News
Audi e-tron will ‘give Tesla shoppers a run for their money,’ says Consumer Reports
When Consumer Reports published its first impressions of the Audi e-tron, the organization proved quite optimistic about the German carmaker’s all-electric SUV. In a recently uploaded video, Consumer Reports‘ Mike Quincy, Jon Linkov, and Jennifer Stockburger provided more insights about their experience with the e-tron, covering several aspects of the vehicle such as its design, its range, and how it stacks up in comparison to the Tesla Model X.
Consumer Reports auto journalist Mike Quincy praised the vehicle, noting that the Audi e-tron is the “nicest EV I’ve ever driven” to date. “I like it more than any of the Teslas we’ve driven,” he said. The e-tron also earned some applause for its design, such as its rather conventional interior that follows the theme of Audi’s other vehicles. The SUV’s spaciousness and quietness on the road were also lauded.
The driving dynamics of the vehicle also received some praise, with Director of Operations at the CR Auto Test Center Jennifer Stockburger noting that the SUV performs very well as soon as it’s in motion. Commenting further, Consumer Reports Deputy Content Editor Jon Linkov stated that contrary to the snap of acceleration found in Tesla’s electric cars like the Model S, the Audi e-tron has “more of an elegant pull-away.”
Consumer Reports did have a number of negative comments about the e-tron, particularly on its range and price. At $80,000, Quincy noted that the e-tron seems too expensive for a vehicle that features such a limited range, though it was mentioned that perhaps the SUV’s real-world range was being underestimated. Other quirks of the SUV, such as a gear shifter that is a magnet for wrong inputs, were also mentioned as points for improvement. Linkov, for his part, argued that perhaps the limited range of the e-tron would be a non-issue for its target demographic.
“It may be that the market for this doesn’t take family road trips. They may fly. Electric cars today still make a case, particularly $80,000 ones, for a second car. Now there are a lot of people out there, and there are stories online about people, they own a Chevy Bolt, or they own a Leaf, and that’s their only car, and they still run into those headaches of ‘my gosh, I have to stop and charge it’ and it certainly is a case today depending on what you want out of an electric car,” he said.
In conclusion, Consumer Reports remained quite optimistic about the e-tron’s chances on the market, particularly as it is coming from a well-known company that’s known for good quality vehicles. This, according to Stockburger, is something that Tesla buyers might not have yet. “Do I think it’s gonna give Tesla shoppers a run for their money? Oh yeah. And I think there’s a confidence to be had from a mainstream manufacturer building this car, one with a ton of history, good quality, and I think there might be some confidence in the e-tron that maybe you don’t have in a Tesla,” she said.
Curiously enough, several updates on the e-tron remain unsaid in Consumer Reports‘ recent video, such as the ongoing recall for the SUV due to a potential fire risk. The range challenges of the e-tron have also been documented extensively, even by foreign organizations such as nextmove from Germany; and so far, reviews of the SUV which concluded that the vehicle’s range is being underestimated seem to be quite scarce.
The comparisons with the Model X also seemed quite interesting, considering that there was no mention of the recent update that Tesla rolled out into the SUV, which increased its range to 325 miles per charge using a battery that is only 5 kWh larger than the pack utilized by the e-tron. Long trips in an all-electric car have been addressed for years by the Supercharger Network, which allows Tesla’s vehicles to recharge their batteries during quick stops on the road.
Watch Consumer Reports‘ discussion on its Audi e-tron first impressions in the video below.
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
