The Tesla Model Y has been unveiled, and it will likely prove to be one of the electric car maker’s best-selling vehicles. Equipped with a robust set of features and offered at a reasonable price, the Model Y has the potential to disrupt the highly lucrative crossover SUV market the same way that its sibling, the Model 3, disrupted the passenger sedan segment in the US last year.
As the market prepares for the arrival of the Model Y, it becomes pertinent to compare it to other all-electric SUVs in the market. So far, there are two that are pretty close to the Model Y in size: the Audi e-tron and the Jaguar I-PACE. Faced with this competition, how does the Model Y stack up?
Tesla Model Y
The Model Y could be described as a larger, bulkier version of the Model 3. Similar to the electric sedan, the Tesla Model Y is offered in either RWD or AWD options. The vehicle starts at a $39,000 for the Standard Range version and goes all the way to $60,000 for the Performance variant. Just like Tesla’s other vehicles, the all-electric SUV is designed to go the distance, with the Standard version having 230 miles of range, the Long Range having 300 miles of range, and the Dual Motor AWD and Performance version having 280 miles of range per charge.
The Model Y is no slouch, as even the Standard version can sprint from 0-60 mph in 5.9 seconds. The range-topping Model Y Performance, with its dual motors, hits 60 in 3.5 seconds all the way to a top speed of 150 mph. Being based on the Model 3, the Model Y features a hyper-minimalistic interior, capped off by a stunning panoramic glass roof. A fully-loaded red multicoat red Model Y with Autopilot, Full Self-Driving, and the optional third-row seats (which would boost the car’s seating capacity to seven passengers), would set back buyers around $73,500.
A key advantage of the Model Y is its access to Tesla’s expansive and ever-growing Supercharger Network, allowing owners of the newly-released SUV to go on long road trips without any range anxiety. Being a derivative of the Model 3, the Model Y is also compatible with Tesla’s Supercharger V3 network, which has a maximum power output of 250 kW, or 1,000 miles per hour. Tesla estimates that Supercharger V3’s charging times will average around 15 minutes per vehicle.
Audi e-tron
The Audi e-tron debuted last year, at a time when the Model X was the only SUV in Tesla’s lineup. The size of the e-tron is more comparable with that of the Model Y though, making a comparison between the two vehicles a bit more appropriate. Price-wise, the e-tron is priced higher than the Model Y, costing just under $76,000 for the basic Premium Plus package, while the higher-end Prestige option starts at $81,800. With all the major upgrade boxes ticked on the Premium Plus offering, the e-tron would cost around $88,000.
Performance-wise, the e-tron falls behind the Model Y, with its 0-60 mph time of around 5 seconds and its top speed of 124 mph. Audi has been pretty secretive about the e-tron’s range, though the vehicle’s 95 kWh battery pack suggests that the SUV should have more than 200 miles of range per charge. Inside the vehicle, the e-tron is classic Audi, with multiple configurable screens and several creature comforts.
The Audi e-tron has some tricks up its sleeve when it comes to charging. The SUV could plug into a variety of chargers, including a 150 kW setup that is expected to charge the vehicle’s battery to 80% in just ~30 minutes. Such charging speeds are quite comparable to those of Tesla’s Supercharger V2 stations, which, as the Tesla community has proven over the years, is more than adequate for long trips.
Jaguar I-PACE
The I-PACE is priced at a premium compared to the recently unveiled Model Y, starting at around $70,000 for the S model all the way to the $86,000 HSE or “First Edition” trim. With all options checked, the I-PACE could breach the $100,000 barrier, thanks to rather expensive items like $500 floormats.
Just like the e-tron, the I-PACE falls a bit short of the Model Y’s specs, with its 0-60 mph time of 4.5 seconds, its top speed of t 124 mph, and its range of 234 miles per charge. The I-PACE has one edge over the Model Y though, in the form of its plush interior, which would delight car buyers looking for a more traditional vehicle with more conventional creature comforts and accents. The I-PACE is also available now, unlike the e-tron and the Model Y, which are yet to start rolling out to customers.
-
The Jaguar I-PACE actually falls behind the Model Y and the Audi e-tron in terms of its charging systems, as it is capable of charging up to 100 kW. This means that charging the vehicle’s 90 kWh battery to 80% (provided that a 100 kW fast charger is available) would take about 40 minutes.
Conclusion
Overall, each vehicle would likely be perfect for specific car buyers. Those looking for an electric SUV that is familiar and conventional would best pick up an I-PACE or an e-tron. Nevertheless, when it comes to bang-for-your-buck value and sheer performance specs, it is difficult to argue against the Model Y.
Tesla released Full Self-Driving version 14.3.6 last week, and after what was potentially one of the best FSD releases in v14.3.5, there has been a bit of a regression. While there are some bright spots, the changes made to v14.3.6 seem to have backtracked some behaviors.
Overall, it is hard to really complain about FSD in any sense; it has revolutionized how I travel literally anywhere. According to my self-driving app, the last time I went a day without using it was 59 days ago.
However, I think it’s also important to recognize when things are just plain bad with FSD. There are times it does truly mind-boggling things, and I’ll dive into those here. Additionally, I only had these issues on local roads, not on highways. Highway operation, generally, is always incredible other than the occasional complaint about speed or left lane camping.
With those things being said, my personal experience may not represent others’ experiences. A handful of people have said they have had a similar experience on v14.3.6, while others have said it is more than normal.
Turning Hesitancy, Inaccuracy
I’ve noticed more inaccuracy turning into multi-lane stretches of road than in any version I can remember. I’ve had at least three instances of FSD turning into a stretch of roadway that has two or more lanes, and not selecting a lane confidently as it has in past versions.
I think Tesla FSD v14.3.6 is a regression from previous .3 branches
This version in particular has been incredibly hesitant, jerky, and indecisive at times. There’s actually been two drives that I have decided to not used FSD for the remainder of the trip. These were local trips… pic.twitter.com/YobHDOKRS6
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 26, 2026
Instead, the car will drive over one of the dashed road lines, and the steering wheel will jerk back and forth before picking the lane. It should be said that it has always picked the correct lane when choosing based on the navigation, but it is still very indecisive. The steering wheel jerking is reminiscent of some of the later versions of v13.
I admit I really hate to see the steering wheel jerking come back. However, I think when Tesla releases v14.3.7, it won’t be present. When there are occurrences of it in FSD versions, it is usually resolved by the following release.
FSD Disregards Manual Turn Signals
This is my biggest bone to pick with FSD other than Navigation issues, but this one seems like it would be such an easy fix.
If Tesla is going to put the word “Supervised” on the end of “Full Self-Driving,” then when I tell the car to do something, it should do it. If I input an increase in speed by pressing the accelerator, the car will immediately respond. It does not disregard my input because it feels it is traveling at the right speed.
FSD should never disobey and turn off turn signals that the driver inputs. Trying to direct the car into the correct lane, I had initiated the left turn signal not once, not twice, but three times, with the car turning it off all three times and continuing in a lane that would end in just one block. The only solution at this point would be to zipper merge.
This goes back to the fact that self-driving’s biggest bottleneck might be rider preference. A zipper merge might have been more than reasonable, might have saved me time that I spent sitting through an additional light cycle, and might be something many drivers would do. I was in no hurry, I traditionally do not try to zipper merge because it feels inconsiderate, and lastly, the car should have just followed my input.
This caused me to disengage and drive manually the rest of the way home. Sometimes I just do not need FSD to try to pass every car it can at intersections.
Bird Braking is a Thing of the Past
The big complaint with recent versions of Full Self-Driving has been what we’ve coined as “bird braking,” which is when the car will brake suddenly as a bird flies past.
There have been zero issues with this so far in v14.3.6, which is an excellent improvement.
FSD Might Already Be Taking Note of Driver Preferences
Another thing I have noticed over the past few days is that v14.3.6 seems to already be taking my preferences with navigation into account.
This is something that is supposed to be rolling out with the Summer Update, but I have a hunch it’s already present and might have been included in this v14.3.6 build. On Friday, FSD pulled into an entrance to a local convenience store that it had never attempted to go into before.
Typically, I manually pull into this entrance because it avoids heavy cross traffic at the main entrance. FSD has always chosen that congested main entrance.
I don’t want to get anyone excited but my Tesla running FSD v14.3.6 just:
✅ Pulled into an entrance at my local Sheetz that I routinely pull into manually but FSD never has entered
✅ Pulled into my assigned parking space at home despite many other spots being vacant https://t.co/ZUShvknTWO pic.twitter.com/83O5a2S0eh
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
Additionally, FSD has pulled into my assigned parking spot at my townhouse community on multiple occasions with this release. This is something that used to happen ocassionally, but not consistently.
It also navigated back to the same convenience store last night, drove through crazy cars scrambling to gas pumps, navigated out of the parking lot correctly, drove me home, and, once again, parked in my assigned spot.
As previously stated, this release just seems to have a few things that need to be brought to Tesla’s attention, and also to make others who use FSD aware of some things that I’ve experienced. I look forward to the next release that will remedy these issues, just as Tesla has always done in the past.
Elon Musk’s massive Terafab project, which will be the first true conglomeration between each of his major entities, is set to get its final location soon, the CEO said on Tesla’s recent earnings call.
“The Terafab, we expect to announce a location soon, and provide more details about our plans in that regard. We’ll leave that to the product, the launch announcement rather than try to squeeze it into an earnings call,” Musk said last Wednesday.
Tesla Terafab set for launch: Inside the $20B AI chip factory that will reshape the auto industry
Terafab was announced by Musk back in March and was essentially a massive, vertically integrated semiconductor manufacturing project that would provide all the chips the three companies needed for their AI initiatives without needing third-party companies.
The plant will produce over 1 terawatt of AI compute each year, and will help back up projects like Optimus, Full Self-Driving, and other AI-based projects that Musk’s companies are working on.
In April, less than a month after the project was launched, Intel announced it would join the project, contributing manufacturing expertise and consulting to Terafab as a whole. Intel is one of three chip manufacturers that produce sub-5 nanometer chips at scale. TSMC and Samsung are the other two.
However, there was no true indication of where Terafab would end up, but most believe it will likely be somewhere in Texas. Business Insider has reported that SpaceX plans to build out Terafab in Grimes County, Texas, but this is unconfirmed.
Musk confirmed recently that it would not be on Giga Texas property, as it is simply too large.
The sheer scale of TERAFAB is going to be insane.
Elon said it wouldn’t be suitable for anywhere on Giga Texas property because it’s too big:
“We couldn’t possibly fit the Terafab on the GigaTexas campus. It will be far bigger than everything else combined there.
Several… pic.twitter.com/79GbhNNuf4
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) March 23, 2026
Terafab holds much of Musk’s grand ambitions for the future within its construct. It holds so much responsibility for the future and the biggest projects that Musk’s companies can imagine.
“I think this is a very big announcement and it deserves to have its own day in the spotlight and not be squeezed into an earnings call,” he said. “I do think Terafab is going to be an amazing initiative and a necessary one, and one without which we will be constrained in our ability to scale Optimus production, because we simply won’t have enough AI chips.”
He continued by stating that Terafab is necessary for scaling Optimus, which Musk said could be the biggest product of any kind of all time. “It’s crucial to solve that, and we’ll have to solve memory, logic, and packaging in order to scale Optimus.”
SpaceX performed a secret test on a specific portion of Starship with its recent 13th test flight last week, CEO Elon Musk revealed.
Starship’s 13th test flight took place last Friday, and in many aspects, it was one of the most overwhelmingly successful launches in the project’s history.
All of the mission objectives were met without incident, both the Super Heavy Booster and Ship managed to perform safe splashdowns in the Gulf of America and the Indian Ocean, respectively, and the deployment of Starlink satellites came and went without any complications.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2026
However, there was more on the agenda for SpaceX with Flight 13. Musk revealed an internal test of the ship’s heat shield tiles, as the space exploration company wanted to push them to the limits after previous issues.
Many noticed that Starship’s initial launch seemed to be more accelerated than normal, and that was not a mistake. Musk revealed that SpaceX decided to give Flight 13 an intentionally aggressive acceleration rate in an effort to test how well the tiles would remain attached to the ship:
This flight intentionally had much higher acceleration to test how well the heat shield tiles would remain attached at high dynamic pressure.
Test was successful.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 25, 2026
SpaceX had issues with some of the heat shield tiles remaining attached early on in the Starship program. The first six test flights presented some kind of anomaly with them, so the company’s big focus with them was to figure out a way to keep them intact through the duration of the flight.
Things truly improved as Flight 10 showed that ceramic tiles generally stayed attached to the ship far better due to refined attachment, as SpaceX utilized pins instead of adhesives. Flights 10 through 13 truly showed some clear progress with the heat shield tiles, and this latest test seems to be where some real progress was noticed, especially by Musk.
The 13th Starship launch last Friday was the second with Starship V3, SpaceX’s latest and greatest iteration of the spacecraft. Goals and ambitions are getting even grander as the project continues to progress. Musk has already hinted that SpaceX will likely try to catch Starship with Flight 14.
Tesla claims supplier is holding Cybertruck production hostage
Tesla Full Self-Driving v14.3.6 review: a rare regression, but some bright spots
