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.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
