Exposed Autonomy? Tesla’s 'Full Self-Driving' Reportedly Operates at Just 40% in Complex Scenarios

A new wave of controversy is swirling around Elon Musk and Tesla’s much-hyped Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, as a former Tesla engineer claims that the system—once promised to revolutionize mobility—achieves only 40% real autonomy in complex driving conditions.

Even more alarming, insiders suggest that the company may have attempted to tweak testing data to maintain investor confidence and inflate stock value.

While Tesla has led the electric vehicle revolution and pushed boundaries with its semi-autonomous features, its boldest claim—fully autonomous driving—now faces serious credibility issues. If true, these revelations could pose not only technical and ethical concerns, but financial and legal ramifications as well.

According to a report allegedly sourced from a former senior engineer who worked closely on Tesla’s autonomous systems, the Full Self-Driving suite has consistently underperformed in dynamic, real-world conditions. While the system may appear seamless in controlled environments, its effectiveness drops sharply when navigating unpredictable city streets, complex intersections, and erratic human behavior.

“The system only achieves around 40% autonomy in real traffic,” the former engineer is quoted as saying. “Drivers still need to intervene frequently, especially in dense urban areas or when unexpected obstacles arise.”

This stands in stark contrast to Elon Musk’s repeated promises over the years, including his 2020 assertion that Tesla vehicles would be able to drive without human input “by the end of the year,” and that the company’s fleet would soon become a fully autonomous robotaxi network.

Beyond the technical shortcomings, the whistleblower also claims that Tesla allegedly “refined” test data to present more optimistic outcomes during investor presentations and product demos. The goal, they say, was to create the perception that FSD was far more advanced than it actually was.

“Some of the internal simulation results were selectively filtered,” the source claims. “We needed the system to appear market-ready—even when we knew it wasn’t.”

If substantiated, these allegations could trigger regulatory investigations from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), or both. Misrepresenting technological capabilities for the sake of stock performance could be seen as securities fraud or deceptive marketing.

Tesla has not yet publicly responded to the allegations.

Tesla’s stock performance has long been intertwined with Elon Musk’s public statements and ambitious roadmaps. The FSD system, in particular, has been a major selling point not just for car buyers, but for investors betting on the future of mobility.

A feature that could eliminate the need for a driver doesn’t just revolutionize the driving experience—it radically redefines the value of each Tesla vehicle, especially if they’re used as revenue-generating autonomous taxis in the future.

In that context, overstating FSD’s capabilities could be interpreted as artificially inflating the company's valuation. Analysts say that Tesla’s market cap includes a “tech premium” based on future autonomy, and if that promise is proven hollow, it could trigger a major correction.

The issue isn’t just financial—it’s personal. Thousands of Tesla drivers already rely on FSD or its limited beta versions in real-world scenarios. If the system is far less capable than advertised, it raises serious concerns about road safety and public trust.

“There’s a difference between an assistive driving system and a self-driving one,” said Maria Cortez, an automotive safety researcher. “If people are buying into the idea that the car can handle it all—and it can’t—that’s a recipe for disaster.”

Tesla has previously faced lawsuits and federal scrutiny over FSD-related accidents. These new claims, if true, could reignite debates over the company’s responsibility in setting realistic expectations for consumers.

Critics have long argued that the term “Full Self-Driving” is misleading. Unlike other automakers who use terms like “driver assistance” or “autopilot lite,” Tesla’s branding implies a level of autonomy that has not yet been technically achieved.

Even the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which defines driving automation levels from 0 (no automation) to 5 (full automation), has stated that Tesla’s current system does not qualify as Level 5 autonomy—nor even consistent Level 4.

The alleged internal estimate of only 40% functionality in complex traffic conditions would place Tesla’s system somewhere between Level 2 and Level 3 at best—meaning human intervention is still essential.

Elon Musk is known for his bold timelines and ambitious declarations, but critics say this is another example of a recurring pattern: setting public expectations far ahead of technical reality.

Whether it's rocket reusability, AI breakthroughs, or Mars colonization, Musk’s style often involves promising big—and delivering incrementally. Supporters call it visionary leadership; detractors call it calculated hype.

But when the promises involve life-or-death decisions on public roads, the stakes are exponentially higher.

As the dust settles around these new claims, one question looms large: Can Tesla restore credibility in its autonomy mission?

Whether through clearer communication, independent verification, or more transparent roadmaps, the company may need to rethink how it presents FSD to the world. If the “full” in Full Self-Driving turns out to be only 40%, Tesla may find itself facing not just a technical challenge—but a reckoning in the court of public opinion.

And for Elon Musk, a man known for defying odds, this could be one of the biggest tests yet—not in code or hardware, but in trust.