News
Tesla Model Y mishap shows urgent need for aggressively better quality control
Tesla currently stands at the top of the auto market, and for good reason. Its vehicles provide an experience unlike any other, their performance is incredible for their price, and their tech is top-notch. Yet as the company pursues its target of delivering 500,000 cars this year, something is becoming evident: Tesla needs to aggressively emphasize its quality control, especially with regards to the Model Y.
Just recently, EV enthusiast u/Indescribables shared a verified anecdote at the r/TeslaMotors subreddit, stating that their new all-electric crossover lost its glass roof while they were driving in California’s 238 highway. According to the Tesla owner, he and his dad started noticing some wind noise inside the cabin while they were driving. They initially thought that a window had been open, but before they could check, the Model Y’s entire glass roof reportedly got blown off.
After overcoming the initial shock of the incident, the pair drove back to the Tesla delivery center. Upon inspection, the manager at the Tesla location reportedly noted that the incident was caused by either a faulty seal on the glass roof, or someone from the factory forgot to seal the roof on. The new Tesla owners were then given a loaner as well as the option to repair or replace the Model Y. The pair declined a repair, instead opting to have the vehicle replaced.
So Tesla’s quality control is really bad. Our brand new model y’s entire roof just fell off from r/teslamotors
Granted, such an account is strictly anecdotal, but it does highlight a notable point of improvement for Tesla. As the company grows, after all, the electric car maker must make it a point to ensure that its quality control matches its pace of innovation. This ensures that every new Tesla owner gets to experience the same type of experience that has inspired such a strong and dedicated following for the company and its CEO, Elon Musk. This becomes challenging if some vehicles end up leaving the factory without being properly checked for potential build issues.
This is especially notable with this recent Model Y mishap, since Elon Musk himself has proven in the past that he is not content with Tesla making cars that have subpar build quality. During the middle of the Model 3’s “production hell” in 2018, reports were abounding that some vehicles being delivered to customers were not up to par in quality compared to the company’s previous cars like the Model S. Musk then sent a letter to Tesla employees calling for vast improvements in build quality. Musk’s intent was clear.
“We will keep going until the Model 3 build precision is a factor of ten better than any other car in the world. I am not kidding… Our car needs to be designed and built with such accuracy and precision that, if an owner measures dimensions, panel gaps, and flushness, and their measurements don’t match the Model 3 specs, it just means that their measuring tape is wrong,” Musk wrote.
Tesla Convertible???
The improvements in the Model 3’s build quality did not happen overnight, but once the company was able to get better, even legacy auto veterans could not deny that the all-electric sedan was being built with world-class standards. Longtime GM executive Bob Lutz, who is typically critical of Tesla, pretty much threw in the towel when he encountered a Model 3 in the wild. The following excerpt from a post Lutz shared on Road and Track explains his observations best.
“When I spied a metallic-red Model 3 in an Ann Arbor parking lot, I felt compelled to check it out. I was eager to see the oft-reported sloppy assembly work, the poor-fitting doors, blotchy paint, and other manifestations of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s ‘production hell’ with my own eyes.”
“But, when next to the car, I was stunned. Not only was the paint without any discernible flaw, but the various panels formed a body of precision that was beyond reproach. Gaps from hood to fenders, doors to frame, and all the others appeared to be perfectly even, equal side-to-side, and completely parallel. Gaps of 3.5 to 4.5mm are considered word-class. This Model 3 measured up,” Lutz wrote.
What is rather interesting is that Tesla, especially the Model 3, enjoys widespread support from its consumer base. A thorough study from Bloomberg which polled 5,000 Model 3 owners found that buyers of the all-electric sedan were extremely happy about their cars despite the occasional cosmetic issue. Almost 99% of Model 3 owners remarked that they would recommend the car to friends and family. These are remarkable results, and it speaks volumes about the disruption that Tesla is really bringing to the auto market.
But the company could do better. Adopting a more aggressive quality control system is one way to do this.
Tesla has grown at a pace that is almost unprecedented, transitioning from a maker of premium cars like the Model S and Model X to a mass-market automaker that produces the Model 3 and Model Y in but a few years. With this transition came challenges, as evidenced in the well-documented “production hell” that Tesla experienced during the initial Model 3 ramp. The company has since overcome its quality issues with the Model 3, but it appears that the same pattern is somewhat happening with the Model Y’s ramp. This has to improve.
Considering the company’s goals, from its 1-million-vehicle-per-year target and more importantly, its mission, Tesla must simply not tolerate errors such as releasing a vehicle without proper glass roof sealant to delivery centers. These errors must be beneath Tesla’s Fremont plant at this point, especially since cars from the company’s China factory, Giga Shanghai, have been heavily praised for their build quality, as per data from Chinese quality complaint company CheZhiWang.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
