News
Tesla’s more experienced rivals are strangely making way for the Model Y
Something strange is happening in the crossover EV segment. Despite beating the Tesla Model Y to the market, European all-electric SUVs appear to be making way for the Silicon Valley-made disruptor. This shows that while Tesla may be entering the lucrative crossover segment later than its rivals, it will be doing so with a vehicle that does not seem to have a lot of willing challengers.
It should be noted that the Model Y is designed to compete in the auto industry’s most cutthroat segment. Dominated by iconic, hyper-reliable vehicles like the Honda CR-V and the Toyota RAV-4, the crossover market is as lucrative as it is competitive. In a way, crossovers are usually bang-for-the-buck cars: larger and more spacious than sedans, and at a price point that does not break the bank.
The Model Y is all these things. With 75% of the vehicle being the same as the Model 3 sedan, the Model Y is coming to the market with all of Tesla’s experience in production and tech that it learned over the past years. Its performance is second to none, with its quickest variant hitting 60 mph in just 3.5 seconds. It’s also quite larger than its Model 3 siblings, as it’s capable of seating seven passengers instead of five (provided that the two people on the rear seats are small, of course).
There is no doubt that the Model Y will likely capture a lot of the EV market. Tesla is such a strong force in the EV segment that its entry in the crossover market may be embraced just as well, if not better, than the Model 3. If one were to prepare for the arrival of a competitor then, it would be a great idea to get the jump on the Model Y, beating it to the market and saturating Tesla’s target demographic before the vehicle gets released.
In this sense, Tesla’s rivals somewhat succeeded. Jaguar unveiled the I-PACE way before the wraps were taken off the Model Y. The same was true for the Audi e-tron 55. Each vehicle was released to the market before sightings of Model Y release candidates became the norm. Yet, despite the hype generated for each vehicle and their actual merits, none of these all-electric SUVs put a dent on the US’ all-electric market.
And it’s not for lack of recognition either. The Jaguar I-PACE was so well received that it literally got over 60 awards, making it one of the most highly-decorated production cars in history. The Audi e-tron got its own fair share of fans too. Consumer Reports’ initial impressions of the e-tron were highly-positive, with the organization praising the vehicle for its posh interior and its looks. CR Deputy Content Editor Jon Linkov even remarked that that contrary to the snap of acceleration in Tesla’s electric cars like the Model S, the Audi e-tron has “more of an elegant pull-away.”
Yet, despite these, both the I-PACE and the e-tron have seemingly hit a ceiling. Estimates point to Jaguar selling 2,418 I-Pace in the US this year through November, and Audi selling 4,623 e-tron SUVs. The Tesla Model 3? Around 111,650 in the same period, as per Bloomberg. These sales figures were so stark that recently, Mercedes-Benz announced that the EQC’s release in the US will be delayed by a year. In a way, it appears that two Model Y challengers failed against the Model 3, and one seemed to be all-too-willing to give way for the upcoming vehicle.
This may end up being a costly mistake, especially on Mercedes-Benz’s part. By the time the EQC arrives in the US, the Model Y will likely be on the roads. And if the Model 3’s dominance of the electric car segment is any indication, Tesla might very well be poised to come out on top once more. With Elon Musk and Tesla seemingly being more cautious, understated vehicles like the Model Y, which have so much potential but seemingly receive so little attention, are the most dangerous for competitors.
Granted, one could argue that the I-PACE, the e-tron, and the EQC are more of the more expensive Model X’s competitors considering their prices. While this is true, all three vehicles are actually closer in size to the Model Y than the Model X. Even their interior space are smaller than the X, making them more of a Model Y rival in terms of features and spaciousness.
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
