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.
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
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has once again demonstrated strong customer focus by swiftly addressing and fully refunding a bizarre Supercharger pricing glitch that affected drivers in Atlantic Canada.
The issue surfaced earlier this month when the Tesla app began displaying dramatically inflated per-minute charging rates at stations in Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick.
One widely shared screenshot from a Charlottetown, PEI Supercharger showed rates reaching ridiculous levels: $6.00 per minute for the 180-250 kW tier, along with $3.57/min for 100-180 kW and $2.29/min for 60-100 kW.
Correct pricing will be going live at midnight tonight. All fees since July 2nd 2026 will be waived.
— Tesla Charging (@TeslaCharging) July 13, 2026
These figures were several times higher than normal Supercharger pricing in the region.
To put the error in perspective, charging at the highest incorrect rate would have been shockingly expensive.
At 250 kW, a common charging speed at Superchargers, a vehicle pulls roughly 4.17 kWh per minute. Under the glitch, a driver spending just 10 minutes at peak power would face a $60 bill. A typical 20- to 30-minute session to add meaningful range could have cost $120 to $180 or more, before any congestion fees.
Tesla gets another layer of gamification with Free Supercharging on the line
By comparison, standard Canadian Supercharger rates usually fall between $0.25 and $0.60 per kWh, making a similar session cost roughly $15–$40. The erroneous per-minute structure, combined with the inflated numbers, turned what should be a convenient stop into a potential financial shock.
The glitch appears to have started sometime around early July, and quickly drew attention on social media as owners questioned whether Tesla had implemented steep hidden increases. Some drivers even reported seeing $0 charges in their history, indicating broader billing confusion.
Tesla’s official Charging account on X stated that correct pricing would roll out at midnight on July 13, so the fix is already in effect. More importantly, the company announced it would waive all fees for every Supercharger session since July 2. This blanket waiver covers the entire affected period without requiring users to file individual claims, with automated refunds expected soon. The decision affects stations in PEI and nearby areas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
It’s a classy move, and rather than issuing partial credits or forcing owners to submit support tickets, Tesla simply absorbed the cost of the system error and made drivers whole. In an industry where hidden fees and bill disputes are common, Tesla’s proactive, no-questions-asked approach reinforces owner trust and highlights the company’s commitment to service excellence.
The incident, while disruptive for a short time, ultimately showcases Tesla’s ability to own mistakes and prioritize customer satisfaction. Atlantic Canada Tesla owners can now charge with confidence again, knowing the company has their back when technology glitches occur.
In an era of complex EV billing, such transparency and generosity are refreshing and set a positive example for the industry.
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
Elon Musk’s Texas ranch to showcase the lifelong work that changed the world
