News
Tesla’s pickup truck and Rivian’s R1T can topple the mighty Ford F-150
The mighty Ford F-150 might see a legitimate challenge in the near future, if the veteran automaker neglects to prepare adequately for the arrival of two all-electric pickup trucks on the market — the Tesla Truck and the Rivian R1T.
The disruption of battery-powered pickup trucks was highlighted in a note from Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas on Thursday. Addressing the firm’s investors, the analyst stated that an electric pickup successfully launched by a new player like Tesla or Rivian “could be a serious problem for the Detroit-based traditional automakers.” With the arrival of compelling vehicles, Jonas noted that experienced carmakers like Ford could lose the opportunity to gain a “first mover advantage” in the electric pickup market.
Promising Challengers
The Wall St analyst’s points hit the nail on the head, considering that the innate characteristics of electric vehicles such as instant torque and generous towing capacity are factors that are vital to the pickup truck market. The Rivian R1T, for example, is listed with a towing capacity of 11,000 pounds, though CEO RJ Scaringe noted in a recent interview that the truck could tow far beyond its official rating. Thanks to the R1T’s four electric motors, the truck is also able to hit 60 mph in just 3 seconds.
The Tesla Truck, on the other hand, has been mentioned several times by Elon Musk in recent months. Last year, Musk held a Twitter brainstorming session with his social media followers to list down features that are important for pickup truck owners. By the end of the session, Musk noted that the Tesla Truck would have two electric motors and dynamic suspension, a range of 400-500 miles per charge, four-wheel steering, a 240-volt connection for heavy-duty tools, and even an air compressor to run other equipment. Musk also noted that the vehicle could tow as much as 300,000 pounds.
Tesla’s Acid Test
Anyone skeptical of the potential disruption from an electric vehicle does not need to look very far. Over the past year, Tesla’s Model 3 midsize sedan all but shook the United States’ passenger car market, creeping up on ubiquitous vehicles like the Toyota Camry and dominating in revenue rankings. By the end of 2018, the Model 3 was the US’ best-selling luxury vehicle, despite being a sedan in a market that prefers SUVs and pickup trucks.
With a battery-powered pickup truck that is reasonably priced and well-equipped with features, carmakers such as Tesla and Rivian could challenge even the US auto industry’s biggest sellers, including the Ford F-150. One thing that would be a hindrance to this potential disruption, of course, would be the capability of electric car makers to scale production, especially considering the demand for pickups in the US. In this light, Rivian must still prove itself, since the production of the R1T is yet to begin. Tesla, on the other hand, is already learning the art of mass production, as shown by its growing pains with the Model 3 ramp.
A Way to Maintain the Status Quo
Despite the upcoming challenge and Wall Street’s recent warning, Ford does have a way to maintain the status quo in the pickup truck market. Last month, Jim Farley, Ford’s president of global markets, announced that the F-series would be going electric. Farley later added that the decision to adopt all-electric and hybrid power is a way to “future-proof” the company’s most successful vehicle line.
If recent sightings are any indication, it appears that Ford is at least testing an electric prototype of the F-150. As noted in a recent sighting, a camouflaged electric F-150 has been spotted charging at a station. The vehicle looked a lot like a regular truck, save for its charging port and its higher ride height, which appeared to be the result of batteries installed underneath the vehicle. Provided that Ford does not show some ill-timed hubris by giving the electric F-150 mediocre specs and range, the company could very well weather the storm of electric trucks coming its way.
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
