Hyundai’s new 2025 IONIQ 5 Limited with a Tesla NACS port (Source: Hyundai)
With the release of Hyundai’s 2025 Ioniq 5 with native NACS port, owners are heading to Tesla Superchargers to see how the experience is. And it turns out, the away team is beating the home team at charging speed… at least in some metrics.
This has been a busy time for the transition to NACS, the new EV charging standard for North America that was originally advanced by Tesla and now standardized by SAE.
Hyundai is one of the brands that was added to the “coming soon” list, but it also already released a vehicle with a native NACS port, and several of them are out in the wild. Given that the car includes the right port to charge on a Supercharger, it ought to be able to charge no problem, right?
Well, owners are finding that it can, if they go through the normal process for third party vehicles on Tesla Superchargers (download the app, set up payment information, start charge sessions through app, etc) and have the proper adapters or a 2025 car with native NACS. Hyundai hasn’t made it official yet, but it seems plenty possible.
And today we saw one test that shows Hyundai beating Tesla in one metric, even on Tesla’s home turf.
Out of Spec reviews took a Tesla Model 3 and a 2025 Hyundai Ioniq 5 with native NACS port to a local Tesla Supercharger to do a 1v1 charging test, and find out which vehicle charges better and faster on Tesla’s network.
The Ioniq 5 is based on Kia/Hyundai’s joint E-GMP platform, which has been hailed for its exceptional charging performance.
Despite it having a lower peak charge rate than some other vehicles (it tops out at around 230kW), it has an exceptionally broad charging curve, which means that it can maintain that peak charge rate for longer than other vehicles. Other vehicles start charging fast, but slow down rapidly as the battery fills up.
The upshot of this is that charging sessions will be faster with a broad charge curve, as long as you’re charging up to a high state of charge. Hyundai says the Ioniq 5 can charge from 10-80% in just 18 minutes, making it the current charging speed champion (and the Ioniq 6 charges even faster in terms of “miles per minute,” if you account for vehicle efficiency – more on that later).
That broad charge curve shined in Out of Spec’s side-by-side test, which you can see on its YouTube channel. The two cars have similar battery sizes, so it’s actually a pretty close test.
In the test, the Model 3, charging on home turf, charged for 31 minutes and 53 seconds, and 55.7kWh was delivered from the charger to the vehicle.
But the upstart Ioniq 5 managed to gain 59.6kWh in 30 minutes and 37 seconds, a slightly shorter time and slightly more energy delivered.
Those numbers are close enough to call it a wash, but still an impressive showing on away turf.
The victory is all the greater when considering that the Hyundai isn’t even charging at full power. The E-GMP platform uses an 800 volt architecture, and Tesla’s Superchargers mostly use 400 volts (the new V4 Supercharger will provide 400-1000 volts, but most in the wild are V3).
This means that the Ioniq 5 could only achieve a peak charge rate of 123kW in the test, which is nevertheless improved from the ~100kW that earlier model year E-GMP cars have seen when charging at Superchargers. But that’s far lower than the 250kW peak the Model 3 can reach.
But that aforementioned charge curve is still what ended up winning out. Slow and steady won this race.
There were a few difficulties in this specific test. For some reason, the Ioniq 5 randomly stopped charging, and Out of Spec couldn’t figure out why, and had to spend time restarting the charge session – which thankfully didn’t take that long, due to the much faster handshake speed to start charging sessions on Superchargers as compared to CCS stations.
The interruption also meant that the Hyundai had to ramp up its charging speed again. It may also be difficult to precondition a Hyundai – warming the battery to achieve better charging speeds – because so far, Tesla stations aren’t included in Ioniq 5’s navigation system, so preconditioning won’t happen automatically. An update should come soon to enable that.
However, this wasn’t a total victory for the Ioniq 5. Despite achieving a faster charge rate and getting more total energy, the Model 3 still won out in the most important practical metric – miles per minute.
Energy really doesn’t matter that much, what matters is how far it can get you. And the Model 3 is much more efficient than the Ioniq 5. While the cars have similarly-sized batteries, Tesla says the Model 3 can go 363 miles, whereas Hyundai says the Ioniq 5 can go 303 miles. Account for that ~20% higher efficiency, and the Model 3 won today’s test handily.
But when you’re charging at *home*, charge your electric vehicle using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
An Exxon Mobil gas station in Lorton, Virginia, US, on Monday, Oct. 27, 2025.
Luke Johnson | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Exxon Mobil on Friday reported third quarter earnings that fell year over year, as oil prices tumbled due in large part to OPEC+ increasing production.
Exxon’s net income fell 12% to $7.55 billion, or $1.76 per share, compared to $8.6 billion, or $1.92 per share, in the year ago period. Excluding one-time items, the oil major posted earnings per share of $1.88.
U.S. crude oil prices have fallen about 16% this year as OPEC+ is increasing production and President Donald Trump’s tariffs have the market worried about an economic slowdown.
Exxon shares were down more than 1% in premarket trading.
Here is what Exxon reported for the third quarter compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:
Earnings per share: $1.88 adjusted.
Revenue: $85.3 billion, vs. $87.7 billion expected
CEO Darren Woods said Exxon posted its highest earnings per share compared to similar quarters when oil prices were falling. Profits also took a hit due to bottom-of-cycle margins in its chemicals business.
However, production in Exxon’s lucrative offshore assets in the South American nation of Guyana hit a quarterly record of more than 700,000 barrels per day. Its assets in the Permian Basin also set a production record of nearly 1.7 million bpd.
Overall, Exxon produced 4.77 million bpd in the quarter.
Exxon’s production business recorded earnings of $5.68 billion, while its refining business posted a profit of $1.8 billion. Its chemicals product business saw earnings of $515 million.
The oil major’s capital expenditures stand at about $21 billion so far this year. It expects spending in 2025 to come in slightly below the lower end of its guidance range of $27 billion to $29 billion.
Exxon gave back $9.4 billion to shareholders in the quarter and raised its fourth-quarter dividend to $1.03 per share.
Signage outside the Chevron Corp. headquarters in Houston, Texas, US, on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025.
Mark Felix | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Chevron on Friday reported third-quarter financial results that beat Wall Street estimates, as the company achieved record production due in part to its acquisition of Hess Corporation.
The oil major’s net income declined 21% to $3.54 billion, or $1.82 per share, compared with $4.49 billion, or $2.48 per share, in the same period last year. Its earnings decreased year over year due to falling oil prices and a $235 million loss on transaction costs associated with the Hess acquisition.
Excluding costs associated with Hess and foreign currency impacts, Chevron earned $1.85 per share, beating Wall Street estimates of $1.71 per share.
Here is what Chevron reported for the third quarter compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG:
Earnings per share: $1.85 adjusted vs. $1.71 expected
Revenue: $49.73 billion vs. $49.01 billion expected
U.S. crude oil prices have fallen about 16% this year as OPEC+ increases production and President Donald Trump’s tariffs have the market worried about an economic slowdown.
Even with lower prices, Chevron pumped a record 4.1 million barrels per day, a 21% increase compared with the same period last year. Higher production came from the Hess acquisition, the Permian Basin, the Gulf of Mexico and Kazakhstan, according to the company.
Chevron’s U.S. production business posted a profit of $1.28 billion, down 34% compared with $1.95 billion in the third quarter of 2024. It pumped 2 million barrels per day, up 27% from 1.6 million bpd in year-ago period.
International production recorded earnings of $2 billion, down 24% compared with $2.64 billion in the same quarter last year. Production increased 16% to 2 million bpd compared with 1.76 million bpd in the year-ago period.
Profits increased more than 300% to $638 million in Chevron’s downstream U.S. refining business, compared with $146 million in the third quarter of 2024. International refining posted earnings of $499 million, up 11% from $449 million in the year-ago period. Refining profits increased year over year due to higher margins on product sales.
Capital expenditures increased 7% to $4.4 billion over the year-ago quarter due to spending on legacy Hess assets. Chevron’s adjusted free cash flow increased about 50% to $7 billion over the year-ago period.
California’s ambitious statewide electric bicycle incentive program is officially dead – and it didn’t even get a funeral. After years of buildup, delays, and surging public interest, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has quietly ended the program, rolling the remaining $17 million of the original $30 million budget into its “Clean Cars 4 All” initiative without even making an official announcement.
The California E-Bike Incentive Project was originally hailed as a groundbreaking effort to make electric bikes affordable for low-income residents. Vouchers – not rebates – were designed to let buyers walk into a participating shop and ride out without covering the full price upfront. Base vouchers were worth $1,000, with up to $2,500 available for those purchasing cargo or adaptive e-bikes in priority communities. It was a model that other states were watching closely.
But from the outset, the program was plagued by setbacks. Years of delays meant the first vouchers weren’t distributed until late 2024, and even then, only after a chaotic launch that saw the website crash under the weight of tens of thousands of applicants vying for just 1,500 vouchers. A second launch attempt in April 2025 failed completely, locking out eligible users. While a final distribution round in May went more smoothly, an estimated 90% of eligible applicants were turned away due to limited supply.
To make matters worse, the program’s administrator, Pedal Ahead, came under fire for questionable practices in San Diego, further undermining confidence.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Now, with no formal announcement or update on the program’s official website, CARB has quietly absorbed the funds into its Clean Cars 4 All program.
Electrek’s Take
This is an enormous letdown.
The California E-Bike Incentive Project had the potential to reshape car-heavy communities by giving low-income Californians access to clean, affordable micromobility. Instead, it was starved by mismanagement and then cannibalized to prop up car-centric policy.
It’s not that electric cars don’t deserve support, but this move reflects a broader failure of imagination. If we want a future with fewer cars, not just cleaner ones, then we need to start funding real alternatives. This was a huge missed opportunity to invest in a more livable California.