News
Tesla Model 3 has an important upper middle class audience to please
As Elon Musk continues to focus on his top 3 priorities for Tesla, emphasis on preparing for Model 3 production – arguably the most important vehicle in the company’s history – couldn’t be more pertinent.
The Model 3 will be emblematic of Tesla’s capacity to offer a highly safe and efficient means of transport for a middle to upper middle class segment that largely depends on vehicle reliability in order to commute. It looks like these upwardly mobile folks are buying into that Tesla promise (pun intended): by October 2016, nearly 400,000 reservations had already been placed on the Tesla Model 3.
Starting at $35,000 before incentives, the Model 3 will achieve a minimum of 215 miles of range per charge and has been designed to attain the highest safety ratings in every category. According to the Tesla website, “The Model 3 combines real world range, performance, safety, and spaciousness into a premium sedan that only Tesla can build.” Potential Model 3 buyers make a reservation through the company’s website by putting down a $1000 deposit. The Model 3 has a starting price of about half the base price of the flagship Tesla Model S and has the size and stance of the Mazda 3.
Jessica Caldwell, an Edmunds.com analyst, argues that, if Tesla Motors wants “to bring the EV to the mass market, they need the Model 3 to be successful.”
The Model 3 will be a sedan, although other versions may one day include a Model Y compact SUV. Base rear-wheel-drive Model 3 vehicles are expected to achieve at least 215-miles of range; all-wheel drive will be offered, and a larger battery capacity with longer range is expected. Tesla’s Full Self-Driving Capability is also expected to be a standard offering.
“This is their chance to prove that they are not just a specialized niche automaker, but actually a long-term volume automaker,” said Karl Brauer, an analyst at Kelley Blue Book. “They have to establish that they can build a high-quality volume vehicle.”
Being upper middle class is a swirling confluence of financial comfort, identity, dreams, and lifestyle options. The Tesla Model 3 may very well become one of the most significant markers of status stability, with its associated components of having a college education, white-collar work, economic security, and home ownership. Soon, many upwardly mobile consumers will be adding “owning a Tesla” to that definition. Indeed, fewer than 5% of reservation holders are likely to choose a minimalist entry level Model 3 car. By contrast, close to 7% say they intend to check every available check box in the Model 3 Design Configurator once it becomes available.
If there’s an option available, the future upscale Tesla Model 3 audience will get it, as the number of options will be new indicators of levels of wealth and class.
Of course, these soon-to-be Tesla owners will have high expectations for all aspects of the Tesla process. First production of Model 3 is still scheduled for mid 2017, while delivery estimates for new reservations are expected to take place mid 2018 or later. Musk admitted that Tesla had hubris in designing and engineering the complicated Model X. As a result, Tesla learned a lot about selling, building, and delivering, which it applied to the Model 3 with much greater production streamlining. “With any new technology, it takes multiple iterations and economies of scale before you can make it affordable,” Musk has said. A mass-market car “was only possible to do . . . after going through the prior steps.”
The Model 3 is the next step in the learning process, but Tesla has done the preparation.
The Model 3 was unveiled in March of 2016 with operational prototype cars. In anticipation of much higher delivery numbers associated with the Model 3, Tesla hired former Audi executive Peter Hochholdinger as its Vice President of Vehicle Production. Hochholdinger had been in charge of production for the A4, A5, and Q5 vehicles, with around 400,000 vehicles per year under his watch. He should be a key asset as Tesla looks to roll out Model 3s in quantities that far exceed the number of cars the company has made to date.
Tesla has dealt lately with some supplier issues and has brought production of some components in-house. Other components, however, continue to be manufactured by established companies. For example, reports indicate that the Model 3’s center touchscreen will be supplied by LG Display.
By spring 2017, Model 3 photos and videos — shot both by bystanders and insiders — should start to circulate. Eventually, too, the government will need to ascertain the safety of Model 3 via crash-testing, and resulting reports will have a big impact on eventual delivery dates.
The Model 3 sedan will use some of the same glass technology that the company is using for its solar roof tiles, which should introduce an upper middle class audience to new ways of thinking about residential energy systems. The Model 3 is said to accelerate with an alluring still rush. It is just that rush— as well as zero-emissions and self-driving capability— that the upper middle class market has been awaiting.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.
The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.
The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”
Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Napoli said:
“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.
As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.
We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.
My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.
I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”
🚨 Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli calls rumors of financial issues “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”
Read his full remarks here: https://t.co/t3Pg1NHvzy pic.twitter.com/LvHUPhO4Qf
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 15, 2026
It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.
Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.
Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
