Plaintiffs say charging shuts down at the advertised 32-amp rate.
Judge pauses class action, sends owners’ claims to arbitration.
VinFast is in the spotlight again, this time for reasons it would rather avoid. The Vietnamese automaker now faces another lawsuit, adding a fresh speed bump to its already bumpy road. Owners in the United States claim that the VF 8 Plus AWD charges so slowly it can take a full 24 hours to replenish its battery.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the lawsuit represents customers who leased or purchased a VF 8 Plus AWD in the past four years.
Why So Slow?
The electric vehicles are supposed to charge at a rate of 6.6 kW or higher. Instead, these customers say that their VinFasts charge at under 2 kW. That’s closer to the speed of an original Nissan Leaf than it is to a modern EV.
The plaintiffs, Gil Swigi and Joseph Mizrahi, say that they were led to believe that they were getting standard Level 2 charging performance. VinFast allegedly advertised that its cars could charge at up to 32 amps.
When Mizrahi and Swigi tried that, they claimed the cars would shut down due to software defects. Their only recourse was to charge at 19 amps, which cut total charging speed by almost 40 percent.
To make matters worse, the shutdowns would allegedly happen in the middle of the night with regularity, meaning that owners would wake up to a nasty surprise.
Not only did their car have a problem, but that meant less range to do whatever they had planned for that day. According to Carcomplaints, VinFast attempted multiple repairs on both vehicles in question.
Only when the owners bought additional charging equipment did their cars start to charge at the claimed manufacturer speeds. That said, VinFast successfully argued that both owners agreed to arbitrate their differences. A judge granted that motion, and arbitration is set for February 20, 2026.
Lawsuit claims Model 3 doors failed to open after a fiery crash.
Witnesses tried rescuing the couple but couldn’t open the doors.
Complaint says Tesla sold cars with faulty door handle designs.
Another day brings another legal challenge for Tesla, this time centered on a tragic crash that once again raises questions about the company’s design choices.
The latest lawsuit claims that the electrically operated door handles of a 2018 Model 3 failed to function after a collision and subsequent fire, trapping one of the occupants inside and leading to her death.
It marks yet another serious concern for Tesla, one that could prove costly and push the automaker to reexamine how its vehicles handle emergency situations, particularly when power is lost.
Door Handles Under Scrutiny
Filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the complaint outlines a sequence of events. On January 7, 2023, Jeffrey Dennis was driving his Tesla Model 3 with his wife in Tacoma, Washington, when the car reportedly accelerated suddenly and struck a utility pole at the corner of South 56th and South Washington Streets.
Shortly after impact, the EV caught fire. It’s alleged that several witnesses tried to open the Tesla’s doors to rescue the couple, but were unable to do so because they failed to operate without battery power. The lawsuit says that some witnesses even tried to break the Model 3’s windows with a baseball bat, but it also failed.
First responders eventually managed to extract the pair, though Wendy Dennis succumbed to her injuries at the scene. Jeffrey Dennis suffered severe burns to his legs.
The complaint says the Model 3 has a “unique and defective door handle design” that prevented rescuers from freeing the couple. It is also alleged that Tesla knew about the defect with the door handle but failed to address it, and continued to market and sell the popular EV.
The lawsuit doesn’t stop at the door handles. It also claims that Tesla’s Automatic Emergency Braking system failed to activate as the vehicle sped toward the utility pole. In addition, it accuses the company of using “a highly explosive battery chemistry” despite the existence of safer, more practical, and less costly alternatives.
Jeffrey Dennis is seeking financial relief for the wrongful death of his wife and his long-term injuries, as well as compensatory damages and punitive damages under California law.
The owner sold nearly new $142K Lucid Gravity after 400 miles.
Broken workplace chargers and no home charger caused the issue.
The seller still loves the car and plans to return to EVs eventually.
It’s hard to argue that owning a vehicle with 1,070 horsepower (797 kW) wouldn’t be extremely fun. However, that excitement turns on its head when you realize that there’s nowhere to refuel, or rather in this case, recharge it.
That’s exactly what just happened to a Brooklyn-based Lucid Gravity Dream Edition buyer. After snatching this unique EV up brand new in September of 2025, he ended up selling it just 400 miles later for a huge loss.
The seller on Cars & Bids shared a photo of the window sticker for this luxury SUV, listing an MSRP of $141,550. When the hammer fell on his auction sale of the car, it brought just $123,000. That’s a painful $18,500 lesson for 400 miles of usage in a little over a month, amounting to $46.25 for every mile he put on the odometer.
Where Do You Plug In?
Why take such a big loss for a vehicle that the owner says is “an awesome car”? It all comes down to charging it up. For the owner, it was almost like buying a Hellcat and then realizing that the closest gas station is 220 miles away.
Cars&Bids
He says that his initial plan was to charge where he works but then one option after another fell apart until he had to take the loss we’re talking about here.
“I was planning to charge at work but the chargers at my work aren’t working and there is seemingly no plan to fix them. Since I don’t have a charger at home and can’t get one installed this became an unsolvable,” he said in response to a question about the situation.
He then went on to fault his living location, New York, more than anything else.
“I tried to find another solution but in NYC most chargers (all the ones convenient to me) were in parking garages where you had to pay exuberant [sic] prices to park in order to use the chargers. I live a busy life so just couldn’t find a workable solution,” he added.
It’s a little ironic that in a city as vast and densely packed as New York, famous for both its wealth and its gridlock, a high-end EV can still be this impractical. For now, he’s out, but he hasn’t sworn off electric power entirely. According to him, he’ll be back behind the wheel of another EV “as soon as [a solution] presents itself.”
A Rivian R1T owner faced a massive bill after a low-speed parking incident.
Insurance estimated $1.7K but later refused to pay the certified shop’s bill.
Owner paid out of pocket, fought insurance, and recovered only part of it.
Rivian owners take on a risk that many may not fully appreciate when they buy one of these trucks. It’s not just about the company being young, or its future still being written. Those are expected gambles.
The real hidden concern and surprise comes when something goes wrong, and not mechanically, but physically. Damage that would be a quick fix on a Ford, a Toyota or most other legacy carmakers can turn into a financial nightmare with a Rivian, sometimes severe enough to write off the vehicle altogether.
It’s becoming an increasingly common problem, and the ordeal one owner continues to face shows just how complicated it can get.
When Simple Damage Isn’t Simple
Back in May of this year, the employee of a Rivian R1T owner backed into his electric truck. The damage appeared quite straightforward in the rear quarter panel. However, this is a Rivian R1T, so “straightforward” doesn’t really apply in this case.
The rear quarter panel is part of one giant piece that actually includes the roof. In other words, fixing a dent in it, especially a large one, isn’t a simple job. We’ve seen instances of paintless dent repair (PDR) being a savior in some cases. This isn’t one of them.
The owner of the R1T says that his employee’s insurance company initially quoted just $1,700 for the repair. Considering that many of these situations end up in the five-figure range, he knew that was potentially problematic. To that end, he contacted Rivian, and things only got worse from there.
The True Cost of Rivian Repairs
The automaker explained that there was only one certified repair shop within 300 miles (about 480 km), and their estimate came in at a whopping $16,000. Given the huge gap, the owner started asking PDR shops for help, but none would touch the R1T.
That said, the owner decided to go ahead and go with the certified repair shop, hoping that the final bill would come in lower than the estimate. Instead, the shop found additional damage once the truck was in the building.
The total came to $22,000 after a seven-week repair process. The ordeal wasn’t even over after all that because insurance refused to pay that amount.
Instead, it offered $13,000 and said that the certified repair shop’s rates were excessive. Faced with either paying the $9k himself or entering arbitration that would delay pickup indefinitely, the owner paid the difference, retrieved the truck, and launched an appeal.
His letters were ignored. A second, more forceful letter outlining what he considered an unfair settlement? Also ignored. Only after filing a complaint with his state’s Secretary of State did the insurer finally respond, this time offering an additional $5,100 to make the issue go away.
The state recommended accepting the offer, and the owner did. “I really enjoy this truck, but this is bonkers,” he says. “I hope Rivian improves design to allow for less expensive repair costs for common dings.”
No doubt, plenty of other Rivian owners hope the same thing.
Delaware man broke into state offices and stole a Mustang Mach-E.
Suspect used a sewer lid to break in and later crashed the stolen EV.
Police used the EV’s GPS tracker to find it and the 29-year-old.
A 29-year-old in Delaware has been arrested over the convoluted theft of a state-owned Ford Mustang Mach-E, in a scene that we’d love to see recreated in a Hollywood film.
The man who has been identified by police as Isiah Worthy was arrested for allegedly stealing the EV after breaking into two state office buildings using a steel sewer door, seemingly unaware of how heavily surveilled government facilities often are.
Local law enforcement reports that at approximately 3:50 p.m., they were alerted to a burglar alarm triggered at 600 South Bar Road in Dover. Police soon discovered that a masked man had forced entry into the facility with a steel sewer lid and proceeded to damage property and steal money.
While investigating the break-in, police discovered the same thief had reportedly broken into the Office of Management and Budget – Fleet Services facility on the same property. Once again, the individual broke in using the sewer lid. While inside, he allegedly stole key fobs and drove off in a Ford Mustang Mach-E.
However, the suspect didn’t make a clean getaway and ended up hitting two parked cars while trying to flee the scene. He also ditched a bank bag filled with stolen money in the parking lot.
How Police Found Him
Police had no issue tracking down the 29-year-old. Unbeknownst to him, the Mustang Mach-E had a GPS tracker and was found abandoned on Carpenter’s Bridge Road. Police scoped the area and found a man matching the suspect’s description walking along a nearby road. They arrested him and searched him, finding additional money he had stolen.
Isiah Worthy has been arrested on two counts of burglary in the third degree, theft of a motor vehicle, possession of burglary tools or instruments, wearing a disguise during the commission of a felony, theft under $1,500, and three counts of criminal mischief.
California judge ruled Tesla workers can’t sue as a class for bias.
Many plaintiffs reportedly can’t afford to miss work to testify.
Lawyers warn Tesla may now face hundreds of individual lawsuits.
Tesla has long been familiar with the courtroom, especially when it comes to class-action lawsuits in the United States. Over the years, the company has paid out millions to settle various cases, but this week brought a rare turn of fortune for the EV maker.
A California state judge has ruled that a group of African American factory workers cannot sue Tesla as a class over alleged racial discrimination, handing the company a temporary reprieve in a high-profile case that’s been unfolding for years.
What Changed in Court?
The lawsuit, originally filed by former assembly-line worker Marcus Vaughn, had claimed that Black employees at Tesla’s plant in Fremont, California, were subjected to racial discrimination that included slurs directed at them and nooses hung at their workstations.
Initially certified as a class action in 2024, the case was scheduled to go to trial in April 2026. However, earlier this week, California Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon said the 2017 lawsuit can no longer proceed as a class action, noting that many of the 200 workers randomly selected to testify at trial have been unwilling to do so.
As such, Borkon says he can no longer trust that the experiences of a smaller selection of workers can be applied to the entire class.
According to one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, Lawrence Organ, many of those named in the class-action are low-income workers who cannot afford to miss work and testify in the case.
More Lawsuits Could Come
But Tesla is still in hot water. While the class action hasn’t been certified, the plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel, Bryan J. Schwartz, says lawyers will pursue hundreds of individual lawsuits. So far, more than 500 have been filed, and by the time it’s all said and done, more than 900 separate lawsuits alleging racial discrimination could be filed against Tesla.
“Tesla has jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire with this decertification, because they are now facing hundreds of victims of race harassment seeking damages in their own suits,” Schwartz told KQED.
Ioniq 5 and 5 N need official software to replace rear pads safely.
Hyundai defends the system, citing safety and secure service access.
Right-to-repair advocates say it limits owners’ maintenance rights.
Maintaining your own car has long been a badge of pride for some and a financial necessity for many others. Swapping fluids, filters, or brake pads is part of the standard weekend maintenance ritual for countless drivers.
But for one Hyundai Ioniq 5 N owner, that sense of self-reliance recently hit a wall, or more precisely, a brake caliper. He discovered that replacing the rear pads on his EV wasn’t as simple as it used to be. Now, Hyundai has responded.
It might seem odd that someone has already burned through their rear pads, especially on an EV, but it happened because the owner drove this car the way Hyundai wants owners to: hard and on the track.
When he tried to replace these pads, he learned that he needed to retract the electronic parking brake. That’s where this easy DIY job took a scary turn.
One way to retract the brake is to use Hyundai’s Global Dynamic System (GDS). That software and the hardware that goes with it can cost almost $6,000, as we’ve seen online. Don’t worry, though, there’s another option called the J2534 Diagnostic Tool, which Hyundai supports, as seen in an official document discovered by TheDrive.
According to the owner, Redditor u/SoultronicPear, the software costs $60 a week (or less on average for longer time periods) and requires the use of a J2534 adapter that can be found for around $2,000.
Hyundai currently approves only three options for this tool: the CarDAQ Plus 3, Bosch’s MTS 6531 and DG Technologies’ d-briDGe PRO, adding that, “under no circumstances do we recommend the use of a non-approved J2534 device”. So be warned.
Credentials Required
More importantly, beyond that, using the tool requires special National Automotive Service Task Force (NASTF) authentication and a constant internet connection.
But here’s the kicker. Only certified repair shops or repair businesses are supposed to get access to that software. NASTF told the owner that “NASTF credentials are for use by qualified technicians, mechanics or locksmiths working in businesses providing repair or replacement services.”
Hyundai Speaks Up
Before publishing our first coverage of this issue, we reached out to Hyundai for comment. After the story went live, the automaker responded with the following statement to Carscoops:
“Hyundai is committed to supporting both our dealer network and independent repair facilities with safe, secure, and accessible service solutions. For vehicles equipped with electronic parking brakes, including the Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 5 N, the official repair procedure requires placing the rear calipers in service mode using either our Global Diagnostic System (GDS) or the J2534 application.
This ensures proper functionality and customer safety. Hyundai recently expanded access through an update to our J2534 application, enabling aftermarket users to perform functions previously restricted by the GDS secure gateway.
While authentication through NASTF is required for sensitive operations, this step helps maintain security and accountability. Our official dealer tool (GDS) is also available for purchase by anyone. Hyundai is actively exploring ways to make routine maintenance easier for all customers while upholding safety standards.
We appreciate the interest in DIY repairs and will continue working toward solutions that balance convenience with security.”
Seeking more detail, we pushed Hyundai to clarify whether a skilled owner could realistically do the job at home. The company followed up with this explanation:
“DIYers can replace brake pads on the Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Ioniq 5 N, but it requires specific steps and tools. Because these vehicles use electronic parking brakes, the rear calipers must be placed in service mode using either Hyundai’s Global Diagnostic System (GDS) or the J2534 application with a compatible pass-through device.
Both tools are publicly available, though GDS is more expensive and J2534 requires NASTF authentication for secure functions. Without these tools, the job cannot be done safely, as manual retraction could damage components.
Hyundai is not restricting DIY repairs, in fact, recent updates have expanded access, and we continue to explore ways to make routine maintenance easier while maintaining safety and security.”
So, yes, it can be done. But unless you already own the specialized tools or have deep pockets, the process can cost about as much as a tired old hatchback from the classifieds.
For now, at least until a cheaper workaround surfaces (we’re looking into it, so stay tuned), the Ioniq 5 N’s rear brakes may remain one of those maintenance jobs probably best left to the professionals.
Ioniq 5 N owner says Hyundai’s software blocks brake pad changes.
Access reportedly requires costly tools, a business login, and more.
The story raises new concerns about Right to Repair in modern EVs.
Automotive enthusiasts aren’t the only ones who enjoy getting their hands dirty. Many regular drivers tackle oil changes, swap air filters, or fit new brake pads without a second thought. These are the sorts of jobs that make you feel connected to your car, a small ritual of maintenance and pride.
But every so often, a manufacturer decides to make things harder than they need to be. I once had to drop an entire subframe on my BMW just to replace oxygen sensors, an experience that left me wondering whether the engineers had ever tried it themselves.
It’s rare to see a mainstream brand like Hyundai put similar hurdles on its customers when it comes to repairs. However, according to one owner, the brand isn’t just making a simple fix hard; it’s straight up declaring war on his (and your) right to repair his own car.
Is Hyundai Denying Right to Repair?
Two recent posts on Reddit’s r/Ioniq5Ncommunity have ignited a fierce debate. There, an owner claims Hyundai has drawn the battle lines. He’d set out to replace his rear brake pads, something he says he’s done countless times before on other vehicles, but soon discovered the automaker’s diagnostic tools had other plans.
According to the post, Hyundai’s digital systems effectively lock out anyone who isn’t a certified technician from performing even basic maintenance.
The rear brake pads are affected by the electric parking brake. To replace them, one must disengage the brake and get it to retract completely, otherwise, the new pads won’t fit. In addition, the car needs a diagnostic tool to recalibrate the motor on how far to move with the new pads in place.
In other words, even if you could manually disengage the parking brake, the car would still need calibration to work properly.
The only way to accomplish this is allegedly to use Hyundai’s J2534 Diagnostic Tool, a Windows-based application available only through the automaker’s tech info portal.
The owner says the software requires a $60 weekly subscription, a $2,000+ approved hardware adapter, and a constant internet connection for authentication. Even then, it reportedly doesn’t work properly on newer models like the 2025 Ioniq 5 N.
No DIYers, Please – Only Pros
“I broke down and bought the subscription and special adapter,” the owner wrote. “Guess what? It didn’t work.” Only later did they find out why. “My blood is boiling at the moment. NASTF has blocked my account, saying “DIYers are not permitted access.”
They included a photo of a message from NASTF that says in part, “Please provide your business name and 9-digit Federal Employer Identification Number. DIYers are not permitted access.”
The irony, the poster points out, is that Hyundai dealers don’t even use this Windows tool. They reportedly have access to an entirely different Android-based software suite that works seamlessly.
While this all sounds like a bureaucratic mess, the underlying issue raises serious questions about Right to Repair access in the EV era. For decades, enthusiasts and independent mechanics have fought for access to diagnostic tools and repair data that manufacturers often guard tightly.
But when basic wear items like brake pads require proprietary authentication, the argument takes on a new urgency.
Has Hyundai Gone Too Far?
Nothing about this setup sounds reasonable. Replacing brake pads is as fundamental as car maintenance gets, yet Hyundai’s system allegedly makes it feel like breaking into Fort Knox.
If that’s true, the automaker has some serious rethinking to do because locking out the people who care most about maintaining their vehicles isn’t a good long-term strategy.
I have personally considered buying an Ioniq 5 and a Kia EV6, but will avoid both until this sort of thing is doable for folks like me. Hyundai tells us that it’s looking into the situation and will report back once it has more information.
A Lucid Air lessee was charged thousands for small cosmetic damages.
Most expensive part needed was a new right taillight due to a tiny crack.
Bank of America reportedly uses third-party inspectors for lease returns.
It seems Lucid just can’t stop tripping over its own shoelaces when it comes to end-of-lease charges. What began as a few isolated complaints has grown into a steady chorus of frustration, as more customers share stories online about the surprisingly steep bills arriving when their leases wrap up.
The latest example might be the most egregious we’ve seen so far, and cases like this are already pushing some customers to abandon plans for leasing a Lucid altogether.
Mounting Lease Complaints
As we’ve seen in several recent instances, the first charge this customer faced was for a front bumper replacement. According to the inspector’s report, when the Air was returned, 10 small rock chips, a one-inch crack, and a one-inch scratch were deemed enough to justify replacing the entire bumper. The bill came in at $2,400.
However, this isn’t the most ridiculous charge. The owner notes that the right taillight had a small hairline crack along a glue line. They mentioned that the crack isn’t noticeable unless you zoom in, and that it’s so small it doesn’t even allow for any water ingress. Despite this, they’ve been charged $4,900 for a replacement.
The lessee was also billed $100 for minor damage to the left taillight, which seems inconsistent given the note that the entire unit would be replaced, something that can’t reasonably be done for that amount. Completing the tally was a $200 repair for a seven-inch scrape on the left front wheel.
The automaker’s leasing division, Lucid Financial Services, partners with Bank of America, which is believed to contract independent inspection firms to evaluate vehicles when leases conclude.
The Backlash Builds
Stories like this are taking a toll on Lucid’s image. On Reddit, one user said they had planned to switch from a Rivian to a Lucid when their current lease ended but changed their mind after seeing how these charges were handled. They added that they’d only reconsider “if Lucid get their act together.”
Another commenter said they canceled their Gravity order “100% because of” the excessive end-of-lease fees.
What Lucid Has To Say
It appears Lucid is aware of growing customer discontent. In an email recently sent to a leasing customer and shared to Carscoops, the car manufacturer acknowledged the issues and clarified what end-of-lease charges are appropriate:
“At Lucid Motors, we strive to deliver an exceptional experience at every stage of ownership, including the conclusion of your lease. We understand that some customers have encountered concerns or confusion during the lease-return process, and we want to acknowledge those experiences directly,” the letter reads.
“We sincerely apologize for any frustration or inconvenience you may have experienced. Your feedback has made it clear that, in some cases, our communication, inspection, and billing processes did not meet the standards of transparency and fairness that we hold ourselves to.
“Lucid is currently reviewing all recent lease-end charges to ensure they are accurate, appropriate, and consistent with our published policies. We are also working closely with our finance and inspection partners to improve clarity in inspection reports, final billing, and the overall return experience.
“In addition to these measures, please note that underbody plate scratches and any scratches smaller than 3.5 inches on the body of the vehicle are not subject to charges. We have also eliminated charges for wheel scrapes that are less than 3.5 inches, and reduced charges for wheel scrapes between 3.5 inches and 12 inches to $200. Additionally, there will be no charges for any interior stain that is less than 3.5 inches.
“If you believe that a charge you received may be inaccurate or would like to request a review, please contact Lucid Financial Services at 1-833-423-0369.
“Thank you for being part of the Lucid community and for giving us the opportunity to make this right. Your trust and satisfaction are of the utmost importance to us.”
While Lucid’s acknowledgment and policy adjustments suggest an attempt to regain trust, the lasting effect will likely depend on whether future lease customers see tangible change rather than another round of apologies.
The BMW sedan hit the Cybertruck, pushing it into an 18-wheeler.
Police are investigating if the BMW driver was impaired that night.
More than 230 people were injured in wrong-way crashes last year.
Crashes on Houston’s busy freeways are an unfortunate reality of city life, and one earlier this week proved especially tragic. The driver of a BMW was killed, and the driver of a Tesla Cybertruck died in hospital after the two vehicles collided in Houston, Texas.
Shockingly, police say the BMW’s driver had mistakenly entered the freeway, traveling the wrong way after driving down an exit ramp and heading westbound in the eastbound lanes.
The crash occurred around midnight on October 28 along the I-10 Katy Freeway. According to police, the BMW, whose specific model hasn’t been identified, slammed into the Cybertruck and burst into flames almost instantly. The force of the impact also pushed the Tesla into an 18-wheeler.
Initially, it was only the driver of the BMW who was declared dead on the scene, and the driver of the Cybertruck was taken to a nearby hospital in critical condition. Sadly, the Tesla driver succumbed to their injuries.
Houston Police Department Sgt. Rebecca Dallas told KHOU that the BMW driver had entered the freeway in the opposite direction, ignoring multiple Do Not Enter and Wrong Way signs along the ramp.
Investigators are expected to conduct an autopsy of the BMW driver to see if they were impaired at the time of the collision. The name of the driver who caused the crash hasn’t been released. However, the driver of the Cybertruck has been confirmed as a 38-year-old father of two young children.
Accidents Like This Are Far Too Common
Accidents like this are far from rare. More than 1100 wrong-way fatalities have been recorded across Harris County in the past decade, and last year alone, 233 people were injured in similar incidents throughout the area. Clearly, something needs to be done to reduce these numbers.
Local authorities may need to explore a combination of measures, from adding more signage to exit ramps to enhancing driver education. Small changes could go a long way toward preventing future tragedies on Houston’s highways.
Model Y driver claims he had Autopilot engaged and fell asleep.
Police found a loaded pistol without a valid owner’s identification.
The 43-year-old was arrested and charged with several offenses.
A Tesla driver in Illinois has been arrested after plowing into the rear of a Ford Explorer police cruiser that had stopped for a traffic investigation.
However, this was more than a simple case of a distracted driver rear-ending another motorist, as the Tesla owner told police that the vehicle’s Autopilot system was engaged and that he had fallen asleep behind the wheel.
Local authorities say a 2022 Tesla Model Y caused the crash and shared images of the crumpled cruiser on Facebook. They show that the impact has caved in the SUV’s rear end and that both taillights have been knocked out of position.
In all likelihood, some damage has also been done to the frame, and there’s a good chance the Ford could be declared a complete write-off.
Autopilot or Absent Driver?
The South Barrington Police Department says the squad car was pulled over to the shoulder with its emergency lights flashing when the Tesla plowed into the back of it. The driver told officers he had activated Autopilot, dozed off, and didn’t wake up in time to react.
Two officers and the driver were taken to Ascension St. Alexius Medical Center in Hoffman Estates. All three sustained non-life-threatening injuries and were later released.
Driver Arrested and Charged
To make matters worse for the 43-year-old driver, he was found to be carrying a loaded handgun, despite not having a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification card. As a result, he was reportedly arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm.
He was also cited for failing to yield a full lane or reduce speed when approaching an emergency vehicle. The Tesla owner was taken to Cook County Circuit Court, where he’s scheduled to appear on December 3.
If the driver did indeed fall asleep with Autopilot engaged, it could raise concerns about the effectiveness of Tesla’s driver monitoring system.
The electric carmaker will likely send engineers out to analyze the Model Y and determine whether the driver-assistance system was enabled at the time of the collision and if its warning systems functioned as they should have.
Rivian will pay to settle a lawsuit over 2022 price hikes.
Suit claims it misled investors about costs before its IPO.
Deal covers Class A shareholders from 2021 to early 2022.
For Rivian’s earliest customers, timing proved to be an expensive lesson. In early 2022, the young EV maker frustrated reservation holders by announcing steep price hikes for the R1T pickup and R1S SUV just before their launch. As it turns out, that decision came with a hefty price tag of its own.
This week, Rivian confirmed it would pay $250 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed shortly after those price increases were made public.
In March 2022, Rivian revealed that prices for the R1T would climb from $67,500 to $79,500, while the R1S would rise from $70,000 to $84,500. Price adjustments aren’t unusual in the auto industry, but few companies raise figures that sharply, Tesla’s occasional curveballs aside.
The real misstep came when Rivian initially applied the new prices to existing reservations. That move hit early adopters who had placed their deposits months earlier the hardest, and it didn’t sit well with them.
Rivian reversed course within days, sparing existing customers from the higher prices and limiting the increases to new buyers. But the damage was done.
Soon after, a lawsuit accused the company of including misleading statements and cost estimates in filings made before its 2021 IPO about the true expenses involved in producing the R1 lineup.
Now, Rivian has agreed to settle the case. The company will pay $250 million in total, with $67 million covered through its directors’ and officers’ liability insurance, and the remaining $183 million drawn from its cash reserves. The agreement still awaits final approval from the court.
Rivian maintains that it denies all allegations and states the settlement “is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing.”
Anyone who acquired Rivian Class A common stock between November 10, 2021, and March 10, 2022, qualifies as part of the settlement group.
The settlement comes at the worst possible time for the car manufacturer. While it had $4.8 billion in cash and equivalents at the end of June, it needs all the money it can get to successfully launch the mid-size R2, which could prove to be a make-or-break moment for the automaker.
Lucid owner charged nearly $4,000 for minor scratches and a single wheel.
Charges increased the lease’s effective cost by roughly $200 each month.
Similar complaints accuse Lucid and Bank of America of unfair lease charges.
Lucid has come under fire in the past year for hitting customers with unexpected charges at the end of their leases, often for tiny areas of damage. What began as a few scattered complaints has grown into a avalanche, with more and more owners coming forward to share similar experiences online.
It’s worth noting that Lucid’s leasing arm, Lucid Financial Services, operates in partnership with Bank of America. The bank apparently employs independent inspection firms to assess vehicles when leases end, which adds another layer between Lucid and the customer.
Not too long after we brought you the story of one Lucid Air lessee being charged $2,400 for underbody damage, another lessee has taken to social media to describe their dismay after receiving an even heftier bill.
According to a post on Reddit, they scored a decent deal on an 18-month leases for an Air, but were shocked to be charged $3,800 at the end of the lease for what Lucid describes as “Excess Wear.”
The first charge, $300, makes sense because one of the key fobs was missing. Then came the single biggest of them all: $2,400 for a damaged front bumper. According to Lucid’s inspector, the bumper had two scratches, one six-inch and one five-inch.
Interestingly, the lower front bumper cover has a pair of 15-inch scratches but will be replaced free of charge. That’s the same part a separate lessee damaged recently and was charged $2,400 for.
Then there are the wheels. Lucid spotted a four-inch area of curb rash on the left front wheel and charged $200 to repair it. It then noticed 19 inches worth of curb rash on the right rear wheel, but rather than repairing it, charged $900 for a replacement.
Paint Chips Are Fine, But Not Curb Rash
On the bright side, the company appears to have accepted some areas of wear and tear on the cover. For example, there are some minor chips on the hood and front cowl and a small dent on the left front door that it hasn’t charged the customer for.
Lucid has offered some compelling leasing deals for the Air, but factoring in the end-of-lease charges, this customer saw their monthly costs effectively increase by $200.
Understandably, people on Reddit weren’t impressed by this incident. “Absolutely crazy! This is equivalent to going to a restaurant and charging for every salt grain added to the dish,” one person wrote.
Another chimed in with their own experience: “I’ve had three Maserati leases, one Ghibli, two GranTurismos that I know Ally/Chase lost a bunch of money from… scrapped them and curbed the wheel and even returned with a crack in the tail light, zero charge and even got my security deposit back on each one!”
If you’ve leased a Lucid yourself, we’d like to hear from you. Did your experience line up with these reports, or was the process smooth from start to finish? Share your story in the comments or reach out to us directly.
BYD stored more than 1,600 cars at Jamberoo Action Park without approval.
Kiama Council states that the water park can’t legally operate as a car storage facility.
BYD’s rise in Australia has been swift, its local debut with the Atto 3 only a couple of years behind it. Since then, the brand has expanded into a full lineup that now includes the Shark 6 among several others, with more launches still to come this year.
However, recent events suggest the momentum may be getting ahead of itself. That’s because BYD has reportedly been caught storing vehicles illegally at a New South Wales water park.
Where Are All These Cars Coming From?
More than 1,600 BYD vehicles have been sitting in parking lots at Jamberoo Action Park, about 90 minutes south of Sydney.
The water park, closed during the winter, is reopening this week as the local summer approaches, yet its carparks have quietly been filling up with BYD models, including the Shark 6, Sealion 6, Sealion 7, and Seal.
While it’s not unusual for carmakers or dealerships to store excess inventory, the scale of BYD’s operation is unusual. Also unusual was that it didn’t actually receive any council approval before it started trucking vehicles arriving from the nearby Port Kembla shipping terminal to the water park.
The local Kiama Council has been aware of the growing number of BYD vehicles being stored at the facility for two to three months. While the property is privately owned, the car park can’t be used for purposes “not associated with the recreation facility,” local media reports.
It’s understood that the owners lodged a Development Action (DA) with the council in early September, wanting to turn the carpark into a storage facility.
However, the council is continuing to review this application, and recently issued the property owner a warning to stop using the land for car storage.
“Council is working with the owners of Jamberoo Action Park to ensure the site is only operated for authorised uses,” a spokesperson confirmed.
BYD itself has stated that its New South Wales storage operations are handled by a third-party logistics partner, though it has yet to identify who that partner is.
It’s a bad look for the car manufacturer and comes at a time when it is facing growing competition from other Chinese brands. This year, its local sales have been outpaced by those of GWM.
A Tesla driver was injured after an explosion while charging in Hope, B.C.
A non-certified A2Z EV adapter suffered an internal arc fault malfunction.
Officials warn against uncertified charging gear after this dangerous incident.
Electric cars have a lot of negative myths that swirl around about them but they often carry a kernel of truth. While there are potential risks around charging, it’s rare that they pop up in reality.
Yet, every so often, one of those outliers surfaces, and in this case, it happened in Canada, where a charging adapter was destroyed by a short circuit, and it was all caught on camera.
A Tesla driver was trying to charge his car at a non-Tesla commercial charging station in British Columbia. To do so, he used an A2Z adapter that allows the charging station to plug into the car.
What Actually Happened?
When he plugged the charger with the adapter connected to it into the Tesla, there was an arc flash explosion. Thankfully, the man was a few feet away from the connection when the explosion happened.
While he experienced minor scrapes and abrasions, the man escaped serious injury. His spouse, sitting in the front passenger seat, was unharmed. An investigation into the incident found that the charging adapter and the charger itself had issues that led to the explosion.
The adapter wasn’t certified for use in Canada because the standards hadn’t been created yet when the unit went on sale. In addition, the charger itself sent “abnormal voltage,” into the adapter. When that happened, the arc explosion took place and blew the adapter into multiple pieces.
Lessons From a Flash
Bob Porter, of the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association told the Vancouver Sun that “There are risks with third-party things if they aren’t approved. They haven’t been tested for safety. You don’t jerk around with electricity.”
The Tesla owner mentioned that he’d used the same setup for two years without issue, which makes the event a reminder that even supposedly reliable gear can fail suddenly if it hasn’t been certified or tested under the right standards.
This clearly isn’t a major issue across the industry, but it’s a good reminder that when things go wrong, they can go seriously wrong in the blink of an eye.
Daytona owner reports serious charging and braking system issues.
Stellantis has so far refused to buy back the faulty Charger Daytona.
Others have complained about problems with the sliding front seats.
Dodge was confident that the all-electric Charger Daytona would spark a new era for muscle cars, but the reality has been far less electrifying. Reality, however, has been less kind. Reception has been lukewarm at best, and increasingly troubled as early issues begin to surface.
Not only has Dodge already dropped the base R/T models, but a growing number of drivers are now voicing concerns about serious faults with the car.
One owner describes the new Charger Daytona as a car that “drives and performs phenomenally,” but only when it works. And, it seems it doesn’t work as it should much of the time. Among the most troubling issues is inconsistent charging performance.
What’s Wrong With Charging?
Writing on Reddit, the driver explains that they’ve never managed to charge the vehicle reliably at public stations. Sessions frequently stall, forcing them to unplug and reconnect every 5 to 10 percent, which is understandably maddening.
At one charging station, he said he had to trick the app into thinking his Charger was a Cadillac Lyriq just to get the session started. He also mentioned that the home charger included with the purchase has yet to arrive.
There’s also an issue with the rear seat, as we’ve reported previously. When you pull forward the front seat to allow a rear-seat passenger to get out, the front seat will slowly slide forward before automatically sliding backward, potentially pinching someone trying to climb out from the rear.
Terrifying Brakes
The “last straw” was a fault they experienced with the brakes. While stopped outside a store, the brake pedal was pressed firmly to the floor, yet the car attempted to surge forward several times
Moments later, the dashboard lit up with multiple warning lights, traction control switched off on its own, and the Daytona eventually shut down completely. It stayed that way for several minutes before it would restart.
Stellantis hasn’t been much help, according to the poster. The company denied a buy-back request but did agree to cover a rental while the Charger is being repaired. Unfortunately, the allowance is capped at $60 a day, while the least expensive rental available costs $80.
“I’m at a loss with options, and I just want to warn anyone considering purchasing or leasing this vehicle,” they added. “I unfortunately went the purchase route since I drive so many miles a year.”
Given the extent of these problems, his best option may now be to pursue legal help under lemon laws to force a buy-back.
Pranksters summoned 50 robotaxis to San Francisco’s longest dead-end street.
The cars waited around 10 minutes before automatically leaving the area.
Each no-show triggered a $5 fee despite no passengers entering the vehicles.
Waymo’s self-driving vehicles have helped turn robotaxi services from tech demo to daily reality, but like any connected system, these days that same openness invites a bit of mischief, and the occasional abuse.
In San Francisco, a group of pranksters decided to see what would happen if they flooded the service with requests. The result, according to them, was the world’s first Waymo DDOS, short for distributed denial-of-service.
The stunt came to light through an X post by self-confessed tech prankster Riley Walz, who only now shared details of what actually unfolded back in July. The idea was straightforward. Fifty participants gathered at San Francisco’s longest dead-end street and each ordered a Waymo ride at exactly the same time.
What Happens When You Summon 50 Robotaxis?
As you’d expect, a fleet of driverless cars dutifully arrived, clustering at the dead end and clogging traffic. Anyone nearby hoping for a legitimate pickup suddenly had no chance of finding an available Waymo.
According to Walz, no one from the group actually entered any of the vehicles. Each car lingered for roughly ten minutes before departing automatically, charging a $5 no-show fee.
“Waymo handled this well, I assume this isn’t much different than if a big concert had just ended,” said Walz. “Eventually, they disabled all rides within a 2-block vicinity until the morning.”
Speaking with Road & Track, a spokesperson from Waymo said the service is able to automatically detect and limit the number of rides to a specific area, meaning it was able to prevent additional vehicles from showing up at the dead-end street.
The company added that simultaneous requests from busy spots are not unusual and that the system is designed to adapt accordingly.
“Waymo provides hundreds of thousands of fully autonomous trips weekly across five and counting cities with over 2,000 vehicles,” the spokesperson said. “We are always refining our system to manage distribution at specific locations, ensuring we balance our service’s physical footprint with the need to deliver an excellent rider experience.”
Xiaomi SU7 crashed and caught fire in China, killing the 31-year-old driver.
Video footage shows one man repeatedly punching the driver’s side window.
Shares in the technology giant fell by as much as 8 percent after the crash.
It’s not just Tesla under fire for how its electronic door handles respond after a crash, fire, or even a total power loss. In the early hours of Monday morning, a Xiaomi SU7 in China crashed and erupted in flames, and despite frantic attempts by bystanders to open the door and free the driver, the 31-year-old at the wheel did not survive.
Chinese media reported that the black SU7 crashed at around 3:15 a.m. The driver of the Xiaomi is said to have lost control, spinning into a wide median strip lined with shrubs and plants before coming to rest on the opposite side of the road in Chengdu. Moments later, the vehicle burst into flames.
Video captured from the scene showed several men frantically attempting to smash the driver’s window while trying in vain to open the driver’s door. One of the men was repeatedly punching the window, while another can be seen trying to kick it out.
They were soon forced to retreat as the flames spread, waiting for firefighters to arrive. Although the crews managed to extinguish the blaze, they were unable to save the driver.
Early reports suggest the 31-year-old may have been driving under the influence of alcohol.
Questions Over Safety Systems
The Xiaomi SU7 features simpler pull-type exterior door handles compared to some other EVs. As with most modern vehicles, the doors are designed to automatically unlock when an accident is detected or airbags are deployed.
For reasons yet unclear, that system appears to have failed in this case. The car is equipped with a manual release inside the cabin.
News of the incident spread quickly, amplified by images and videos of the burning SU7 circulating on Chinese social media, sending Xiaomi’s stock tumbling by as much as 8.7 percent, its sharpest one-day drop since April. Shares eventually closed 5.24 percent lower, erasing billions from the company’s valuation.
In April, three individuals were killed after a Xiaomi SU7 crashed in China’s eastern Anhui province. It has been claimed that the two individuals in the front seats were unable to open the doors as they immediately locked after the crash. An individual was pulled from the rear after an eyewitness smashed out one of the windows, but they died from their injuries.
The incident adds to mounting scrutiny over electronic and semi-electronic door mechanisms in China. Regulators are considering restrictions on such designs amid broader safety concerns, while U.S. authorities continue to probe similar failures in Tesla models.
Xiaomi shares plunged nearly 9% after a fatal crash involving its SU7 electric car, Bloomberg reports
According to the outlet, a 31-year-old driver in China collided with another vehicle, crossed into the opposite lane, and the car caught fire. Witnesses tried to pull the man… pic.twitter.com/yPQ70FoKXN
Fixing the faulty subwoofer requires replugging four wires in the trunk.
Owners say the simple solution makes a big difference in sound quality.
A similar issue was experienced by Hyundai Tiburon owners 20 years ago.
Do you own a Kia EV6 with the optional Meridian sound system? If so, you might have noticed that the subwoofer isn’t delivering the deep, satisfying bass you’d expect. It turns out your EV’s subwoofer could be wired out of phase, limiting its punch.
Fortunately, one Reddit user uncovered a straightforward fix that anyone can perform with a few basic tools.
The Redditor who discovered how to rectify the wonky subwoofer says he used to be a member of the Hyundai Tiburon forums. Roughly 20 years ago, members of those forums discovered that the stock subwoofer’s sound could be improved by reversing the positive and negative terminals.
Applying the same principle to the Meridian setup in his EV6, he found that the results were immediate, with stronger bass and a more balanced overall sound.
A Simple, DIY Adjustment
To carry out the fix, EV6 owners first need to open up the trunk where the subwoofer is stored. They then need to remove a piece of rear trim to gain access to a plug running into the sub.
Once they do so, it’s just a matter of using a small screwdriver to release the four wires, which are typically arranged red, black, red, black from top to bottom, and then reconnecting them in reverse order, black, red, black, red.
Shortly after the Reddit post gained traction, YouTuber Technically Jeff posted a clip of him performing the same fix, and he found it made a huge difference. Dozens of EV6 owners have jumped into the comments section to confirm that the fix transforms the subwoofer’s performance, making the listening experience much richer.
According to two audio specialists who spoke with The Drive, the problem likely stems from the EV’s active sound cancellation system. They explained that the subwoofer’s low frequencies are being partially canceled out by opposing frequencies from other speakers positioned throughout the cabin.
It’s not yet clear if the same issue is present on other Kia, Genesis, and/or Hyundai models with Meridian sound systems, but if you own one, it may be wise to take a look at the subwoofer to see if it, too, has been wired incorrectly.
Lucid lessee reports charges months after turn-in despite promised fixes.
One driver was billed $2,400 for underbody scratches after vehicle return.
Some have filed DFPI complaints against Lucid and the Bank of America.
Lucid sometimes offers some pretty sweet lease deals, and on paper, they can look like a solid way to get behind the wheel of an Air without the long-term commitment. But as we’ve seen more than once, there’s usually a sting in the tail. If it’s not a hefty down payment, it’s what happens when the car goes back at the end of the term.
Back in August, we reported that Lucid itself acknowledged problems with its lease return program. The process, it admitted, wasn’t consistent. Damage assessments were all over the place, and some customers ended up with surprisingly high bills for barely noticeable issues.
Ongoing Frustrations
Two months on, the situation doesn’t appear to have improved. At least two owners have come forward with worrying stories, and one has even taken the matter to regulators.
Over a week ago, one owner posted a thread on Reddit titled “Just got my excess wear report and it’s ridiculous.” Plenty of folks are upset to pay extra cash after a lease ends, but this person seems to have a really good case.
Photos showing the underside of the Lucid Air, along with the digital invoice from the company, reveal that the $2,400 charge was issued for scratches found on the car’s underbody panel.
We’re not talking about a panel that is torn into several pieces, features a giant hole or two, or one that is somewhat missing. No, we’re referring to the kind of scratches that almost anyone with a low-to-the-ground car would have.
The owner claims that he never had an accident or drove over anything significant, but instead that these marks are from things as innocuous as speed bumps.
“Guess we’re supposed to only drive on perfectly flat roads with no speed bumps, and make sure to ‘research’ every driveway before entering,” the frustrated owner said. Interestingly, Lucid seems to have decided not to charge for the fact that the owner’s manual was missing from the car.
This isn’t the only recent example of Lucid’s lease troubles. Another customer, who was billed $585, may have an even more compelling case. According to the owner, the Lucid representative at the lease return appointment found no damage whatsoever.
Less than two weeks later, though, a third-party company carried out a “final inspection” and identified $785 worth of wear-and-tear damage. The owner says Lucid waived $200 for a wheel, but still demanded the remaining $585.
“I just filed a complaint with the California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation (DFPI) against Lucid Financial Services and their collection agency over a bogus “excess wear & tear” charge,” they wrote in a Reddit thread.
It’s pretty clear that owners are losing faith in the brand’s lease policy. “If that’s what it’s going to be like, we’re all screwed. There’s no possible way that part doesn’t get scratched or gouged – that’s what it’s there for, to protect the rest of the undercarriage,” said one. “Up next, being charged for scratches on the inside of wheels,” said another.
For now, the ball is squarely in Lucid’s court to explain how it’s handling these lease-end assessments and what steps it plans to take to rebuild customer trust. If you’ve leased a Lucid yourself, drop your experience in the comments below, we’d like to hear how it went down.
Login
