News
Ford Mustang Mach-E GT’s 5-second full power limit is a sneaky way to promote ICE
Ford has not been shy about the idea that the Mustang Mach-E GT is its most fun electric vehicle to date. Quick and powerful, the Mach-E GT promised zero-emissions fun behind the wheel. But in recent tests from auto review site Edmunds, it appears that the premium all-electric crossover features a weakness — one that could end up arguing for the internal combustion engine.
Edmunds is hardly a pro-Tesla site, with reviewers dubbing vehicles like the Model S Plaid as a “waste of money.” Yet in its recent review, the auto review site admitted that it’s difficult to recommend Ford’s flagship electric crossover against the Tesla Model Y Performance, despite the Mustang Mach-E GT offering “superior handling, ride comfort, and braking” than its Silicon Valley-made counterpart.
This was because the Ford Mustang Mach-E GT, ultimately, could only access five consecutive seconds of full power. This severely hobbles the driving experience of the vehicle, as it prevents the Mach-E from performing to its full potential during hard driving scenarios. The Mach-E GT could not even match the Model Y Performance’s brutality on the track. This is quite a notable observation, as the Model Y Performance is the slowest “Performance” branded vehicle in Tesla’s current lineup.
Edmunds host Ryan Zummallen outlined the Mustang Mach-E GT’s five-second power limit while reviewing the vehicle on the track. “On the track, the Mach-E GT is a more complete package. Its handling, braking, and responsiveness feel cohesive and sharp in a way that makes this Model Y feel messy by comparison. However, we have a big problem. We noticed that the Mach-E GT was losing power at the tail end of its acceleration runs. Then it was having trouble putting down power out of certain corners. And then it was struggling to get power all over the track.
“So what gives? Well, it’s because the Mach-E GT only ever gets five consecutive seconds of full power, that’s according to Ford, in order to preserve the battery life. Unfortunately, that makes the GT really disappointing to drive after a while, if you’re trying to go fast or even just have a little fun on a track. I mean, is that supposed to be a GT model or not? And on top of that, a GT Performance model, at that price with a five-second limit, I mean, in our minds, that’s unacceptable,” the Edmunds host said.
Overall, one cannot help but agree with Edmunds’ take on the Mach-E GT’s five-second full power limit. The Mach-E GT is already the vehicle’s performance version, so it is already expected to not be the most efficient in terms of battery consumption. Ford has also touted the Mach-E as a true Mustang in every sense of the word, as the Mach-E GT is as quick as they come. Yet by putting an evident limiter on the vehicle, Ford seems to be saying that drivers who like to access real performance for maximum driving fun should still opt for a combustion-powered Mustang.
A Mustang powered by the internal combustion engine, after all, is known for being a fun car to drive, and it is also not known to limit its power. When the Mach-E was launched, it got tons of support from the EV community, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, yet the vehicle was widely panned by the Mustang community, many of whom refused to acknowledge the all-electric crossover as a proper Mustang. Quirks such as a five-second power limit on a flagship GT model would likely do very little to sway the classic Mustang crowd from their biases against the Mach-E.
Watch Edmunds’ review of the Ford Mustang Mach-E in the video below.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to tips@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
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
