News
Tales from a Tesla Model S that hit 400,000 miles in 3 years
Tesloop, a Tesla-only intercity shuttle service for Southern California commuters, has reached another milestone with its Model S 90D. In a recent announcement, the company revealed that their Model S, dubbed eHawk, has passed the 400,000-mile mark, making it as one of the highest mileage Teslas in the world today.
eHawk entered service on July 2015, driving from city to city in Southern California and Nevada. By February 2016, the Model S 90D had logged its first 100,000 miles, and by August that year, the full-sized family sedan passed the 200,000-mile mark. In a recent blog post, Tesloop stated that roughly 90% of eHawk’s trips were driven using Autopilot, with Pilots (as the company refers to its drivers) only taking over active driving duties when needed. Tesloop’s Model S 90D currently travels an average of 17,000 miles per month. On the company’s recent post, Haydn Sonnad, Tesloop’s founder, expressed his optimism for the coming years.
“Vehicle connectivity is about to transform the car ownership and user experience. We are close to the point where increasingly sophisticated autonomous driving features and deep connectivity are coupled with electric drivetrains that last hundreds of thousands of miles, a whole new approach to mobility can be offered, that will transform the economics of car ownership and usage, while offering a greatly superior customer experience,” he said.
Over the past 3 years and through 400,000 miles on the road, eHawk has accumulated roughly $19,000 worth of maintenance costs, equating to about $0.05 per miles. This cost is broken down to $6,700 for general vehicle repairs and $12,200 for regularly scheduled maintenance. According to the company’s estimates, a Lincoln Town Car or a Mercedes-Benz GLS class would have accumulated maintenance costs of $88,500 ($0.22/mile) and $98,900 ($0.25/mile), respectively, had the vehicles been driven for 400,000 miles.
The Model S 90D’s high voltage (HV) battery unit was replaced twice under warranty since July 2015. The first battery HV battery replacement was at 194,000 miles, while the second was at 324,000 miles. Average battery degradation over the vehicle’s first 194,000 miles was around 6% with multiple Supercharger stops every day. Between 194,000 – 324,000 miles, the HV battery degradation was estimated at around 22%. According to Tesloop, this was likely due to the company’s practice of constantly charging eHawk to 95-100%, instead of Tesla’s recommended 90-95%. On its blog post, Tesloop shared Tesla’s reminder to the company after its first HV battery replacement.
“Found internal imbalance in HV battery due to consistent supercharging to 100% from a low state of charge (SOC) without any rest periods in between. HV battery has been approved to be replaced. Also recommend that customer does not Supercharge on a regular basis and does not charge to 100% on a regular basis. We also recommend that the customer use scheduled charging to start charge 3 hours after end of drive at low SOC.”
The interior of Tesloop’s Tesla Model S 90D after being in service for 400,000 miles. [Credit: Tesloop]
Apart from its HV battery, Tesloop’s Model S 90D also had its front drive unit replaced under warranty at 36,000 miles. No issues with the vehicle’s drive units have emerged since. The Tesla-exclusive shuttle service also opted to upgrade the rear seating of eHawk to the executive seat option for maximum passenger comfort. According to the company, the seats have held up well over the thousands of passengers the electric car has transported over the years.
Considering the endurance showcased by its Model S 90D, Tesloop estimates that eHawk should be able to last another 600,000 miles over the next five years. If the vehicle achieves this, it would be the first Tesla Model S to reach the 1 million-mile mark.
Tesloop currently operates a fleet of Model S and Model X vehicles. One of its Model X, a 90D named Rex, also achieved its own milestone last month, after it hit 300,000 miles on the road since being deployed. When the all-electric SUV reached the 300,000-mile mark, its battery degradation was estimated at roughly 10%. Since achieving its milestone, however, Tesla has changed the vehicle’s rear drive unit.
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.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
