News
Tesla vs The Big Three – An uneven contest
Elon Musk has said many times that his ultimate goal is to increase the adoption of electric vehicles, a goal that’s advanced with every EV that rolls off a dealer’s lot, even if it’s not a Tesla. “The biggest impact that Tesla will have is not the cars that we make ourselves, but the fact that we show that you can make compelling electric cars that people want to buy,” he said in Revenge of the Electric Car.
When it comes to making compelling electric cars, the company has succeeded spectacularly. But when it comes to inspiring the industry leaders to sell their own EVs in substantial numbers, that isn’t happening. Spokesmen for the major automakers (especially when speaking to the EV media) say things like, “the future is electric,” and “we intend to stay at the forefront of technology,” but when it comes to action, the playbook is: sell just enough EVs to satisfy government regulators, while keeping the focus on profitable trucks and SUVs.
A recent article in CleanTechnica takes a look at the lineup of plug-in models offered by the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Fiat Chrysler). The current roster consists of 3 pure electric vehicles (EVs) and 5 plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). Of the 3 EVs, only one, the Chevy Bolt, is truly an attractive option. The Fiat 500e is a compliance car that’s only available in two states, and Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne has asked the public not to buy it. The Ford Focus EV was introduced in 2011, and not updated until 2015 – it sold a grand total of 901 units in 2016.
However, the handwriting is on the garage wall. Plug-in vehicle sales have increased every month for the last 20 months, Tesla’s Model 3 has accumulated somewhere around 400,000 advance orders sight unseen, and battery prices are falling rapidly – several industry observers have predicted that EVs will reach cost parity with legacy vehicles in about 5 years. So, is Detroit raising its game, and preparing to expand its portfolio of electric models?
Fiat 500e [Credit: Car and Driver]
Well, sort of. In January, Ford announced that it plans to introduce 13 new electrified vehicles over the next five years. However, it offered specifics for only 7, and only one of these is an electric vehicle for the US market: “an all-new fully electric small SUV, coming by 2020, engineered to deliver an estimated range of at least 300 miles.” The other 6 include hybrids and an electric commercial van to be sold in Europe.
Ford representatives have made it clear that the company will be taking a gradual, go-slow approach to electrification. CleanTechnica’s Loren McDonald spoke with Brett Hinds, Ford’s Chief Engineer of Electrified Powertrain Systems, in early January, and was left with the impression that the automaker feels little urgency about upgrading its electric vehicles. When McDonald mentioned that industry experts expect EV ranges to increase to 300 miles in 5-7 years, and that battery charging rates are also expected to improve, he was told that “Ford just doesn’t see it that way.” (Yes, this directly contradicts Ford’s official announcement quoted above – the major automakers often make contradictory statements about their electrification plans.)
More recently, Ford replaced CEO Mark Fields with Jim Hackett, the head of its Smart Mobility division, a move that is believed to signal more emphasis on electric and autonomous vehicles. Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford confirmed this, telling Bloomberg in an interview that the CEO switch “is about EVs, and it’s about AVs [autonomous vehicles].” However, he seemed to acknowledge that the focus would remain on short-term profits (read: trucks). “Wherever we go, we have to make sure that the returns are great for our shareholders,” said Ford. When asked if he could foresee a future in which EVs would generate the kind of margins the company makes on the F-150 pickup, he thought silently for a moment, then changed the subject.
The voltage level is much higher over at GM, where the new Chevy Bolt has been earning rave reviews, and making respectable sales – it moved 1,566 units in May, #5 in the US plug-in ranking. However, the rollout has been slow – the Bolt went on sale in December 2016, but it still isn’t available in all 50 states.
“I wouldn’t necessarily call it a slow rollout; it was a phased rollout,” Chevrolet spokesman Jim Cain told Bloomberg. “In terms of sales, I think we’re right on plan.” And that’s kind of the point. As Elon Musk and others have pointed out, GM doesn’t seem to have any desire to sell the Bolt in mass-market quantities – it’s likely to limit production to 25,000 or so per year.
Ironically, the considerable media buzz around the Bolt seemed to disappear as soon as it actually went on the market. “The little car hasn’t captured any of Tesla’s Silicon Valley street cred, and it hasn’t whipped up any of the cultish following that still benefits the Toyota Prius,” writes Bloomberg’s Kyle Stock.
GM’s future electrification plans are vague. In February, GM CEO Mary Barra told CNET’s RoadShow that the Bolt platform will be the basis for a range of future EVs, but no details have been forthcoming.
And then there is Fiat Chrysler, the only automaker that has always been honest about its lack of interest in EVs. CEO Sergio Marchionne has said that the company loses about $14,000 on each unit of its Fiat 500e, and famously asked consumers not to buy it. The little electric runabout has garnered excellent reviews, can be leased for as little as $100 a month, and has been selling a surprising 600 or 700 per month, despite being available only in California and Oregon. Chrysler recently launched a plug-in hybrid version of its extremely popular Pacifica minivan, but it’s too early to tell how it will do.
One glaring problem is that the Big Three continue to put out lackluster designs for their electric cars. Diarmuid O’Connell, Tesla’s vice president of business development had said, “In essence, they’ve delivered little more than appliances. Now, appliances are useful. But… they tend to be unemotional.” Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, goes one step further, pointing out that an electric car shouldn’t “feel like a weird-mobile.”
On the other hand, the issue with the majors’ plug-in models has never been quality – almost all who’ve driven them, including this writer, agree that they are excellent automobiles. What remains puzzling is the companies’ willingness to market them. The automakers do almost no advertising for them, and most (not all) of their dealers do their utmost to steer customers away from them. Meanwhile, the companies continue to lobby to have fuel economy and emissions standards watered down.
A recent article in Plug-in Future, “How the Major Global Automobile Manufacturers Fell Asleep at the Wheel” notes a cling-to-the-past cultural dynamic. “Part of it comes down to mentality and culture. Senior executives in automobile companies tend to be [oftentimes] male mechanical engineers who… [enjoy] tinkering around with old cars and tractors. It’s what they do; it’s what they love and their careers have been about perfecting the highly complex internal combustion engine. And now you are telling them to get rid of that engine and replace it with a simple electric drive and a battery to power it. No wonder they are resistant… Changing such a culture is very difficult.”
So what gives? Is it short-sightedness? Fear of the future? Plain old stupidity? Not likely. Sure, they might be stuck in their ways but we’re talking about highly informed veterans of the auto business, who have access to all the same articles, statistics and reports that you and I do (much more, actually).
What’s really happening here is a phenomenon called The Innovator’s Dilemma (the title of a 1997 book by Clayton Christensen, and yes, I believe most auto industry execs have read it). Incumbent corporations can’t keep up with disruptive technological changes, because their shareholders demand quarterly profits. They can experiment with new technologies, but they can’t pursue them whole-heartedly, because that would mean cannibalizing their proven profit centers (to sell an electric car, you have to explain why it’s better than a gas car). Once a new technology improves to the point that it can offer similar capabilities (range, charging time) to the old at a similar price, the incumbents’ market can disappear surprisingly quickly – remember Kodak, Blockbuster, and Blackberry.
by Charles Morris
This story was originally published on EVANNEX
Elon Musk
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
The Boring Company’s Prufrock MB2 is commissioned and ready to mine beneath Nashville’s streets.
The Boring Company’s second tunnel boring machine, Prufrock MB2, is officially ready to dig in Nashville. The company confirmed the news on X, posting: “Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here. Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start? And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August!”
MB2 arrives with meaningful improvements over its predecessor. Lessons learned from the launch and operation of MB1 have already been applied to MB2 to improve efficiency and prepare the machine for launch.
Traditional tunnel boring machines operate in a stop-and-go cycle, digging roughly five feet, halt, erect precast concrete segments to line the tunnel wall, then resume. That repeated interruption is one of the main reasons conventional tunneling is slow and expensive. Prufrock is designed to install the tunnel liner simultaneously with mining, eliminating the need to stop every five feet. The machine also skips the need for excavated launch pits. Prufrock arrives on a truck, tilts down, and launches into the ground within 24 hours. And when the tunnel is complete, it emerges from the ground and drives to its next launch site on a trailer, eliminating the need for expensive cranes or pit excavation. The machine is also fully electric and runs with zero people in the tunnel during normal operations, controlled remotely from a surface operations center.
Prufrock-MB2 is ready to mine in Nashville! MB2 commissioning is complete, including the brief 11 rpm rotation shown here.
Will MB2 catch up to MB1, who had quite the head start?
And Prufrock-MB3 ships in August! pic.twitter.com/TTrMql2aRg
— The Boring Company (@boringcompany) June 17, 2026
It won’t be long before we hear of another major update on The Boring Company’s Music City Loop project – a planned underground transit network beneath Nashville that would move passengers in electric vehicles through a series of tunnels at highway speeds, and bypassing surface traffic entirely. Nashville was selected in part because of its strong rock conditions that suits the Prufrock machines well, and relatively less regulatory hurdles.
Progress has been steady on multiple fronts. All 37 permits and approvals required ahead of tunneling have been obtained, out of 45 total. Key wins include a fully executed TDOT tunnel permit authorizing 25 miles of tunnel, unanimous airport authority approval for a Nashville International Airport station, and the city’s first residential station agreement serving downtown tower residents.
With MB1 already tunneling, MB2 now commissioned, and MB3 shipping in August, Nashville is becoming something of a live proving ground for scaled tunnel boring. The broader ambition is not limited to one city. The Boring Company’s stated goal is to make underground transportation a practical alternative to surface roads across major metro areas. Nashville is one of many cities, including a successful Las Vegas tunnel system, where that idea is being put to the test at real speed.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
The Boring Company just doubled its tunneling power in Nashville
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
