News
Tesla Model Y’s quiet cabin is a subtle, critical selling point for all EV buyers
When Tesla unveiled the Model 3 in the summer of 2017, the company had released its first affordable vehicle. The Model 3 had numerous selling points, though some first production vehicles were reported to exhibit a lot of road noise inside the cabin, especially at high speeds.
Model 3 owners looked for any number of ways to reduce the noise. These included aftermarket door seals, tire foam insulation, and other modifications. Later builds of the vehicle displayed an improved noise reduction system, as CEO Elon Musk had noted in October 2019 that cabin noise had been “significantly improved in current production” of the Model 3.
In a recent episode of Sandy Munro’s extensive Model Y teardown series, the automotive veteran took a look at the numerous improvements Tesla made to its electric crossover. While the Model Y is not a sedan like the Model 3, the two vehicles are effectively siblings as they share 75% of the same parts.
Tesla adopted several new strategies to keep the Model Y’s cabin quiet. According to Munro, the outer portion of the vehicle’s firewall was covered by a mat made of “lofted fiberglass.” Fiberglass is an excellent insulating material that is used within residential buildings and houses to maintain temperature. However, it is also useful for reducing sound due to its thick and dense nature.
The inside of the firewall, which faces inward toward the vehicle’s cabin is quite different. Tesla used polyurethane (PUR) and Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO). PUR is a material commonly used when soundproofing rooms and is usually shaped like an egg carton to deaden sound waves. TPO is traditionally utilized for roofing and uses a mixture of rubber, talc, glass, carbon fiber, and other materials to insulate heat and sound. It is also used to reduce cabin noise in cars, as its flexible nature allows it to be conformed to the twists and turns of a vehicle’s body.
Additionally, Tesla opted to use a series of pumpable and mastic sound deadener strips throughout the floorboard of the Model Y. These two materials can remove vibrations from the vehicle by stiffening the areas in the Model Y’s frame that are prone to excessive vibration. Both the pumpable and mastic sound deadeners were more frequently placed in the rear portion of the vehicle, where noise and vibrations are especially potent.
-
- Tesla Model Y Mastic Strip (Credit: MunroLive on YouTube)
-
- Tesla Model Y Pumpable Sound Deadener (Credit: MunroLive on YouTube)
Tesla’s installation of these elements provided a much quieter ride for passengers and drivers. Long drives on highways at speeds of 55 MPH or more can prove to be some of the noisiest driving conditions, regardless of whether one is driving an EV or a petrol-powered car. This is due to wind, tire friction with the road, and outdoor weather conditions. These noises are easier to notice in an electric car, since the lack of a working internal combustion engine pretty much amplifies other noises in the cabin.
Tesla seems to have set out to make the Model Y its quietest car yet, and it seems to have succeeded. This is reflected in the feedback of some Model 3 owners, such as YouTube host Brian Jenkins, who recently posted a video documenting his favorite features of the Model Y after 1,200 miles of driving. Jenkins notes the Model Y’s quiet ride is one of his favorite features. He added that he expected more cabin noise, but the Model Y’s cabin remained quiet. Prior to getting a Model Y, Jenkins drove a Model 3 that he fitted with noise reduction seals.
Interestingly enough, Tesla has released Joe Mode last year, a feature that reduces the audible alerts in the vehicle’s rear to prevent kids from waking up during nighttime trips. Coupled with the Model Y’s already-quiet cabin, features like Joe Mode will be extra effective. It can even be an additional selling point for the vehicle. Every parent out there who has attempted long road trips with kids would attest to the importance of a quiet cabin when the kids are asleep, after all.
Watch Sandy Munro’s breakdown of the Model Y’s cabin noise reduction below.
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
