Last week, the Fremont Factory started producing the upgraded Model 3 sedan. With the change, Tesla effectively phased out the original Model 3. It was the end of an era, and numerous electric vehicle enthusiasts expressed their appreciation for the vehicle. The original Model 3, after all, is what made Tesla into a mainstream automaker — a company that is considered the undisputed trailblazer in the EV sector.
As we bid farewell to the original Model 3, it seems pertinent to look behind the vehicle that changed it all for the electric vehicle movement. While the Model S proved that EVs can be just as good or even better than combustion-powered cars, the Model 3 proved that EVs can compete with ICE-powered vehicles at a competitive price.
And that changed everything.
I still remembered my first time going to the show room at Palo Alto to sit in OG Model 3.
Woah, that felt like a future, and secretly hoping that I would own one someday and work for this company.
Then on my first year at Tesla, many old employees told me the legendary stories… pic.twitter.com/FDmCnH5dCX— Yun-Ta Tsai (@YunTaTsai1) January 11, 2024
Tesla’s iPhone moment
The Model 3 made a lot of headlines even before it was unveiled. At the time, the world was shocked as electric vehicle enthusiasts lined up outside Tesla stores so they could place a reservation for the Model 3, not unlike Apple fans waiting for the newest iPhone. But unlike Apple fans lining up for the newest iPhone, the Tesla fans lined up for a car whose design and specs are yet to be revealed.
That was a huge vote of confidence for Tesla and a huge step forward for the electric vehicle movement as a whole. It did, if any, show that there is ample interest in electric cars, provided that they are high quality and well-designed. The Model 3 is both of these things.
Still remember the day I picked up my 2017 Model3. It was absolutely mind blowing! All other cars became old and wrong after that day. Trying Autopark (while working at NIO lol) for the first time ?: https://t.co/iPaidk2mXy pic.twitter.com/qytzw3SvL7— Allen Veach (@allen_veach) January 11, 2024
The OG mainstream Tesla
The original Tesla Roadster proved that electric cars can be taken seriously. The Model S and Model X proved that EVs can be objectively and legitimately better than combustion-powered cars on every important metric. The Model 3 proved that EVs are ready for the mainstream market, and it was the success of the all-electric sedan that ultimately allowed Tesla to bring the Model Y to market.
Needless to say, without the Model 3, there would be no Model Y. And if it were not for the fact that the Model 3 was so well-loved all over the world, Tesla would have had a far harder time cracking the million-vehicle mark at all.
Little story time for me and the now "legacy" Model 3:
As I was going through my late teens and entered my 20's, I was an anti-Tesla, Chevy Volt (with a V) elitist. I believed in lots of the anti-Tesla FUD, as I didn't know anyone in the Tesla community or anyone really that… https://t.co/dGdZHqV8OB— Anthony Spina (@Speenuh) January 11, 2024
“An AK-47 Disguised as a Butter Knife”
There are a lot of things to love about the Model 3. It’s filled to the brim with tech and safety features, even in its base model, and its performance is amazing. When Tesla started shipping Basic Autopilot as standard, the Model 3 pretty much became the best bang-for-the-buck car in the market. But beyond the tech and the features, the Model 3 is simply a great driver’s car. Chris Harris of Top Gear, during a review of the Model 3 Performance, remarked that the vehicle is an “AK-47 disguised as a butter knife.” That’s a perfect description of the Model 3.
It would not be an exaggeration to state that the Model 3, particularly the Model 3 Performance, is the most fun car in Tesla’s lineup. Its Track Mode feature proved that EVs can be driven hard around corners, and it could keep pace with the best ICE-powered track weapons out there. For now, all eyes are on Tesla to see if the company could release a worthy successor to the Model 3 Performance.
After an incredible 6.5 year run & and ~2.3 million units sold, legacy Model 3 production is ending.
The 2017-2023 @Tesla Model 3 not only revolutionized the auto industry, but also dismantled the notion that EVs couldn't be profitable low-cost mass-market cars ? pic.twitter.com/4W8i5jiDX4— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 11, 2024
An Everlasting Legacy
Tesla owes its current success to the Model 3. CEO Elon Musk himself admitted that during the Model 3’s infamous production hell, Tesla came close to dying. But the company didn’t fail. Instead, demand for the Model 3 remained healthy, and the all-electric sedan became so successful that Tesla was able to build a strong, profitable business on its back.
The original Model 3 may be gone from Tesla’s production lines at the Fremont Factory and Gigafactory Shanghai. Despite this, the vehicle’s legacy shall live on. Its successor is promising, as the upgraded Model 3 has been critically acclaimed by owners and professional reviewers alike since it was initially revealed last year.
Tesla watchers note that over the original Model 3’s 6.5-year run, the vehicle sold about 2.3 million units. That’s not bad at all for a car that Tesla critics assumed had serious demand problems from the get-go.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Investor's Corner
Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet
Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.
Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.
The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.
Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.
Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.
There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.
The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.
The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.
Elon Musk
Ukraine says Starlink is cutting out its military drones as Poland calls out Elon Musk
Ukrainian officials allege SpaceX limited military Starlink speeds, disrupting drone missions; SpaceX has not commented.
Ukrainian officials are accusing SpaceX of placing a speed limit on the military version of Starlink that their forces use to fly drones, but SpaceX has not confirmed that any change was made. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said in a Telegram post on Wednesday that Starshield terminals have begun losing service when they move faster than about 100 miles per hour, according to a Reuters report. “Our defense forces did not receive a warning about this limitation, and this led to the disruption of several missions,” he wrote.
Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters that connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at just 68 to 75 mph, which made the drones harder to control. Volunteer Serhiy Sternenko, citing military reports, said the dropouts are now starting at 37 to 43 mph. These accounts come from Ukrainian officials and military sources and have not been independently verified. Regular civilian terminals were reportedly not affected, according to EUalive.
.@POTUS: We told Zelensky, ‘You can do whatever you want to Russia, but don’t hit the refineries because that’s a world problem.’ And what does he do? He goes and hits the diesel fuel. He better damn well stop. https://t.co/CdRlMcPlKr
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 10, 2026
SpaceX has not publicly commented or explained what, if anything, changed. Beskrestnov and other Ukrainian officials believe the issue is intentional and point to the timing. Washington has been pressing Kyiv to stop long range strikes on Russian oil refineries after President Trump called for an “energy ceasefire,” and Musk posted on Saturday that “Zelensky has gone too far.” EUalive noted that neither Ukrainian nor Polish officials have presented evidence that the limit was ordered by Washington or by SpaceX, so the link to politics remains an allegation. Other explanations, such as a technical or policy change affecting fast moving terminals, have not been ruled out.
Poland’s foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, responded on X by quote tweeting a Kyiv Independent report and writing: “Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again? As your European customers, we are watching you.” Poland is the largest funder of Ukraine’s Starlink service, having supplied more than 29,000 terminals and covering operating costs Sikorski has put at roughly $50 million a year. The wording echoes their 2025 clash, when Musk told Sikorski to “be quiet, small man.” At the time of writing, neither Musk nor SpaceX had responded to the claims.
Hey, @elonmusk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?
As your European customers, we are watching you.— Radosław Sikorski 🇵🇱🇪🇺 (@sikorskiradek) October 14, 2026
The dispute sits on top of a long history. Musk confirmed in February 2022 that Starlink was active in Ukraine after a request from a Ukrainian minister. That October, SpaceX asked the Pentagon to share the bill and Musk said the cost was approaching $20 million a month, before he reversed course and said SpaceX would keep paying. In December 2024 the Pentagon moved some of those terminals onto the Starshield service, the government version now at the center of the complaints.
SpaceX has also changed how its network treats certain terminals in Ukraine before, and that time it was with Kyiv’s cooperation. In February, Ukrainian officials confirmed that terminals believed to be used by Russian troops were disabled after coordination with SpaceX, a step that Ukrainian commanders later said hurt Russian assaults. Whether anything similar is behind the latest reports is unclear, which is why Kyiv is asking for answers.
Ukraine is already looking at backups. Defense tech company Stetman is developing its own satellite system, UASAT-NANO, and officials in Europe have discussed alternatives to Starlink since early 2025, though none match its scale yet.
Elon Musk
FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day
FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.
The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.
The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.
A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.
The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.
Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.
As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.