The Kelley Blue Book (KBB) 2019 Best Resale Value Award Winners are in, and Tesla’s Model 3 has landed at the top of the electric vehicle category with a projected 69.3% resale value after 36 months and 48.7% after 60 months. Its SUV brethren, the Model X, achieved a worthy status of its own, placing 2nd in the same category at 56.7% (36 months) and 34.3% (60 months). While Tesla’s fleet of vehicles are high-value luxury cars, their ability to retain a large portion of their original selling price as used cars is yet another data point driving their desired position in the consumer market.
The recognition given by the long-trusted consumer automotive resource in its announcement of the award spoke highly of the vehicle’s appeal to buyers, something which played a role in its valuation: “The Tesla Model 3 has a cultural magic and desirability about it that made people willing to wait months and even years to own one. People don’t like Tesla Model 3s — they crave them,” noted KBB in a tweet. This sentiment from KBB as a 92-year veteran in car assessments, of course, adds yet another confirmation of something many Tesla owners and reservation holders already assumed to be true.
The @Tesla #Model3 has a cultural magic and desirability about it that made people willing to wait months and even years to own one — that's how you hold on to your resale value over time. #KBBBestResaleValue
— Kelley Blue Book (@KelleyBlueBook) January 24, 2019
Thanks to Tesla’s customer-driven design and development process, features such as class-leading range, a vast Supercharging network, over-the-air software updates, great-looking design, and overall technology serving convenient, practical, and entertainment purposes, the company’s two newest vehicles are handily standing out against competitors. In KBB’s overview page detailing the Model 3’s category win, more praise along these lines was offered: “For those who can afford it, the smallest Tesla offers usability, joyful road manners, and an intriguing glimpse of a gasoline-free future.” The vehicle’s 5-star safety rating from the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) in every category was also noted as a driving price point in a general overview page about the Model 3.
The annual KBB Best Resale Value Awards compares a variety of vehicle resale metrics over 36 and 60 month time frames and then sorts them into three categories: Best Brand/Luxury Brand (evaluating makers’ overall portfolio), Overall Top Ten Winners (best resale values in all categories), and Category Winners (24 categories covering every class, shape, and price). According to the KBB website detailing the award, the values are calculated based on several factors including vehicle specification and trim levels, sales data, market data, and segment competition, among others. While the general system is meant to provide a fair comparison, certain numbers are worth considering more broadly for a fuller picture of Tesla’s Model 3 and Model X in the market.
Given the chance to compete in categories that would fit outside of an electric vehicle-only comparison, the Model 3 would beat every other sedan by a large margin at the 36-month mark. The Best Mid-Size Car, Subaru Legacy, was given a 51.8% resale value at 36 months and 38.4% at 60 months. As Best Luxury Car, the Audi A7 came in at 47.3% and 32.3%, respectively. Compared to the gasoline-powered winner, Chevy Tahoe, in the Best Full-Size SUV category at 55% and 43%, the Model X would have prevailed at 56.7% and 34.3%.
Perhaps as more legacy auto manufacturers come over to the all-electric side, the categories will become more agnostic about vehicle power sources for awards.
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
