News
Tesla Van, revised Cybertruck, Tesla Boat — Here’s what could be coming
Tesla CEO Elon Musk confirmed during the company’s most recent Earnings Call on Wednesday that the automaker has “other products” being developed. Of course, Musk did not shed any detail on them, but based on what the company might need, and what others have said in the past, we have an idea of what they could be.
Musk said:
“I should also say that there — we have other products in development. We’re not going to announce them, obviously, but they’re very exciting. And I think it will blow people’s minds when they — when we reveal them. Tesla has the most exciting product road map of any company on earth by a long shot.”
A Tesla Van
A Tesla Van might be in the product roadmap, especially as Musk has hinted toward the idea on several occasions. In late 2018, Musk stated that it may be “interesting to work with Daimler/Mercedes on an electric Sprinter.”
In early 2021, Musk reiterated this point while speaking on the Q4 and Full Year 2020 Earnings Call, stating, “I think Tesla is definitely going to make an electric van at some point.”
While a Tesla Van might be a great idea for some personal applications, this would be something that would undoubtedly be used as a commercial vehicle. To this day, Sprinter vans are utilized by a variety of companies, from auto parts stores, to car detailing businesses. However, Tesla may find the biggest application for it internally.
(Credit: teslaguru2/Instagram)
Still utilizing some Ford Transit vans and some Model S and Model X vehicles, among others, for its Mobile Service fleet, Tesla would undoubtedly see several advantages from developing a van. For one, Tesla still struggles with Service, especially at physical locations. With the company delivering over 1.3 million cars last year and only growing its Store and Service locations by 120 this past year, or ten a month, Mobile Service could be the company’s key to improving its overall effectiveness.
The Mobile Service fleet grew 24 percent in 2022 compared to 2021, with 303 additional units added last year alone. However, this could likely increase further if Tesla developed and built its own Service vehicles, and let’s face it, they’d be much more cost-effective than leasing expensive Service locations.
A Tesla Van would also enter a market with relatively small amounts of competition. Currently, the E-Transit holds 73 percent of the segment, with 6,500 sales last year. Offering only 236 miles of range in its Custom offering, the E-Transit could be challenged by a Tesla Van.
A ‘More Traditional’ Pickup
This one is a bit of a long shot, but it could definitely still happen. Musk stated in an interview with Automotive News in 2020 that if the Tesla Cybertruck was a flop, the company could develop a more “traditional” pickup design.
“If it turns out nobody wants to buy a weird-looking truck, we’ll build a normal truck, no problem,” he said.
An artist’s render of the Tesla Pickup Truck. (Credit: Emre Husman)
With over a million pre-orders currently, it does not seem as if Tesla will do this, at least not any time in the near future. However, Chief Designer Franz von Holzhausen, who confirmed the Cybertruck design was finalized, did state Tesla never really puts a “pencils down” approach to the subject.
While the whole idea behind the Cybertruck was to break the mold of traditional pickup designs, some may want to continue with Tesla’s expertise in EVs while having something slightly more “normal.” But, in my estimation, don’t hold your breath.
A Tesla Boat
In regards to Tesla’s “ecological paradise,” Musk told us in September that the company filed to expand Gigafactory Texas from the southern portion to make way for this project. Visitors would be able to float down the Colorado River to downtown Austin.
But instead of Tesla Kayaks, Musk said the company could develop “electric Tesla boats with a retro-futuristic Victorian design.”
Musk has already hinted that the Cybertruck will likely be able to float and navigate through water, at least to an extent. However, it seems that a boat could be developed for at least the company’s internal projects, like the “ecological paradise” it plans to build outside of the Texas Gigafactory.
$25,000 Mass-Market Sedan
Heavily rumored as a Tesla project for several years, the $25,000 vehicle is the company’s key to mass affordability for many consumers.
When Chevrolet announced huge cuts on the Bolt EV and EUV last year, it became one of the most affordable EVs you can buy, and it was a car that was recognized as a major needle mover in terms of EV adoption simply because it showed consumers that you don’t have to spend upwards of $40,000 on an EV.
Credit: Alwinart/Twitter
However, the vehicle is not a rumor, and it’s definitely something Tesla is looking toward developing soon. Musk said last year:
“Well, we’re not currently working on the — on a $25,000 car. We — you know, at some point, we will, but we have enough on our plate right now, too much on our plate, frankly. So, you know, at some point, there will be.”
The $25,000 Tesla will likely be a part of the company’s next-gen platform, which will be discussed during the Investor Day on March 1. Musk once again confirmed during the Q4 and Full Year 2022 Earnings Call that this will be on the agenda for the event.
What won’t happen: a Tesla Motorcycle
While Tesla did unveil a Tesla CyberATV at the Cybertruck event in 2019, Musk said Tesla will never develop an electric motorcycle.
“I had a road bike until I was 17 and was almost killed by a truck,” Musk said. “So we’re not going to do motorcycles.”
The Bottom Line
Of course, we already know Tesla is developing a new version of the Model 3 within Project Highland. While this could be more of an internal revamp than anything, just as the Model S and Model X refreshes were, there are undoubtedly plenty of things in the works.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
