News
The Model Y and Gigafactory 3 heralds a faster, more profitable Tesla
Tesla’s second-quarter report and its succeeding earnings call provided updates on what could very well be two of the electric car maker’s most pertinent projects to date: the Model Y ramp and Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai, China. Based on Tesla’s recent reports, it appears that both initiatives are moving along at an impressive pace, perhaps even faster than initially expected.
Model Y
When Elon Musk unveiled the Model Y last March, he provided a rough timeline for the upcoming vehicle. During his presentation, Musk mentioned that the all-electric midsize SUV would start deliveries starting Fall 2020 for the Long Range, Dual Motor AWD, and Performance versions, and Spring 2021 for the Standard variant. This was quite conservative, considering that Musk has a reputation for setting extremely aggressive targets for the production of the company’s vehicles.
Since then, several reports have emerged which hinted at Model Y production being far less volatile and challenging than the Model 3’s manufacturing ramp, a task so difficult that Elon Musk candidly called the period as “production hell.” In the Q2 Update Letter, Tesla confirmed that preparations for Model Y production have begun in the Fremont factory. The company also mentioned that due to the overlap in the components of the Model Y and the Model 3, the company was able to “leverage existing manufacturing designs in the development of the Model Y production facilities.” This bodes well for the midsize SUV, considering that Tesla had rolled out several improvements to Model 3 production process over the years.
Several other hints have also emerged suggesting that Tesla will be ramping the Model Y with its best technologies available. Recent patent applications, for example, have revealed that Tesla is working on a new wiring architecture that will reduce the wires used in the Model Y to just 100 m per vehicle, a significant reduction from the 1.5 km currently being used for the Model 3. Another patent has also emerged showing the design for a mammoth casting machine, which was hinted at by Elon Musk during an appearance at the Ride the Lightning podcast last month. “When we get the big casting machine, it’ll go from 70 parts to 1 with a significant reduction in capital expenditure on all the robots to put those parts together,” Musk said.
Considering all the innovation that is being implemented for the Model Y, it appears that Tesla is doing all it can to ensure that the vehicle does not encounter delays with its rollout. In fact, with Fremont already being prepared for the Model Y, and with giant casting machines being designed specifically for the vehicle, it almost seems like Tesla is trying to start the manufacturing of the SUV earlier than expected. There’s a long time between today and Fall 2020, and that seems to be more than enough to work out the manufacturing of a vehicle that is, in essence, a taller, more spacious Model 3.
Gigafactory 3
Over in China, another understated Tesla project is taking shape. When Elon Musk attended Gigafactory 3’s groundbreaking ceremony back in January, he stated that initial production of the Model 3 in the facility would begin by the end of the year. This target timeframe was met with disdain and skepticism from critics, many of whom have noted that no car factory has ever been built in the speed that Musk wanted. Six months later, Gigafactory 3’s general assembly building is practically complete, and its interior is already being tooled. Footage from drone flyovers showed the rise of the factory, and images from Tesla’s Q2 Update Letter showed that some sections of the facility already have robots installed in them.
Quite interestingly, it is not Elon Musk that is providing ambitious timeframes for Gigafactory 3 anymore. Instead, it is Chinese government officials. Local reports, for example, have suggested that China is looking to start initial Model 3 production as early as September, with the facility ramping to an output of 150,000 vehicles per year early next year. Compared to Wall Street’s estimates, which currently suggest that Gigafactory 3 will produce around 35,000 to 40,000 vehicles in 2020, China’s goals for the facility are far more optimistic.
Gigafactory 3 has pretty much exceeded expectations since work in the facility entered overdrive. Just like the Model Y ramp, the key to Gigafactory 3 lies in the company’s innovations with Model 3 production. Tesla mentioned this in its Q2 Update Letter. “Gigafactory Shanghai continues to take shape, and in Q2 we started to move machinery into the facility for the first phase of production there. This will be a simplified, more cost-effective version of our Model 3 line with capacity of 150,000 units per year – the second generation of the Model 3 production process,” Tesla wrote.
There is no doubt that 2019 is turning out to be an incredibly challenging year for Tesla. Following the first quarter, which saw lower-than-expected vehicle deliveries, Tesla set new delivery records in the second quarter, only to end once more at a loss. Yet, together with this, the company also ended the quarter in more stable footing, as shown by its $5 billion in cash, the largest in its history. This was recently addressed by Baird analyst Ben Kallo, who noted that “back to the cash flow they generated during the quarter, there’s a couple of hundred million dollars, so this idea that they don’t make money is completely wrong, and the headline needs to change. There’s $5 billion in the balance sheet. They’re not going out of business.” Ultimately, the Model Y and Gigafactory 3 seem to be two projects that are heralding a new era for Tesla: one that is more mature, precise, and poised to disrupt at a scale that’s never seen before.
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
