News
Jaguar I-PACE buyer shares ownership experience: range issues, regrets, Teslas, and why EV training matters
Umang Shah is the very definition of a “car guy.” Over his 20 years of car ownership, he has owned 19 vehicles of different styles and brands, from hot hatches to off-road-capable SUVs to high-performance station wagons. This is why, when premium electric cars with decent range and impressive performance started becoming more mainstream, Shah knew that the only question was which electric vehicle he will acquire.
If one were shopping for an electric car, one would likely look at Tesla’s offerings. For Shah, Teslas were incredibly impressive in terms of tech, and the Supercharger Network ensured that range anxiety would be a moot point, but their exterior design was just a bit too conservative. Interestingly, Top Gear host Chris Harris echoed these very same sentiments in a recent review of the Tesla Model 3 Performance.
Thus, after extensive research, Shah opted to purchase a top-of-the-line Jaguar I-PACE for around $90,000. The vehicle was critically acclaimed, having been praised by multitudes of reviewers since its release. It had also been sweeping awards left and right, such as the World Car Design of the Year and World Green Car of the Year awards this past April. The I-PACE was no Tesla in terms of tech, but it had all the accents of a premium automobile from a carmaker like Jaguar, from its luxurious cabin to its bold, aggressive design. Even its range, quoted by the EPA at 234 miles per charge, was decent.
For the I-PACE owner, everything that transpired when he walked into a Jaguar dealership in Edison, NJ, was a perfect example of how hindsight is always 20/20. When he was taking delivery of the vehicle, Shah noticed that the I-PACE was only showing 201 miles of range despite the battery being at 100%. Jaguar informed Shah that the range in the vehicle was “adaptive,” and that it would update over time as the crossover gets driven. Over the next 24 hours, the new EV owner drove his I-PACE, and it quickly became evident that the 201-mile range quoted in the vehicle during delivery might even be optimistic. The surprising scarcity of working fast chargers for the vehicle also tested the I-PACE owner’s patience.
Jaguar left a loaner and took in Shah’s I-PACE for repairs three days after the crossover’s delivery. Based on the I-PACE’s logs from its mobile app, Shah saw that the dealership’s staff charged the vehicle to 100% before going on an 89.5-mile trip, but by the end of the journey, the electric crossover only had 87 miles of range left. A few days after, Shah saw from his mobile app that his I-PACE had been driven for 3.9 miles, which caused a 14-mile drop in the vehicle’s remaining range. Things seemingly took a turn for the better, as the EV owner was informed by the Jaguar dealership a few days later that his crossover had been “patched” with an update related to an ongoing recall for the I-PACE’s brakes, and that it will be ready to be picked up the following day.
The dealership’s staff even added that the I-PACE was already charging in excess of 260-270 miles. Unfortunately, Shah received another call from the dealership right before he was scheduled to reclaim his I-PACE, informing him that the vehicle’s range issues have actually not been addressed. Looking at the crossover’s mobile app, Shah saw that his I-PACE had taken a 1.5-mile trip that ended up consuming 17 miles of range. At this point, the issue was escalated to Jaguar Land Rover corporate, and the I-PACE remained unusable. In a conversation with Teslarati, Shah stated that amidst his vehicle’s issues, it became very evident that Jaguar dealers were simply unprepared to handle an electric car like the I-PACE. They might have a network of dealers across the country, but with very little staff who actually know electric cars inside out, I-PACE owners could end up being left in limbo when issues arise.
Screenshots from the Jaguar I-PACE’s mobile app. (Credit: Umang Shah)
Shah was with his family when Teslarati spoke with him about his experiences with his Jaguar I-PACE, and during our conversation, the new EV owner sounded regretful. Shah sheepishly admitted that he chose the wrong car over a tried-and-tested EV brand like Tesla. With all the headaches he has developed due to his I-PACE’s range issues that Jaguar’s dealers simply can’t seem to fix, Shah stated that he would have been better off had he purchased the conservatively-styled Tesla Model X instead, since the larger SUV’s Long Range variant goes 325 miles per charge for $91,000 before incentives, and it has basic Autopilot as standard.
Shah is currently looking to get a refund for his I-PACE (or at least a replacement unit), and when asked if this experience has discouraged him from EVs as a whole, the car enthusiast stated that his next vehicle will most definitely still be electric. Though this time around, he would make sure that his EV will be a Tesla.
The experiences of Shah hint at one particular problem that could become tricky for veteran automakers amidst their electric vehicle strategies: releasing premium electric cars is one thing, but having a well-trained staff that knows the ins and outs of EVs and their technologies is another. Hopefully, carmakers such as Jaguar could improve in this metric, and other companies dipping their toes in the EV market like Mercedes-Benz, Audi, and Porsche, would adequately prepare their employees and dealers for the upcoming widespread adoption of electric transportation.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
