News
Tesla Model S, 3, X among ‘Top 10 American-Made’ vehicles in Cars.com list
Tesla’s Model S, Model 3, and Model X broke into Cars.com’s “Top 10 American-Made Index” list, taking three out of ten places in the motoring resource’s rankings. This was quite a debut for Tesla, as this year marks the first year that the Silicon Valley-based automaker made its first appearance in Cars.com’s rankings.
The annual survey ranks new vehicles that “contribute most to the U.S. economy” through U.S.-based factory jobs, manufacturing plants, and parts sourcing. Frequently, American automakers like Ford and Chevrolet dominate the list due to their mass-market pickups. Other popular manufacturers, like Honda, for example, have become listed more frequently in the last few years of the rankings.
Tesla, with its growing popularity and expanding fleet of mass-market vehicles, cracked the Top 10 for the first time. However, it was not just the ultra-popular Model 3 that appeared. The flagship Tesla Model S and Model X made the list as well, tying Honda for the most number of vehicles in the 2020 Top 10 rankings, USA Today reports.
The Tesla Model S, Model 3, and Model X finished third, fourth, and ninth, respectively, in the rankings. The Ford Ranger, a product of Wayne, Michigan, and the Jeep Cherokee, made in Belvidere, Illinois, edged out Tesla’s flagship sedan, which is built in Fremont, California.
According to Cars.com’s senior consumer affairs and vehicle evaluations editor Kelsey Mays, Tesla made the list this year because it was the first time the automaker supplied the appropriate information to qualify its vehicles for the rankings.
Mays added, “Tesla is the only automaker on the list to built 100% of the cars in America that it sells here.”
Cars.com told Teslarati that Tesla’s identification with Americans has grown considerably since last year. According to a survey that the automotive resource conducted, only 10% of American car buyers recognized Tesla as a “California-made” vehicle in 2019. About 18% of respondents now identify Tesla as a California-based company. However, only half of the survey’s total respondents knew that Tesla was American, and only a third of those who participated thought the Model S was built within the United States.
Mays indicated that where a car is produced is becoming a more important factor to consumers, and Cars.com created the list to highlight what vehicles are manufactured within the United States. The impact of COVID-19 on the American economy has contributed to that, and American car buyers are more focused on buying locally to support the automotive sector, which employs 9.9 million people, according to AutoAlliance.org.
“We live in a global economy, but Cars.com’s research found 70% of American shoppers consider a car’s U.S. economic impact a significant or deciding factor in their vehicle purchase,” Mays said. “The COVID-19 pandemic is increasing Americans’ desire to buy local, with 37% reporting they are more likely to buy an American-made vehicle in light of the economic disruption of COVID-19.”
Tesla’s Fremont facility employs 12,000 people, providing a sizable number of manufacturing jobs for Northern Californians. It is currently the only facility in the U.S. where Tesla builds its vehicles, but the company is looking to open a second facility in the Central United States soon.
Tesla had already reopened its Giga Shanghai production facility in mid-February by implementing a series of new health codes that would preserve the safety of its workforce. The same strategies are being used in Fremont, where Tesla is focusing on ramping up the production rates of its Model 3 and Model Y while maintaining steady build rates for the Model S and Model X.
Cars.com’s Top 10 American-Made Index list is below.
Cars.com 2020 American-Made Index top 10
- Ford Ranger (Wayne, Michigan)
- Jeep Cherokee (Belvidere, Illinois)
- Tesla Model S (Fremont, California)
- Tesla Model 3 (Fremont, California)
- Honda Odyssey (Lincoln, Alabama)
- Honda Ridgeline (Lincoln, Alabama)
- Honda Passport (Lincoln, Alabama)
- Chevrolet Corvette (Bowling Green, Kentucky)
- Tesla Model X (Fremont, California)
- Chevrolet Colorado (Wentzville, Missouri)
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
