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.
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 once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
