News
Once-deemed ‘Tesla killer’ Mercedes EQC flops with 55 units sold in Germany to date
Tesla appears poised to extend its reach into the heart of Das Auto, but it seems like Mercedes-Benz, a member of the old guard, may not be up to the task of meeting the young electric car maker’s challenge head-on. Daimler, for one, seems to be struggling in its home court, selling only 55 units of the its first all-electric SUV, the once-deemed “Tesla Killer” Mercedes-Benz EQC, since it was released in Germany.
German publication Welt noted that the veteran car manufacturer is hesitant to reveal information about the EQC’s sales, but data from the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA) revealed that there were only 19 units of the SUV that were sold in November 2019. Since the vehicle was released in the country, registrations for the vehicle have only numbered 55. It’s a painful pill to swallow, but it seems that Mercedes-Benz’s tagline for the EQC campaign, “Enjoy Electric,” is far from convincing local consumers.
Welt aptly puts it: “The car is not only widely advertised, but has also been delivered for a few months. And at the last major e-car premiere that Germany experienced this year, numerous Tesla Model 3s drove through the area after just a few weeks. So where are the electric models from Stuttgart?”
According to the same report, there are clear indications that Daimler spent a lot to ensure its market feels the presence of the Mercedes EQC. The electric SUV appears on TV spots, movie screens, and billboards. It seems like the only place where the electric Mercedes-Benz is nowhere to be found is on the country’s roads, or people’s garages.
What’s happening to Daimler is only part of the bigger picture of what’s happening in the German automotive industry. As Tesla makes the most out of its momentum hoping to hurdle the last steps to finally begin construction of the Gigafactory 4 in Germany, local manufacturers seem to slide and struggle.
Gigafactory 4 will open opportunities for Tesla in Germany by first producing the Model Y crossover, which happens to be a cheaper alternative to the Mercedes-Benz EQC. Meanwhile, Daimler announced back in November that it will reduce its workforce and cut around 9,500 jobs across the globe as it switches its focus on electric cars.
The low sales number of the EQC might only be the tip of the iceberg. While Tesla has been setting trends and transforming the auto industry, Germany’s giants might have been caught resting on their laurels and were caught by surprise how a young company from California can slay them in the electric vehicle race.
Cars and Germany cannot be separated as more than 800,000 people depend on the industry to put food on their tables. It’s a complicated story why automotive giants such as Daimler cannot keep up with the future and just see Tesla cruise pass them.
One might just wonder if Mercedes cannot sell its electric SUV in its own backyard, how will its electric vehicles do in other markets that it depends on for revenue, such as China and the United States? The company has announced that it is delaying the release of the EQC in the US for another year, which does not bode well for the vehicle. As for Tesla, the game to conquer Europe begins soon with Tesla Gigafactory 4, and it has already opened the floodgates in China with the first deliveries of its mass-produced Model 3 electric sedans.
H/T to @Alex_avoigt
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
