Tested: Tesla Model Y Juniper As Robotaxi

Forbes

3 hours ago

Here's some breaking news: the 2026 Tesla Model Y 'Juniper' with Full Self Driving is a robotaxi. Maybe Tesla can't call it that but that's what it is. And Waymo may have met its match.
I had the 2026 Model Y for the 48-hour test drive (which Tesla just began offering) this past week in Los Angeles. The new Model Y, which hit Tesla stores in February, comes with Full Self-Driving (Supervised) version 13.2.9. But the fact that it's supervised didn't stop me from using it, in practice, unsupervised as a robotaxi, i.e., going door to door without intervention. As background, I've tested the Juniper Model Y FSD now three times: two test drives when it arrived at Tesla stores in March-April and now a 48-hour test drive.
On most excursions it has gotten me door to door without intervention (see video below). That is, I just punch in the destination address and let the Model Y drive. I'm a passenger – not unlike Waymo, which I've also used many times in the Beverly Hills-West Hollywood area (more on Waymo comparison in video).
Here's the short version. The new Model Y Juniper with version 13 of FSD is pretty damn close to a Tesla robotaxi and Waymo. Yes, I had to occasionally intervene but many trips in the vehicle are intervention-free = robotaxi. And, yes, it makes mistakes but so does Waymo. No FSD errors on the Model Y Juniper with v13.2.9 I've experienced have been dangerous or egregious. Mostly things like driving too slowly or taking a convoluted route to my destination (the latter is a mistake Waymo also makes). The Model Y with FSD version 13 is a vast improvement over the Model 3 I tested about a year ago.
As just two examples, the Model Y took me from my home to a Supercharger location about 10 miles away intervention-free. I did nothing but sit there and witness the drive. At the end of the return trip, it took a route that I would not have chosen to take. But human taxi drivers do that too. It also took me to a Starbucks about 8 miles away intervention-free. That trip too was very similar, if not exactly the same as, what I've experienced in a Waymo Jaguar I-PACE in downtown Los Angeles. The only thing that I've found annoying is occasional speed limitations. On some short stretches of road near my home it slows to 25 mph and won't go faster unless I intervene.
Tesla FSD is often compared unfavorably to Google's Waymo. That may have been true in the past. But not anymore. I use Waymo a lot in Los Angeles, as I said above. Though Waymo is amazing, it also makes mistakes. But its biggest shortcoming is its range limitations, i.e., geofencing (see this map). Los Angeles is a very big place and most of LA county is off limits to Waymo. Tesla's FSD doesn't have that problem. That is both a boon and a bane for Tesla – the latter because it's a huge challenge. But I see Tesla meeting the challenge in most cases.
I will give Waymo this. In the geofenced area I use (Century City / Beverly Hills / West Hollywood) it is more refined and more confident than Tesla FSD. In some cases, more adept at avoiding and getting around obstacles. But Tesla is almost there. And, again, Tesla FSD has a huge advantage in that it is not limited to small restricted areas.
I've spent a lot of time testing General Motors Super Cruise. As well as Ford's Bluecruise and Rivian's Highway Assist. Super Cruise does what it says it does. It very competently takes over the driving duties on the highway. But it ain't Tesla FSD. It won't do local roads. It's not a robotaxi. And that's the bottom line.
FSD is not foolproof or flawless. And a Bloomberg story this week makes that clear. In that case, an older version of FSD was blinded by the sun, resulting in fatalities. And I've been in a Tesla when FSD missed seeing a community gate, which, without intervention, would have resulted in an accident. That was in a previous version of FSD. But it doesn't mean it can't happen again. That said, GM's SuperCruise, based on my experience, also makes the rare risky mistake. As do other ADAS (Advanced Driver Assist System) from other EV manufacturers that I've tested.
Over the past year, I've tested ADAS on EVs from General Motors (Super Cruise), Rivian (Highway Assist), Ford (Bluecruise), and Tesla. My take is that the benefits of an ADAS outweigh the risks. In 2024, there were 39,345 US traffic fatalities. Needless to say, practically all involved human drivers. And that increasingly means distracted drivers using their smart device. Unlike humans, an ADAS does not get distracted. The larger picture is that, on balance, a Tesla with FSD – and any reputable ADAS for that matter – makes the roads safer. As long as the driver is paying attention and can take over when the ADAS fails. The latter unfortunately is a big if because some drivers see it as an invitation to text or nap.
So, what about a robotaxi where there is no driver to intervene? As stated above, of course there's risk. But there is a much bigger risk with the average car driven by the average distracted human. With the explosion of personal devices, more and more people are distracted while they drive as they engage in things like texting – and even web browsing – while driving. I see people staring down at their devices while driving every day in Los Angeles. Those people are much more dangerous than any ADAS-controlled car. And those people would benefit greatly from an ADAS. The upshot is, an ADAS, such as Tesla FSD and robotaxi, does not get distracted and is laser-focused on the road. Humans often are not.