News
Tesla ‘fighter’ Audi e-tron receives glowing first drive review from Consumer Reports
The Audi-e-tron, once dubbed by news outlets as a potential “Tesla Killer” or “Tesla Fighter” recently received its first impressions review from Consumer Reports. Reviewers from the organization proved impressed with the all-electric SUV, noting that the vehicle “takes charge among new EVs.”
Consumer Reports‘ reviewers were particularly impressed with the Audi e-tron’s luxurious amenities such as its high-quality interior and its quietness at highway speeds. This is quite notable, as cabin noise was a point of improvement given to the Tesla Model 3 during the electric sedan’s first impressions review back in February 2018.
The organization also praised the e-tron’s two-screen interface, particularly the SUV’s dedicated screen for its climate system. The displays’ haptic feedback, which simulates the feeling of pressing a physical button, also got the approval of CR‘s reviewers. Nevertheless, reviewers did point out that some of the technology in the e-tron was “needlessly complicated,” as shown in its gear selector, which was not intuitive at all.
Quite interestingly, the e-tron’s rather leisurely acceleration, which was less aggressive than other electric cars such as the Model 3, was dubbed as “appropriate” considering the SUV’s luxury segment. “Unlike some other EVs we’ve recently tested, the E-Tron doesn’t lunge off from a stop; it has a more leisurely rollout. That’s appropriate for a luxury vehicle… On the plus side, there is no spinning of wheels that we have experienced in some other EVs… Once the E-Tron is moving, drivers get smooth and effortless power on demand, at any speed,” Consumer Reports noted.
Considering that the organization has only conducted an initial review of the vehicle, the e-tron’s fast-charging capabilities were not tested. Nevertheless, the organization was optimistic about the vehicle overall, stating that the e-tron has an “air of maturity that exudes quality, and it’s likely because it comes from an established luxury automaker.” Until more tests are conducted, at least, it appears that CR perceives the Audi e-tron as a strong competitor in the growing premium EV segment.
While it is understandable for the organization to not include more details about the e-tron, it is quite interesting to see no mention of the challenges that Audi has and is reportedly facing in bringing the vehicle to market. Currently, reports from reservation holders in Norway have indicated that e-tron deliveries are still delayed, and all units that have been sold so far are presently being recalled due to a fire risk. These details were missing in Consumer Reports‘ initial review.
It should be noted that unlike the e-tron, Consumer Reports‘ first impressions review of the Model 3 included notable sections on the vehicle’s points for improvement, particularly in terms of references to Tesla’s then-ongoing production issues. “Hype has surrounded this car since Tesla CEO Elon Musk first announced it about two years ago, with hundreds of thousands of shoppers placing $1,000 deposits within days. But many of those prospective buyers have had their patience tried, since the Model 3 rollout has been plagued by Tesla’s production headaches and delays,” the organization wrote in its first impressions review last year.
Tesla and Consumer Reports have had a mixed relationship over the years. Take the Model 3, for instance. The organization initially opted to not give the vehicle a “Recommended” rating due to its braking distance, but after Tesla rolled out a software update to address the issue, CR updated its score for the electric car. This February, the organization changed its tone once more, removing the Model 3’s “Recommended” rating after it aggregated reports from owners that listed complaints about issues such as fit and finish. Tesla, for its part, noted that it had already addressed the customer complaints that were aggregated by the organization.
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
