News
How Tesla Model 3 Performance stacks up against track legends in its class
This past weekend, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed the price and specifications of the Model 3 Performance with Dual-Motor AWD. According to Elon Musk, the Model 3 Performance will cost $78,000 with all options except Autopilot. The vehicle has a top speed of 155 mph, is capable of sprinting from 0-60 mph in 3.5 seconds, and is capable of traveling 310 miles on a single charge.
With Autopilot and Full Self-Driving added, the cost of the Model 3 Performance shoots up to $86,000, and with the possibility of an upcoming Ludicrous Mode upgrade ($7,500 for the Model S P85D and $10,000 for the Model S P90D), the price of the vehicle would likely be dangerously close, or even surpass the $90,000 barrier. While these prices are a far departure from the car’s $35,000 base price, they are, nevertheless, reasonable.
One thing to note when looking at the Model 3 Performance is Tesla’s target demographic. The vehicle is being marketed to car enthusiasts who are looking for a high-performance vehicle that is quick off the line and nimble on the corners. A clue regarding this could be found on Elon Musk’s own statements on Twitter.
Cost of all options, wheels, paint, etc is included (apart from Autopilot). Cost is $78k. About same as BMW M3, but 15% quicker & with better handling. Will beat anything in its class on the track.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2018
Musk’s specific mention of the Model 3 Performance’s capabilities on the track is particularly noteworthy. Tesla’s electric cars, such as the Model S P100D, after all, have largely been formidable in straight-line races, but not so much in extended track driving. As could be seen in instances of the Model 3 being driven on a track, however, this particular limitation does not seem to exist in Tesla’s newest vehicle.
Earlier this year, the Model 3 was taken to the Laguna Seca Raceway, where it completed nine laps without limiting its power. Last month, a Model 3 took on an Autocross course, where it performed equally well without any heating issues. Earlier this month, a Model 3 took on another course, showing off its acceleration and cornering in a quick lap. All these vehicles performed far better on the track than the Model S or Model X. None of them were specifically tuned for performance.
With the Model 3 Performance, Tesla is trying to breach into the track driving market. Musk’s tweet specifically mentioned the BMW M3 — a legend on the track — stating that the Model 3 Performance will be roughly 15% quicker. This places the Model 3 Performance in the same league as the Mercedes AMG C 63 S Coupe, Audi RS5, and of course, the BMW M3. Compared to the cost of the fully-loaded options for these vehicles, the compact electric car is actually more affordable.
Take the Mercedes AMG C 63 S Coupe, for example. A fully-loaded version of the car costs just slightly over $106,000. A fully-loaded BMW M3? $91,759. As for the Audi RS5, a fully-loaded version will set back owners $93,325. With this in mind, the Model 3 Performance’s $78,000 price is actually a pretty good steal.
Specs-wise, the Mercedes AMG C 63 S Coupe is equipped with a twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V8 engine. The vehicle has a top speed of 180 mph and is capable of sprinting from 0-60 mph in 3.8 secs. The BMW M3, on the other hand, is equipped with a twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6 engine. This gives the BMW M3 a top speed of 163 mph and a 0-60 mph time of 4.0 seconds. As for the Audi RS5, the high-performance vehicle is fitted with a twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V6, which gives the car a top speed of 174 mph and a 0-60 mph time of 3.9 seconds.
When looking at the Model 3 Performance, it is pertinent to note that Tesla is not marketing the vehicle to the same demographic as the electric car’s $35,000 standard range version. The base Model 3 is designed to be an affordable electric car that is as stylish as it is capable. The Model 3 Performance is a vehicle designed to to be comparable to some of the best cars in its class. Apart from sharing the same frame and the same interior, the $35,000 base Model 3 and the $78,000 Model 3 Performance are two electric cars that could not be any more different.
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
