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
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
