News
Tesla Model 3 with ‘Track Mode’ squares off against Jaguar I-PACE and MotorTrend’s top rated sports sedan
While the Model S and the Model X are monsters on the drag strip, the premium electric cars have developed a reputation for being ineffective during extended track driving. Tesla aims to shatter this perception with the Model 3 Performance, as the vehicle is designed to be the first of the company’s electric cars that is competitive on the racecourse. Tesla is even preparing a specific and aptly-named mode for the vehicle to achieve this goal — “Track Mode.”
The Tesla Model 3 Performance has been getting universally positive reviews from numerous publications, from the Wall Street Journal to Car & Driver. Reviewers have praised the vehicle for its handling and quickness, as well as its sheer fun factor when driven hard. Auto publication Road & Track even sampled the Model 3 Performance’s upcoming “Track Mode” feature, which allows the vehicle to perform impressive high-speed maneuvers on a racecourse.
Tesla’s Track Mode for the Model 3 Performance was recently put to the test by auto publication MotorTrend, which held comparative tests pitting the electric sedan against the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio, as well as another all-electric car, the Jaguar I-PACE EV400. The tests, which involved track testing all three vehicles by veteran race driver Randy Franklin Pobst, allowed the publication to analyze how the Model 3 Performance stacks up against a fellow track-capable EV and the best fossil fuel-powered sports sedan available today.
Needless to say, the results of the tests were very compelling.
It was easy to determine that among the three, the Jaguar I-PACE EV400 was at a disadvantage, particularly due to its 4,946-pound mass and its substantial ride height. The I-PACE’s electric motors, which produce a combined 394 horsepower, are also 22% less than the Giulia Quadrifoglio. These disadvantages were evident when the veteran driver took the electric crossover around the “Streets” of Willow Springs International Raceway in CA, as the I-PACE took 1:27.00 to complete a lap.
The difference between the track capabilities of the Model 3 Performance and the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio was far more difficult to call. With Track Mode enabled, the Model 3 Performance set a new record for production electric cars on the racecourse, completing the run at 1:23.90. That’s 0.07 seconds faster than one of Ford’s best track vehicles, the Mustang GT Performance Pack 2. That said, Pobst, who was driving the Model 3 Performance, noted that the vehicle was easy to understeer, and that “there’s something weird happening when I lift off the brake.” The sensation that the race driver was referring to was the Model 3 Performance’s regenerative braking, which is emphasized even more when Track Mode is enabled.
True to its reputation as the best sports sedan in the market today, the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio completed the lap in 1:22.78, 1.12 seconds faster than the Model 3 Performance. Pobst noted that the turbocharged V6-powered vehicle “does exactly what you expect. No surprises. Always predictable.” After two sets of hard laps, though, half of the Alfa Romeo’s Pirelli P Zero Corsa AR Asimmetrico front tires were all but gone. The Model 3 Performance’s Michelin Pilot Sport 4S tires, on the other hand, were at worst scuffed. A Tesla engineer remarked to the publication that the Model 3 Performance could match the Giulia Quadrifoglio’s time if they were willing to compromise the vehicle’s tires as well.
Ultimately, MotorTrend‘s track tests show that the Model 3 Performance, at its current state, is still not quite enough to topple the auto market’s best sports sedan. That said, Track Mode, despite being a work in progress, is a very strong baseline. The publication noted that for now, it would be wise to look at Tesla’s Track Mode for the Model 3 Performance as Version 1.0 of the feature. Once Version 2.0 is ready, then vehicles such as the Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio would also be wise to fear Tesla’s first track-capable vehicle.
Even without Track Mode, the Tesla Model 3 Performance is already starting to win over veteran auto enthusiasts, including longtime enthusiasts of legacy carmakers like BMW. Moshen Chan, an indie app developer who has been a BMW fan for ~20 years, noted that Tesla’s electric car “absolutely outperforms anything BMW has to offer today.”
The Model 3 Performance’s Track Mode is one of the electric sedan’s most compelling features. Describing the feature in an interview with YouTube tech host Marques Brownlee, Musk likened Track Mode as an “Expert User Mode” for drivers.
“Track Mode will open up a lot of settings. You can adjust settings, and it’s kinda like an ‘Expert User Mode.’ You can sort of adjust traction control, adjust battery temperature. You can basically configure a bunch of things, and it will tell you, like ‘Hey, you know if you do this, it’s a bit risky. You’re gonna wear out your brakes sooner; you might blow a circuit.’ But like, it’ll be clear — like, you know, this is the risk you’re taking. It’s kinda like if you have a graphics card in a computer. You can go in there and change the settings, and you can overclock things,” Musk said.
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
