject to import taxes — regardless of the presence of a trade war between the United States and China.
Elon Musk has not provided more details about the “affordable” versions of the Model 3 and Model Y that would be produced in Gigafactory 3. In the case of the Model 3, though, Musk’s statement most likely pertains to the Standard Range version of the electric sedan. That’s a car that is, at its most basic iteration, priced in the United States in the same range as a top-tier Toyota Camry. The Tesla Model Y, on the other hand, is an electric car that would be competing in a market already enamored with SUVs. In China, a country that is aggressively pushing for the adoption of electric vehicles, such electric cars would likely be disruptive.
-
- (Photo: TeslainShanghai/Imgur)
-
- (Photo: TeslainShanghai/Imgur)
-
- (Photo: TeslainShanghai/Imgur)
Images from Tesla’s Gigafactory 3 groundbreaking event in Shanghai, China. (Photo: TeslainShanghai/Imgur)
Tesla is aiming to follow an incredibly ambitious timetable for Gigafactory 3. When the company initially announced its target of starting vehicle production within two years after the facility begins construction, many in the United States were skeptical. Wall Street analyst James Albertine, for one, flat-out declared the target timeline was “not feasible.” In Tesla’s Q3 2018 production and deliveries report, Tesla did adjust its estimates, making its timetable even more aggressive. Earlier today, Musk noted on Twitter that the goal is to finish the initial construction of Gigafactory 3 this summer, followed by the start of Model 3 production by the end of 2019. Large-scale manufacturing of the electric sedan would begin sometime next year.
While such an aggressive timeline is classic Elon Musk, it should be noted that Tesla seems to be getting a considerable amount of support from the Chinese government. After the project was officially announced last year, for example, it did not take long before local Shanghai banks granted Tesla low-interest loans to fund part of the facility’s construction. Furthermore, Tesla’s bid for the 864,885-square meter plot of land in Shanghai’s Lingang Industrial Zone went unchallenged. The company’s construction partner, China Construction Third Engineering Bureau Co., Ltd, is also a subsidiary of China Construction, which is owned by the government.
With support from the local Chinese government, there is almost no doubt that Gigafactory 3 will be completed on schedule. Ultimately, the start of Model 3 production in the upcoming facility would likely depend on Tesla’s capability to ship and set up its equipment in the battery and electric car factory.
Watch Elon Musk’s speech at the Gigafactory 3 groundbreaking ceremony 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
