News
Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai Comparison
With the introduction of the new hydrogen-powered Toyota Mirai (the name means “future” in Japanese), there has been a lot of media hype about vehicles that use hydrogen fuel cells as their power source. Toyota, Honda and a number of other automobile companies have announced plans to build cars based on fuel cell technology.
Fundamentally, a hydrogen fuel cell produces electricity via an electro-chemical reaction that drives an electric motor that creates the motive force for a car. The technology requires high-pressure storage of liquid hydrogen, a fuel cell to convert the H2 to electrons, a control system to deliver the resultant electricity to an electric motor and/or battery that in turn drives the wheels of the vehicle. It’s a workable, if somewhat complex system that produces zero emissions and water as a by-product.
In the media, there are three major claims that are being made about cars powered by hydrogen: (1) that H2 is a 21st century energy source and will ultimately become the preferred power source for automobiles; (2) that hydrogen-powered fuel cells represent a significant improvement in environmentally safe automotive fuel, and (3) that cars like the Toyota Mirai represent a major threat to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) like the Tesla Model S.
Are any or all of these claims true? We thought we’d take a look.
After going through the popular literature and government/academic reports, we decided that the best way to present the array of information collected was with an infographic, “Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai: A Technology/Vehicle Comparison,” that examines four broad categories of concern:
- underlying technology that powers the vehicle
- the two vehicles themselves
- technology required for refueling the vehicle, and
- environmental impact
Tesla Model S vs. Toyota Mirai
Technology
EV technology has been around for 100 years. It represents a remarkably simple method for automotive power that is constrained solely by the capacity of the vehicle’s batteries. Fuel cells are evolving rapidly and provide more energy capacity than modern Li-Ion batteries, but they require liquid hydrogen to be stored on board the vehicle in pressurized tanks. The Tesla Model S has an energy capacity of either 60 kWh or 85 kWh while the Toyota Mirai produces 114 kWh. The overall energy efficiency (from an environmental viewpoint) of BEVs is dependent on the efficiency of the electric grid from which a BEV obtains its diet of electrons. The efficiency of hydrogen-powered cars is impacted by the process that extracts hydrogen from other sources and the method by which hydrogen is transported to a refueling station.
The winner: It’s close, but the simplicity of the BEV system gives the underlying technology of the Model S a slight edge.
The Vehicles
Both the Tesla Model S and the Toyota Mirai are expensive, but that’s the price of new technology. The Model S is a premium, high performance automobile in ever sense of the word. It is a visually beautiful car that conjures images of a Aston Martin or Jaguar and has been lauded as one of the best sedans in the world. It has won praise from virtually every automotive media source, and is one of the safest, roomiest cars on the planet. The Toyota Mirai has an eccentric look that gives it a boxy Prius-like feel. It appears to provide good, basic transportation, but it is not for those who want a bit more than good, basic transportation. Finally, the Tesla Model S is here today. By 2017, there will be about 160,000 Model S vehicles on the road. Toyota projects that only 3,000 Mirais will be in the field by the same date.
The winner: No contest! The Model S is far superior to the Mirai in virtually every respect except for range.
Fueling the Vehicle
In our view, one of the major benefits of BEVs is that you refuel them at home, overnight, while you’re sleeping, so that your Model S is “full” every morning. Unless you travel long distances on a regular basis, you will rarely need a Tesla Supercharger or any other refueling source away from home. That’s huge, and often get’s lost in the discussion of “range anxiety” that always seems to invade the thinking of those who don’t own a Model S. Although fuel cells are sexy, it seems odd to us that Toyota has returned to a 20th century fueling station paradigm. In essence, there is little difference between refueling a Mirai and refueling a Camry. Sure, the fuel is different, but you have to hunt for a specific refueling station as your Mirai slowly depletes its hydrogen. No charging at home—ever.
The winner: No contest! Refueling your vehicle at home is a convenience that represents 21st century thinking. Model S provides that convenience. Mirai does not.
Environmental Impact
Both the Model S and the Mirai are environmentally impressive. Both have zero emissions and relatively low “well-to-wheel” inefficiencies. In our view, the beauty of a BEV is that it becomes increasingly friendly to the environment as our electric grid infrastructure improves. There is no need to separately transport fuel to a refueling station (a requirement for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle) eliminating both the cost and the environmental impact of secondary fuel transport.
The winner: It’s a toss up. Both cars are environmentally friendly and both will improve as the grid becomes cleaner and as hydrogen extraction processes become more efficient and cost effective.
As a young engineering student I was taught that when you consider alternative systems that both achieve the same result, always choose the less complex approach. That’s common sense, but it appears that when faced with the same choice, Toyota chose the more complex option. Possibly, their engineers or marketing people were driven by concern about range, but that’s simply not as big an issue as they think it is. BEVs represent simplicity, and in an increasingly complex world, that’s something that many consumers like.
Is the Mirai (or another similar H2 vehicle) a “Tesla Killer”? Not a chance!
Originally published on EVannex
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
