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
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
