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 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
