The Tesla Model 3 and the Polestar 2 were recently pitted against each other by motoring outlet Top Gear. During the magazine’s review, the two vehicles were compared according to their efficiency, performance, and overall long trip capability, to name a new. As it turns out, it appears that the Polestar 2 is both the Model 3’s current biggest rival and strongest ally.
The Model 3 and the Polestar 2 are comparatively priced, with both vehicles commanding a price of about £600 per month in the UK. The two vehicles are also comparable when it comes to their batteries, with the Model 3 sporting a 75 kWh pack and the Polestar 2 being equipped with a 78 kWh unit. Consumption favors the Tesla during a 500-mile drive, however, as the Model 3 consumed 28.4 kW per 100 miles as opposed to the Polestar 2’s 35.7 kW per 100 miles. Part of this is due to the Polestar 2’s weight, which is about 595 lbs heavier than the Model 3.
That being said, when it comes to raw performance, the Model 3 proved to be far zippier than the Polestar 2, with the Tesla hitting 60 mph in 3.2 seconds and the Polestar 2 taking 4.4 seconds to hit highway speed. Top Gear then mentioned something quite interesting. During their test, they opted to put the Model 3 on Chill Mode for the most part while they were operating the vehicle. But even with Chill Mode, the Model 3 still made the Polestar 2 work hard to keep pace.
“This Tesla is the 450bhp Performance, and it pulled an easy ten lengths on the Polestar off every roundabout or away from each village, but we found ourselves driving it in power-reducing Chill mode most of the time, simply to escape the sudden, neck-straining step-off every time we gently pulled away. It’s very eager. Even in reverse, which is a bit disconcerting. Chill mode smoothed the throttle nicely and still made the Polestar work hard to keep pace,” the publication noted.
One thing that stands out is the fact that unlike the Model 3, which was built as an all-electric vehicle, the Polestar 2 is actually built on Volvo’s CMA architecture, which also underpins the popular XC40. The Polestar 2 is also made with steel panels, which are heavier than the aluminum that’s used in some parts of the Model 3. But despite this, the motoring publication noted that the Polestar, like the Tesla, does not feel heavy on the road at all, thanks to its low center of gravity.
Top Gear did state that there are some areas where the Model 3 falls beneath the Polestar 2. One of these is the vehicles’ interior quality, which is an area where Polestar excels in. Another concerns the two vehicles’ driving dynamics. The publication noted that the softer sprung Tesla gets a bit jiggled from side to side and it does not have impressive body control. The Model 3’s steering was also described as “pretty nasty,” as it has an initial resistance that fades as the driver turns.
The publication noted that the Model 3’s steering could not be described as “sporty or involving,” just effective. On the other hand, the Polestar 2’s steering and controls were described as reassuring in the way that they are “meatier and more satisfying.” But despite these drawbacks, the Model 3 still rides more comfortably compared to the Polestar 2.
The two vehicles also compare very well when it comes to their tech, as the Polestar 2’s Google-powered software experience stands pretty well against Tesla’s custom OS for the Model 3. Both vehicles have robust driver-assist features as well, though Top Gear noted that both Tesla and Volvo’s autonomous efforts still have large areas for improvement. This is especially true for Tesla, which sells a Full Self-Driving suite for the Model 3. Both cars are capable of long-distance travel, thanks to the Supercharger Network and Polestar’s partnership with Plugsurfing. But between the two, the Model 3 provides a faster, easier charging experience.
Ultimately, the Polestar 2 is a stellar effort on Volvo’s part. It’s attractive, well-built, and it carries the best of Volvo’s tech and features in an all-electric package. That being said, Top Gear concluded that ultimately, the Model 3 would likely still be the vehicle to choose if one were looking for an electric car, simply because it provides a more complete ecosystem of ownership.
“The Polestar experience is still very Volvo – and there’s nothing wrong with that. No Volvo drives as well as this, nor oozes more Scandi calmness and cool. It’s pure hygge. I know this is less than analytical but I love what it stands for, what it looks like, it’s the one I’d rather be seen driving and yet… the Tesla wins. Given a straight choice between the two, that’s the one I’d drive away. Nothing to do with its speed or autonomy – the two things usually championed by the Teslarati – but because of its ease of use, efficiency, the supercharger network. It’s the more complete mode of transport,” the magazine noted.
Elon Musk
SpaceX turned a heralding moment for Starship into its greatest moment
Starship reached orbit despite losing an engine, deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites on Flight 14.
SpaceX’s Starship reached orbit for the first time on Monday, and for a few nail-biting minutes it looked like it wouldn’t. During ascent on Flight 14, one of Ship 41’s six Raptor engines shut down early, and SpaceX’s livestream host Dan Huot told viewers the team had decided not to commit to orbit. Minutes later, after what Huot described as a lot of conversation in the control room, the final poll came back in favor, and a roughly 19 second burn of a single Raptor pushed the ship into orbit about 170 miles up.
The reversal matters because SpaceX had written the exit ramp into the mission plan. The company said it would only fire the orbital insertion burn if flight controllers confirmed enough backup hardware remained for the deorbit burn, a condition Teslarati laid out ahead of the flight. Losing an engine was exactly the scenario that rule was built for.
Pressing forward fits Elon Musk’s history. Falcon 1 failed three straight times before its fourth launch reached orbit in 2008, with SpaceX nearly out of money, and Starship was developed by flying prototypes until they broke. What changed this year SpaceX going public, and with $SPCX sliding below its IPO price in July when Flight 13 slipped, the short interest climbed significantly, as Teslarati reported at the time. A Starship potentially lost today with revenue generating next-gen Starlink satellites aboard would have landed directly on shareholders.
Splashdown confirmed. Congratulations to the entire SpaceX team on the first orbital flight of Starship! pic.twitter.com/urjmiwnvNl
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 28, 2026
That pressure showed up after orbit. SpaceX cut a flight planned to last nearly 10 hours to about three, moving splashdown from west of Chile to the North Pacific near Hawaii. SpaceX gave no reason, though Musk said this month the company was being extremely cautious about debris risk. The single Raptor for deorbit worked, and Ship 41 completed its flip and landing burn before breaking apart in the water, an outcome SpaceX expected. Musk has structured SpaceX’s governance to shield long term bets from market pressure.
The payload is the bigger business story. Musk posted that all 26 Starlink V3 satellites deployed and are “operating nominally.” Each V3 is rated for about 1 Tbps of downlink and 160 Gbps of uplink, so this single launch adds roughly 26 Tbps, about 10 times what a Falcon 9 load of V2 Mini satellites adds. The V3 is too large for Falcon 9, making Starship the only vehicle that can build out the planned 100,000 satellite constellation, at up to 60 per flight once it reaches routine service. Unlike the 20 V3 units on Flight 13, which reentered on a suborbital path, these will raise their orbits and could begin serving customers within weeks and bring in hundreds of millions of additional dollars in projected Starlink revenue.
SpaceX has already begun winding down Falcon 9 Starlink launches from Florida in favor of Starship. Reported targets put Flight 15 as early as October 19, leaving about three weeks to diagnose Monday’s engine shutdown before the next orbital attempt.
Starship’s 14th flight is set to launch on Monday, Sept 28. The 75-minute launch window opens at 7:15 a.m. CT. Live coverage of the mission starts ~35 minutes before launch → https://t.co/uQKQvgaTmJ
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) September 27, 2026
Tesla quietly doubled the size of its Cybercab fleet within the Robotaxi program in Austin, Texas, over the weekend to well over 100 units.
The move not only establishes more of the steering-wheel-less and pedal-less vehicles within the ride-sharing fleet Tesla has been operating for a year, but it also solidifies a more robust Robotaxi fleet as a whole.
Riders started receiving notifications from the Robotaxi app that stated: “Cybercab fleet has doubled: more rides available.”
I got this notification on the robotaxi app. They are saying the Cybercab fleet has doubled. Glad that they are advertising this pic.twitter.com/FFrnw4FRCF
— Abhimanyu Yadav (@WorldlyReviewer) September 26, 2026
Tesla first launched rides in the Cybercab in early September, although the Robotaxi fleet has been active for over a year, as rides began last Summer. Cybercab is truly Tesla’s most crucial vehicle release yet, as it is the first car any company has built that is geared toward full-fledged and end-to-end autonomy, never needing human intervention for anything.
Only available in Austin at the current time, Cybercab has two seats and has been spotted testing around various U.S. states and regions; Tesla plans to deploy the Cybercab in various U.S. cities in the coming months as a best-case scenario.
Tesla Cybercab gets initial tie-in to localized, in-house cathode plant
The availability of the Cybercab has doubled from just 58 units last Monday to 125 the following Friday. Marking a substantial increase in Cybercab availability, the additional ride-sharing units are more than welcome, as wait times for Cybercabs, especially, were quite high.
The dramatic increase is a sign that demand for Robotaxi is growing and Tesla is feeling more confident that its driverless ride-hailing suite, especially its Full Self-Driving software, is able to handle any traffic situation without explicit direction or supervision from a human being.
Tesla is advancing a fully automated pipeline for the 4680 battery cells used in its all-electric Semi, spanning production from Giga Texas through shipment and direct consumption on the line at the new dedicated Semi Factory in Sparks, Nevada.
The approach was outlined by Tesla at its September 24 Semi Handover event, which launched high-volume production at its new 1.8-million-square-foot plant in Nevada, which sits adjacent to Gigafactory Nevada and is designed for an annual production rate of 50,000 trucks per year.
After years of pilot builds and what was a four-year-long redesign of the truck, Tesla moved the Semi from 2170 batteries to its in-house 4680 cells, which are made in Austin. The change cuts battery mass and total energy while holding range, a key step in making volume production a realistic possibility.
Cells will leave Giga Texas in trailers, and at the Nevada Semi plant, Tesla intends for a dedicated line to unload those trailers automatically, station the cells, and feed them straight into pack and vehicle assembly.
🚨 Tesla plans to use a completely automated unloading process for cells coming from Giga Texas arriving at the Semi factory in Nevada
A line will “consume” cells from the trailer
The goal is to have zero human touch point throughout the entire process. Insane! pic.twitter.com/wdBFM8LC3F
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) September 25, 2026
Both Lars Moravy, Tesla’s VP of Vehicle Engineering, and Dan Priestley, the Head of Tesla’s Semi program, described the goal as a “zero human touch point” from the moment the trailer arrives in Texas until a finished Semi drives off the production line in Nevada.
The unloading system that Moravy and Priestley described is just one piece of a much broader automation push. The plant uses what Tesla calls the highest-capacity electric monorail conveyance in vehicle manufacturing, carrying frames-in-white simultaneously. Powder-coating replaces conventional paint, and many processes that would normally require operators have been designed out.
Tesla has repeatedly said that “the best part is no part,” and the cell-handling plan extends that philosophy from the cell factory floor in Texas all the way to final assembly in Nevada.
If executed as described, the closed-loop flow would reduce labor, handling damage, and inventory buffers while tightening quality control on a component that represents a large share of the truck’s cost and weight. It also shortens the physical and organizational distance between two factories separated by more than 1,200 miles. The Semi itself now shares a bar-wound stator and other components with the Cybertruck, further linking Tesla’s passenger and commercial production systems.
High-volume output is expected to ramp gradually after the first trucks left the new line in April 2026. Early customers include PepsiCo, DHL, and U.S. Foods. Whether the automated trailer-to-line process reaches the promised zero-touch standard will be visible in the coming months as production scales. For Tesla, the Semi factory is another test of how far it can push “the machine that builds the machine” across sites.
SpaceX turned a heralding moment for Starship into its greatest moment
Tesla Cybercab fleet doubles to well over 100 units
