News
Tesla Model 3 dubbed best electric car by noted auto reviewer in 3-way evaluation
Noted auto reviewer Matthew DeBord has a lot of experience driving Tesla’s electric cars, lauding the Model 3 Performance as his personal favorite among the company’s vehicles in a review last month. His conclusions were appreciated by Elon Musk, who shared the veteran reviewer’s article on Twitter. Recently, DeBord raised the stakes for the Model 3, comparing it against two other premium electric cars he has driven in the past — the Jaguar I-PACE and Tesla’s own Model X — to see which EV is the best in the market today.
For purposes of his recent review, DeBord opted to use the Model 3’s Long Range RWD version, which cost $57,500 when it was acquired last year. The electric sedan was compared against the Jaguar I-PACE EV400 HSE, which costs a total of $86,720 with options and fees. The final vehicle in the triple threat evaluation — a fully-loaded Tesla Model X P100D — came at a premium price of $150,000.
In his analysis, DeBord noted that the Jaguar I-PACE is poised, powerful, and sleek, and it has a killer interior accented with premium materials such as brushed metal, carbon fiber, and wood. That said, the Jaguar does fall short in some areas such as its frunk, which is too small for any practical use. Its charging system, which relies on ChargePoint’s stations, also left much to be desired. Jaguar Land Rover’s InControl Touch Pr infotainment system is “too complex” and “not attractively designed” as well.
On the other hand, DeBord admits that the Tesla Model X P100D is a showstopper with its tech and features like its Falcon Wing Doors. Being the largest of the three vehicles, the Model X is a champion of storage with almost 90 cubic feet of available cargo space. Coupled with the Supercharger Network and its Ludicrous Mode, the Model X is an excellent vehicle. That said, the premium SUV also carries a very premium price.
Ultimately, DeBord opted to give the crown to the Tesla Model 3 as the best electric car among the three vehicles he evaluated. The Model 3 strikes a great balance for price and features, with its 0-60 mph time of 5.1 seconds and its access to the Supercharger Network. The auto reviewer also lauds the vehicle for its intuitive touchscreen and steering wheel trackball-based controls, which “provides a serene driving experience” after a small learning curve. Reiterating his observations in his initial review of the electric sedan, DeBord noted that there is simply nothing better among electric cars available in the market today, especially considering its price.
“There is no better vehicle of this type at this price that I believe I could currently buy. What’s really so hypnotically and addictively compelling about the Model 3 is how many great ideas have been crammed into one automobile. This is a car that’s absolutely bursting with thought, about the present and the future — and the distant future. Those ideas are overwhelmingly optimistic.”
What’s impressive is that the Tesla Model 3 which DeBord based his recent conclusion from is a rather early version of the electric sedan. Since the initial production of the electric car, Tesla has achieved a notable reduction on Model 3 costs, as evidenced by the $49,900 starting price of the Dual Motor AWD Model 3 today. Other improvements have also been rolled out by Tesla since DeBord’s initial review of the vehicle, such as Navigate on Autopilot.
Matthew DeBord is not alone in his conclusions with regards to the Model 3. Auto veteran and longtime gearhead Henry Payne of The Detroit News, for one, even dubbed the Tesla Model 3 as the publication’s 2018 Car of the Year. The vehicle has also been a commercial success for Tesla, selling more than 145,000 units over 2018, allowing it to become the year’s best-selling luxury car.
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
