Doubts may still linger about the potential of battery electric vehicles for mainstream transportation, but EVs are getting progressively better. And if the data from the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y fleet is any indication, it appears that these improvements could result, at least to some degree, in an all-electric crossover being more efficient than the early production versions of an all-electric sedan.
In a recent conversation with Teslarati, David Hodge, the founder and CEO of Embark — a transportation app company that was sold to Apple in 2013 — explained that his work on a little passion project has shown something incredibly interesting about the Model 3 and Model Y’s efficiency. Hodge is currently working on the Nikola app, a service that he hopes will eventually grow to be the CarFax for EVs. So far, users of the app have driven about 7,000,000 miles, and over 2,000 Model 3s are registered in the fleet.
These Model 3s are comprised of vehicles that were produced from the beginning of Elon Musk’s first “alien dreadnought” attempt to cars that rolled off the line this quarter. Based on data that the Nikola app proprietor shared, it is evident that the Model 3 has gotten significantly more efficient over the years. Users of the app with vehicles produced in 2018, for example, showed a real-world average MPGe of 90.3, while cars that were produced in 2019 had a real-world average of 100.4.
These efficiency improvements continued in the first half of 2020, when Nikola app users who owned Model 3s showed a real-world average MPGe of 105.2. Interestingly enough, Tesla appears to have rolled out a major improvement to the Model 3’s efficiency in the second half of the year, as vehicles produced after June 2020 have shown a real-world average MPGe of 125.7. That’s the biggest improvement in the Model 3’s efficiency yet, at least as reflected in data from the Nikola app’s users.
Inasmuch as the improvements in the Model 3’s MPGe are notable, the efficiency of the Model Y appears to be even more noteworthy. The Model Y is the newest vehicle in Tesla’s lineup today, having started deliveries earlier this year. But even with its early ramp, it is becoming quite evident that Tesla did something special with the all-electric crossover.
Nikola app users who owned Model Ys that were produced in the first half of 2020 showed a real-world average MPGe of 103.2, which was very close to the MPGe of Model 3s that were manufactured in the same period. And just like the Model 3s, Model Ys that were produced after June 2020 exhibited a significant improvement in efficiency, with the vehicles having a real-world average MPGe of 118.7. That’s higher than the MPGe of Model 3s that were produced just last year.
As noted by Hodge, such efficiency figures from the Model Y are extremely impressive, especially considering that it is larger and significantly heftier than the Model 3. This is also a pretty unique situation considering that the company’s flagship sedan, the Model S, has always been significantly more efficient than its SUV counterpart, the Model X.
“This is pretty impressive considering the obvious aerodynamic differences in the Y and the fact that the S has always outperformed the X by about 15. If you just look at cars made since June, the Model Y MPGe climbed to 119 on average, but it looks like some of the tech improvements made it over to the 3, which is seeing 125.6 MPGe average in that period,” Hodge noted.
Tesla has a habit of rolling out improvements to its vehicles as soon as they are available. The latest Teslas are therefore expected to have the best tech that the company has to offer at the time of their production. With this in mind, and as per the findings of auto teardown expert Sandy Munro, the Model Y is indeed equipped with Tesla’s best, both in tech and in design. And considering that the all-electric crossover is expected to share components with its sedan sibling, it is not very surprising to see the Model 3 experience efficiency gains as soon as the Model Y started ramping up. Such is simply the nature of Tesla.
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
