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.
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
