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.
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
