Earlier this week, Tesla reduced the price of the Model S by $3,000. When a price change is applied to any of Tesla’s vehicles, it is usually a race between media outlets to report it first. I believe that many news sites look at it as an opportunity to have a post with high views, and being the first to report it could lead to that. Also, with human beings remaining relatively misinformed about EVs and Teslas’ prices in specific, whenever a price drop is applied, it is a huge deal.
But the reason for misinformation spreads to journalists as well. I found myself shocked at the Fox Business article that implied that Tesla was undergoing some sort of “sales slide.” At least, that’s what they put in their headline.
Baffled at what I had read, I felt compelled to post it on Twitter and LinkedIn (the only two forms of social media I have) and set the record straight. While it is true that the percentage of the Model S sales has gone down, it is untrue that Tesla, or the flagship sedan, is seeing record low numbers because of a “sales slide.”
https://twitter.com/KlenderJoey/status/1316017793070850053
First, Tesla just had its most successful quarter in terms of production and deliveries in Q3. 139,300 cars were delivered, and 145,036 cars were produced at Fremont and Giga Shanghai. Nothing about that indicates a sales slide, especially considering the massive growth during the quarter in both deliveries and production.
The Model S and Model X were delivered 15,200 times during the quarter. Yes, this is a relatively small percentage, just a tad more than 10% of the total deliveries that Tesla performed over the course of the quarter. It is a 33% growth from the last quarter, where the company only delivered around 10,000 of the two vehicles.
In my opinion, it isn’t that Tesla’s flagship sedan is “less popular” or even “slumping” in terms of sales. I think that the Model Y and Model 3 are simply better options for most car buyers. I’ll tell you why.
First, we have their price. The Model 3 and Model Y have better price points, and they are Tesla’s first two mass-market vehicles. This means that the prices will fit more budgets, and it will be a more popular vehicle because of that.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
Secondly, the Model 3 and Model Y technology is significantly better than the Model S and Model X. Of course, the Model S has a lot of power, and the Model X has those awesome falcon-wing doors that everyone freaks out about. But in terms of sheer technology, the Model 3 and Model Y are just better options. They are minimalistic, they are newer designs, and they are also operating with better batteries than the Model S and Model X.
The Model 3 is, as far as we know, still utilizing the 2170 cells, while some speculation suggests that Tesla could already be putting the 4680 cells in the Model Y. These cells are not only more affordable, but they’re also more efficient, offer better power, and their energy capacity is greater.
The Model S and the Model X are still using the 18650 battery cells, which are still great batteries. The Model S has an EPA record 402 miles of range, and they both have 100 kWh battery packs in their performance models, which makes them a better option for the speed demons out there. Nevertheless, battery tech has gotten better since the Model S and Model X have been built, and neither of these cars has undergone a refresh, which brings me to my next point.
Buying a Model 3 or a Model Y ensures that a car buyer has the most up-to-date Tesla technology available. In addition to the already more minimalist design that the 3 and the Y offer, these two cars’ look is fresh in people’s minds. The Model 3 literally just underwent a refresh last night, and the Model Y is only seven months old as of right now.
Meanwhile, the Model S and Model X have relatively the same design as they did when they were released. The only things that have really changed are the available colors and the grille, which are minor cosmetic modifications. I love the look of the S and the X, but some people out there need the most updated versions of things. That is why we see so many people waiting for Apple to release a new phone, even though theirs works perfectly fine.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting something new. I get it. Believe me, I will be one of the first people in Pennsylvania to have a PS5, but that’s a $500 purchase. A car is $35,000 at the least if you want a Tesla.
All of this brings me to my point: These large-scale media networks reporting price cuts should just report the price cuts. Nothing more, and nothing less. There is no reason for these media outlets who have no idea what they’re talking about to sit there and suggest that the Model S is having a sales slide when they are still selling a healthy amount of vehicles.
Even Tesla knows that the Model S and Model X are not going to be big factors in the company’s future growth. That’s why the company has confined production to Fremont and hasn’t expanded it to Shanghai or even mentioned it with Giga, Texas. There is no need to. Remember, Tesla’s ultimate mission is to accelerate sustainable energy and transportation, not turn a massive profit with really fast cars. If that were the case, I’m sure the Roadster would already be built and roaming around the streets of California being driven by celebrities and Tesla referral code masters.
There is a real danger here with the way media outlets are angling their headlines. Ultimately, Tesla is doing a great job of expanding its presence in the automotive market. If mainstream media was more responsible with its reporting, could Tesla’s popularity be even more widespread at this point?
I use this newsletter to share my thoughts on what is going on in the Tesla world. If you want to talk to me directly, you can email me or reach me on Twitter. I don’t bite, be sure to reach out!
On behalf of the entire Teslarati team, we’re working hard behind the scenes on bringing you more personalized members benefits, and can’t thank you enough for your continued support!
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
