News
How Tesla Model 3 Performance stacks up against track legends in its class
This past weekend, Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed the price and specifications of the Model 3 Performance with Dual-Motor AWD. According to Elon Musk, the Model 3 Performance will cost $78,000 with all options except Autopilot. The vehicle has a top speed of 155 mph, is capable of sprinting from 0-60 mph in 3.5 seconds, and is capable of traveling 310 miles on a single charge.
With Autopilot and Full Self-Driving added, the cost of the Model 3 Performance shoots up to $86,000, and with the possibility of an upcoming Ludicrous Mode upgrade ($7,500 for the Model S P85D and $10,000 for the Model S P90D), the price of the vehicle would likely be dangerously close, or even surpass the $90,000 barrier. While these prices are a far departure from the car’s $35,000 base price, they are, nevertheless, reasonable.
One thing to note when looking at the Model 3 Performance is Tesla’s target demographic. The vehicle is being marketed to car enthusiasts who are looking for a high-performance vehicle that is quick off the line and nimble on the corners. A clue regarding this could be found on Elon Musk’s own statements on Twitter.
Cost of all options, wheels, paint, etc is included (apart from Autopilot). Cost is $78k. About same as BMW M3, but 15% quicker & with better handling. Will beat anything in its class on the track.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 20, 2018
Musk’s specific mention of the Model 3 Performance’s capabilities on the track is particularly noteworthy. Tesla’s electric cars, such as the Model S P100D, after all, have largely been formidable in straight-line races, but not so much in extended track driving. As could be seen in instances of the Model 3 being driven on a track, however, this particular limitation does not seem to exist in Tesla’s newest vehicle.
Earlier this year, the Model 3 was taken to the Laguna Seca Raceway, where it completed nine laps without limiting its power. Last month, a Model 3 took on an Autocross course, where it performed equally well without any heating issues. Earlier this month, a Model 3 took on another course, showing off its acceleration and cornering in a quick lap. All these vehicles performed far better on the track than the Model S or Model X. None of them were specifically tuned for performance.
With the Model 3 Performance, Tesla is trying to breach into the track driving market. Musk’s tweet specifically mentioned the BMW M3 — a legend on the track — stating that the Model 3 Performance will be roughly 15% quicker. This places the Model 3 Performance in the same league as the Mercedes AMG C 63 S Coupe, Audi RS5, and of course, the BMW M3. Compared to the cost of the fully-loaded options for these vehicles, the compact electric car is actually more affordable.
Take the Mercedes AMG C 63 S Coupe, for example. A fully-loaded version of the car costs just slightly over $106,000. A fully-loaded BMW M3? $91,759. As for the Audi RS5, a fully-loaded version will set back owners $93,325. With this in mind, the Model 3 Performance’s $78,000 price is actually a pretty good steal.
Specs-wise, the Mercedes AMG C 63 S Coupe is equipped with a twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 32-valve V8 engine. The vehicle has a top speed of 180 mph and is capable of sprinting from 0-60 mph in 3.8 secs. The BMW M3, on the other hand, is equipped with a twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve inline-6 engine. This gives the BMW M3 a top speed of 163 mph and a 0-60 mph time of 4.0 seconds. As for the Audi RS5, the high-performance vehicle is fitted with a twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V6, which gives the car a top speed of 174 mph and a 0-60 mph time of 3.9 seconds.
When looking at the Model 3 Performance, it is pertinent to note that Tesla is not marketing the vehicle to the same demographic as the electric car’s $35,000 standard range version. The base Model 3 is designed to be an affordable electric car that is as stylish as it is capable. The Model 3 Performance is a vehicle designed to to be comparable to some of the best cars in its class. Apart from sharing the same frame and the same interior, the $35,000 base Model 3 and the $78,000 Model 3 Performance are two electric cars that could not be any more different.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
In a new interview on Wednesday, Tesla uber bull Ron Baron said that anyone looking to buy the company’s stock should do so as soon as they can.
Baron, founder and CEO of Baron Capital and one of Tesla’s most persistent institutional bulls, used a CNBC Squawk Box appearance on Wednesday to deliver a familiar message with fresh urgency: In his opinion, Tesla stock is a buy:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.”
The Baron Capital frontman’s case is built around Full Self-Driving. Tesla reported 1.48 million active FSD subscriptions in the second quarter, up 56 percent year over year, and company officials have said roughly 55 percent of new North American deliveries left with a subscription enabled.
Baron framed that attach rate as proof the product is moving from enthusiast extra to default expectation, and as a reason software, not just vehicle volume, should drive the next phase of value.
His conviction on Tesla shares is not theoretical, as Baron Capital made its first Tesla investment in 2014, after years of meetings that began around the 2010 IPO roadshow. The firm later built a large SpaceX position starting in 2017.
Ron Baron today in new interview on Tesla:
“The time to buy the stock is now. FSD is catching on, and it’s going to be bigger and bigger. 55% of new buyers are buying it (Teslas) with FSD. It’s going to be everywhere. It’s safer.” pic.twitter.com/Rv5PB0bVZ2
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) September 16, 2026
Baron said those Musk-led bets have generated about $30 billion of the $71 billion in profits Baron Capital has produced for clients. He put the firm’s current exposure at roughly $25 billion in SpaceX and $5 billion in Tesla. Personally, he described SpaceX as his largest holding, at about $5 billion, with about $1.5 billion in Tesla and additional Tesla exposure through the firm’s funds.
That concentration is also a statement of loyalty. Asked about talk of a SpaceX-Tesla combination, Baron said he had already walked Elon Musk through arguments for and against a deal, then declined to repeat them on air. His public position was simpler: “Whatever you decide is better is what I’m going to support,” he said to Musk.
Baron also said that he picked up the farewell edition of the Model S after Tesla decided to sunset the vehicle earlier this year, calling it his favorite car he’s ever driven.
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
