It’s always amusing when we’re writing about collector cars to check the huge sums buyers paid out for optional equipment. Fifty years ago, for example, anyone buying a C3 Corvette had to pay a hilarious $284 ($1,710 in 2025 money) for an AM/FM radio, then a highly desirable and expensive option.

Today, though, it’s something that we expect to see on even the cheapest, most basic modern car. Yet, AM/FM radio is one of the pieces of equipment Tesla has cut from its new entry-level models.

Related: Analog AM Radios In EVs Could Cost Automakers Nearly $4 Billion

Called Standard, the new base Model 3 and Model Y are designed to keep the barrier to entry of Tesla’s EVs low in the wake of federal tax credits disappearing at the end of September.

The Model 3 Standard costs $36,990, against $42,490 for the next trim up, now renamed Model 3 Premium RWD. And the Model Y Standard comes in at $39,990, versus $44,990 for the Y Premium.

The lack of a radio is far from the only difference between the new Standard and Premium Models. Base 3s miss out on the 8-inch second-row touchscreen, ventilated front seats and heated rears, power door mirrors and steering column, Autosteer, and frequency-dependent shocks.

They also downgrade to simple 18-inch steel wheels with covers, need 5.8 seconds instead of 4.9 seconds to reach 60 mph (97 km/h), and the driving range is cut from 363 miles to 321 miles (584-517 km).

Wheels aside (and an upgrade to 19s is available), the Model 3 Standard doesn’t scream “I was too cheap to upgrade!” in the same way its Model Y counterpart does. Because the Y Standard loses the facelifted Y’s front and rear LED light bars, and Tesla covers over the panoramic glass roof (which, in the ultimate insult, is still present) with a conventional headliner.

It also downgrades to textile seat surfaces, loses the adaptive headlights, subwoofer, and HEPA filter, and misses out on various bits of the same kit omitted from the 3 Standard spec.

But performance takes a much bigger hit than it does in the sedan. The boggo Y needs 6.8 seconds to reach 60 mph compared with 5.4 seconds for the Premium, and the range is reduced from 357 to 321 miles (575-517 km).

Test drive reveals more missing features

YouTuber Everyday Chris got his hands on the new Model Y Standard and points out some other differences in his video, including the very basic frunk, trunk, and door pocket liners, lack of electric frunk opener and rear parcel shelf, the single-pane door glass, and the fact that the max charging speed is down from 250 kW to 225 kW. You can also no longer recline the second row of seats from the trunk.

We’re guessing most owners will be more frustrated by that trunk-folding button having disappeared than they are by the radio getting a bullet. Still, according to a 2023 study, cutting the AM unit could save Tesla around $50–70 per car, since it no longer needs to shield radio waves from interference created by the electric motors.

This cost has led several automakers to consider junking radios, though lawmakers want to make AM availability in cars a legal requirement, because it’s viewed as essential for drivers in rural areas. Would you care if your next car didn’t have a radio, or have you never used yours since 2004?

Tesla

Tesla is facing renewed scrutiny after another troubling incident involving its vehicles. As the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigates owner reports that the company’s electric door handles can become inoperative, preventing occupants from entering or exiting the vehicle, Tesla is now being sued by the parents of two teenagers who died in a Cybertruck crash last November.

The lawsuits allege that safety issues with the electric pickup’s handles prevented the teens from escaping the vehicle.

Also: Fiery Crash Kills Driver Trapped Inside Tesla Model 3

The fatal crash occurred in the early hours of November 27 in Piedmont, California. Four teenagers were in the Tesla when it smashed into a cement wall and became wedged between it and a large tree. Moments later, the vehicle burst into flames, killing three of the four occupants, all of whom were 2023 graduates of Piedmont High School.

Expanding Legal Battle

Carl and Noelle Tsukahara, parents of 18-year-old Krysta Tsukahara, recently added Tesla to an earlier lawsuit initially filed against the estate of the 19-year-old driver, Soren Dixon, and the vehicle owner’s estate. The parents of 20-year-old Jack Nelson, another victim of the crash, have also filed a separate suit against the company.

When Power Fails

As noted by the lawsuits, the door handles of the Cybertruck operate off the 12-volt battery, and if the vehicle loses power after a crash, the electronic door mechanism will fail. The EV does have manual door releases at the front and rear, but they can be hard to find. This is especially true in the second row, where a manual release cable is hidden beneath a rubber mat at the bottom of the door pocket.

Read: Feds Looking Into Fatal Tesla Cybertruck Crash That Killed Three Teens

The lawsuit from the Tsukaharas asserts that their daughter survived the impact and was fully conscious. However, she was unable to escape the Tesla’s second row and died from smoke inhalation and burns. It’s claimed that Tesla has long been aware of issues with the safety of its electric door handles.

“These are not new concepts or ideas and are things vehicle designers should be taking into account,” one of the Nelson family’s attorneys told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s a preventable death if you have a vehicle occupant who dies who otherwise could exit a vehicle if their doors were functional, or be rescued.”

More: Crash Victim Trapped In Burning Tesla Sues Over Door Handles

Both lawsuits seek unspecified punitive damages against Tesla. The family attorney of the Tsukaharas, believes he has a “very, very strong case,” against the electric carmaker.

“They will want to blame Mr. Dixon, anybody but themselves, but this vehicle absolutely should not have entombed these individuals and my clients’ daughter. It’s our way of holding the wrongdoer accountable, and correcting bad conduct.”

Xiaomi has already proved its SU7 mettle at the Nurburging, demolishing the fastest times set by its Porsche Taycan and Tesla Model S rivals. But what happens when you take those corners out of the equation? That’s what we find out in a new Carwow video pitting the the top-spec SU7, the Ultra, against a Model S Plaid.

Also: Xiaomi Boss Admits They Bought Teslas And Tore Them Down To Learn Every Secret

It’s no understatement to say things don’t look good for the Tesla going into this fight. We now live in a world so crazy that even the Plaid’s once outrageous four-figure power output seems kind of ordinary.

Its 1,006 hp (1,020 PS) and 1,047 lb-ft (1,420 Nm) stats are dwarfed by the SU7 Ultra’s 1,527 hp (1,548 PS) and 1,306 lb-ft (1,770 Nm), and though the Tesla fights back with a 375 lbs (170 kg) advantage you don’t need to reach for a calculator to know it’s on the backfoot.

Launch Control Drama

But when the flag drops it’s the Plaid that drops the SU7, again and again. Carwow host Matt Watson has spent more time on runways than most pilots and is obviously a dab hand at launching cars, both in terms of reacting to the flag and managing wheelspin – and the more powerful SU7 obviously has more wheelspin to manage. But it’s still a shock to see how long it take the Xiaomi to even begin to start reeling the Tesla in.

But once it gets going, it makes the Plaid look like it’d struggle to outrun a Dacia Spring. The in-car shot from the Tesla looking across Watson to the SU7 streaking by is mind blowing. However, the resulting quarter-mile times are pretty close.

That’s because the Xiaomi takes so long to hit its stride – 9.3 seconds for the SU7, 9.5 seconds for the Model S – and based on this evidence the Chinese car might not have the space to make up the ground in your average stoplight grudge match.

US-based Plaid owners don’t have to worry about finding out because Xiaomi doesn’t offer cars in America yet (though European sales are on the horizon). And that’s just as well for Tesla, because in China, the Ultra sells for the equivalent of $74,300, while the Plaid is almost $100k in the US.

Lead image Carwow

In August of 2019, a man driving his Ford Explorer Sport Trac was hit from behind by another driver in a 2019 Tesla Model 3 who was using Autopilot. The Ford’s driver lost control as the truck rolled and his 15-year-old son, who was not wearing a seatbelt, was ejected and killed. Just weeks before the case was set to go to trial, Tesla quietly settled the lawsuit that followed.

The Tesla driver, Romeo Yalung, was traveling at 69 mph (111 km/h) in lane three of Interstate 880 in California. Video from the EV shows the driver of the Ford, Benjamin Escudero, signaling and moving into the same lane ahead. Neither Yalung nor the Tesla, which had Autopilot engaged at the time, slowed down to avoid hitting the Ford.

More: Crash Victim Trapped In Burning Tesla Sues Over Door Handles

The lawsuit named multiple parties, not only Tesla and Yalung but also Yalung’s wife, who was in the passenger seat at the time. Over four years, Judge Rebekah Everson had the option to dismiss the case but allowed it to move forward. Now, with trial just a month away, Tesla has reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount.

That might seem like a shock considering some of the surrounding factors. Tesla has a largely victorious record in court when lawsuits about Autopilot or Full Self-Driving (Supervised) come up. Juries and judges have agreed in almost all cases that the person behind the wheel is responsible for driving and not Tesla. In addition, video of the tragic crash certainly calls into question Mr. Yalung’s attentiveness.

That said, this all comes after a Florida jury decided that Tesla was 33 percent liable for another fatal crash involving Autopilot. In that case, the driver of the Tesla hit two people on the side of the road, admitted fault to the police, and said that he wasn’t paying attention when the crash happened. Despite that, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $242 million.

Tesla is now appealing that verdict, but another loss in court could have been damaging. Settling this California case may have been a calculated move to avoid the risk of a repeat outcome.

Sources: Freightwaves, Carcomplaints

Tesla has fought, and consistently won, court battles over its semi-autonomous Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised). That record changed recently when a Florida jury decided that the EV maker was partially to blame for a crash that ended in a fatality. Now, Elon Musk’s company is pushing for a new trial, arguing the verdict could stifle development of safety technologies.

A Fatal Florida Crash

The case stems from the death of 22-year-old Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed in 2019 when a 2019 Model S slammed into a parked Chevrolet Tahoe in Miami-Dade county. Her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, suffered serious injuries.

More: Over 10,000 Owners Sue Tesla Over This Widespread Complaint

The driver, George McGee, admitted he dropped his phone, took his eyes off the road, and believed the car would brake on its own. At the same time, he conceded that he was negligent and placed too much trust in the car.

Jury Finds Tesla Partly Liable

Despite that, a jury found Tesla 33 percent liable, awarding $42.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $200 million in punitive damages. Jurors were reportedly swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument that Tesla overstated the capabilities of Autopilot, even as the company repeatedly warned drivers to stay alert and keep their hands on the wheel. According to CarComplaints, Tesla admits that the whole thing was a tragedy but says it was entirely the fault of McGee’s “extraordinary recklessness.”

Tesla Pushes Back

In its filing, the company said “No other car in existence would have stopped when the driver was telling it to ‘go.’” Tesla argued that McGee was “reckless in the extreme by ignoring or overriding every safety feature in his car,” including by pressing the accelerator pedal, which overrides the system’s cruise control and braking functions. There’s no question that this is a sticky situation, but Tesla makes a few interesting points.

“For as long as there have been cars, there have been reckless, self-absorbed drivers like McGee,” Tesla said. “Those drivers should face every legal consequence for their wrongful conduct. Holding Tesla liable for providing drivers with advanced safety features just because a reckless driver overrode them cannot be reconciled with Florida law. That rule would impede the development of safety features, deter progress, and cost lives both now and in the long run.”

The Bigger Question

Ultimately, all of this seems to stem from the nomenclature and advertising of Autopilot. Were it called something else and marketed differently, it would seem more difficult to blame Tesla at all. The automaker is asking the judge to either order a new trial or reduce the damages, a move that will weigh driver responsibility against driver-assistance technology. The outcome could make a huge impact in the future of automakers and their relationship with autonomy.

Tesla’s latest addition to its lineup is a sharper, faster take on the world’s best-selling EV. The new 2026 Model Y Performance borrows much from the latest Model 3 Performance, combining dual-motor muscle with a reworked suspension, fresh styling, and sport seats. The goal is simple: deliver a family-friendly crossover that feels closer to a supercar than a school-run shuttle while keeping the price within reach.

From the outside, the flagship Y sets itself apart with a subtle but aggressive bodykit and a set of exclusive 21-inch Arachnid 2.0 wheels, complete with red brake calipers. The redesigned front bumper intakes, carbon spoiler extension, deeper diffuser, extra vents in the rear bumper, and a unique tailgate badge all help underline its range-topping status without overdoing it.

More: Tesla’s Model Y L Gets Bigger And Pricier With New Six-Seat Layout

Inside, the Model Y Performance gains new sports seats with integrated headrests and stronger bolstering, complete with heating, ventilation, and electric adjustment. The dashboard is trimmed in carbon fiber and now frames a larger 16-inch infotainment display, an upgrade from the standard 15.4-inch unit, with sharper resolution. Rounding out the cabin, a 15-speaker audio system with a subwoofer comes standard.

Performance with Numbers to Match

The Model Y Performance has dual electric motors giving it AWD capabilities. While Tesla hasn’t published official output figures, reports suggest the European version produces 460 hp (343 kW / 466 PS). The North American-spec model is expected to be stronger, delivering 510 hp (380 kW / 517 PS), matching the Model 3 Performance.

More: Tesla Quietly Brings Back Turn Signal Stalks To Model 3 After Years Of Complaints

What we know from the brand’s official website is that the most powerful version of the crossover sprints from 0 to 100 km/h (0-62 mph) in 3.5 seconds, or 0 to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds. That’s 0.2 seconds quicker than the outgoing Model Y Performance, though still 0.4 seconds slower than the lighter Model 3 Performance and 0.1 seconds behind the Hyundai Ioniq 5 N. Top speed remains electronically capped at 250 km/h (155 mph).

Suspension and Handling

In terms of chassis setup, the Model Y Performance swaps the frequency selective dampers of the regular version for a new set of electronically controlled continuously variable dampers. The system is similar to that of the Model 3 Performance but tuned specifically for the crossover. It’s paired with upgraded suspension hardware, staggered wheels, and new Drive Modes, including the option to configure the powertrain with a rearward torque bias for a more engaging drive.

Range and Charging

Despite the added performance, the Model Y Performance maintains a respectable WLTP range of 580 km (360 miles), just 6 km (4 miles) shy of the Long Range AWD version. Credit goes to high-density battery cells with increased charge capacity, paired with the new powertrain that offers a wider thermal operating window, improving overall efficiency. Hooked up to a Supercharger, the crossover can recover up to 243 km (151 miles) of range in only 15 minutes.

Pricing and Availability

The new Model Y Performance is already available to order in Europe, UK, the Middle East, and Africa, with deliveries scheduled to begin in September 2025.

More: We Compare The 2026 Tesla Model Y Side-By-Side With Its Predecessor

In Germany, it’s priced at €61,990 ($72,400), which comes in €9,000 ($10,500) higher than the Long Range. In the UK, the figure is £61,990 ($79,000), or £10,000 ($12,800) more than the updated Model Y Long Range AWD. And for anyone who bought the “Launch Edition,” the difference is just £990 ($1,270), basically paying extra for the privilege of feeling a bit ripped off later.

At the moment, details for North America, including availability, have not been confirmed, though they are expected to follow soon.

Tesla

Do you like the Tesla Model 3 Performance, but wish it came in a slightly more practical package? If so, you’re in luck as the Model Y Performance will apparently debut tomorrow.

While the automaker isn’t saying much, they released a “spoiler alert” on X showing a mysterious vehicle with a blurry spoiler. It’s presumably the Model Y Performance, which was spied earlier this year.

More: New Tesla Model Y Performance Breaks Cover, Plaid Wheels And All

As previous pictures have shown, the crossover will look virtually identical to the regular model. However, the production variant could have sportier bumpers, a revised spoiler, and a modified diffuser. We can also expect unique wheels that are backed up by a high-performance braking system with red calipers.

The sportier styling should extend to the cabin thanks to supportive seats and carbon fiber trim. Other than that, it should largely carryover and include a 15.4-inch display as well as an 8-inch rear touchscreen.

Spoiler alert pic.twitter.com/mEcYSAt2Gj

— Tesla Europe & Middle East (@teslaeurope) August 27, 2025

Like the Model 3 Performance, the crossover will likely have an upgraded dual-motor powertrain that produces 510 hp (380 kW / 517 PS) and 546 lb-ft (741 Nm) of torque. This enables the car to accelerate from 0-60 mph (0-96 km/h) in 2.9 seconds with the rollout subtracted.

We can also expect a “performance-oriented chassis” with unique components that reduce mass and improve stiffness. Other highlights could include adaptive dampers, ultra-high strength steel springs, and stiffer suspension mounts.

We’ll learn full details soon enough, but it appears the Model Y Performance will initially be launched in Europe and the Middle East. It should eventually come to the United States and cost around $58,000.

A tragic crash involving a Tesla Cybertruck has now turned into a courtroom battle. More than a year after Michael Sheehan lost his life in a single-vehicle accident, his family has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against both Tesla and a Texas bar, arguing that both share responsibility for what happened.

According to the complaint, filed in Harris County District Court, Sheehan owned the Cybertruck for just 102 days when the crash happened. He left the Barn Whiskey Bar in Cypress, Texas, and crashed about seven miles away. The Tesla left the road, hit a culvert, and burst into flames.

More: Witness Says Cybertruck Doors Wouldn’t Open In Fatal California Crash

At the time of the accident, it was unclear what caused the crash. Investigators openly admitted that just identifying the body was difficult due to the heat of the fire. Now, we have a little more insight into potentially contributing factors.

Claims Against The Bar

Sheehan’s family says that the Barn Whiskey Bar over-served Sheehan despite him being “clearly intoxicated.” In fact, the lawsuit goes as far as to say that “it was apparent to the provider that MICHAEL SHEEHAN was obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others.”

Interestingly, the family also blames Tesla because it says the Cybertruck itself is dangerous. According to the lawsuit, the “battery cell chemistry used is hyper volatile and susceptible to thermal runaway.” The family says that the automaker could have used “battery cell chemistry with slower thermal propagation readily available, which allows longer time to escape post-crash.”

The family goes on to cite other things it sees as defects, like the battery modules, the packs, the location of the vents in those modules and packs, and even the door handles in the truck that are “unreasonably difficult to locate in an emergency.”

What The Family Seeks

Essentially, the family believes that if the fire had spread more slowly and if egress had been easier, Sheehan would’ve escaped. To that end, it’s seeking damages in excess of $1,000,000. All that said, it’s also worth noting that the Cybertruck has the highest safety rating (five-star) from the NHTSA.

HT: CarComplaints