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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
