News
Tesla Model 3 analysis triggers legal woes for teardown expert Sandy Munro
Detroit veteran Sandy Munro of Munro & Associates is reportedly being threatened with a lawsuit over his teardown and analysis of the Tesla Model 3. The possible lawsuit was mentioned briefly by Autoline Network host John McElroy during a recent episode of Ask Autoline on YouTube.
McElroy only provided very few details about Munro’s legal troubles, simply stating that the threat of a lawsuit was coming from an entity connected to the Model 3 teardown and analysis. The legal troubles of the teardown expert have resulted in several speculations about the identity of the possible plaintiff, with Tesla critics at one point suggesting that Tesla itself was probably behind the threat of legal action against Munro.
These speculations were promptly curbed by CNBC reporter Lora Kolodny, who was able to get in touch with Munro himself through email. Kolodny clarified in a Twitter post that Munro is not under threat of being sued by Tesla, nor by any TSLA bulls or bears; rather, it is from a corporation that would remain unnamed for now. Munro also informed the CNBC reporter that he had signed a contract limiting his ability to do press, at least for the time being.
“This has nothing to do with [Tesla] or the different factions; bulls or bear(s). There is nothing I can do until they publish their report,” Munro wrote.
Munro’s legal woes resulting from his teardown of the Model 3 comes as investment bank UBS concluded that Tesla would not be able to make any money from the $35,000 base trim of the electric sedan. UBS’ findings stand in stark contrast with those of Munro’s, who estimated that the $35,000 Standard trim Model 3 could give Tesla an 18% profit. It should be noted that both UBS and Munro & Associates are only estimating the costs of the base Model 3, particularly since Tesla is expected to start production of the electric car’s Standard trim by Q1 2019.
While UBS and Munro & Associates have their differences about the profitability of the $35,000 Standard trim Model 3, both firms agree that the technology present in the electric car is beyond that of competitors like the Chevy Bolt EV. When explaining why he had to “eat crow” with regards to the Model 3 (he was initially skeptical of the vehicle due to its fit and finish), Munro noted that Tesla’s battery pack in the electric car is the best he has seen to date. This sentiment was shared by UBS in its study of the Model 3, with the bank stating that Tesla’s battery packs have a cost advantage due to its cylindrical cells, which are more economical than the pouch cells Chevrolet opted to use in the Bolt.
Just like Munro, UBS was also impressed with Tesla’s powertrain in the Model 3, which was developed entirely in-house. UBS noted that this is completely different from GM’s strategy with the Bolt, since LG supplied roughly 90% of the electric car’s powertrain content. Part of UBS’ report was the conclusion that Tesla delivered “the best powertrain at the lowest cost,” and that the Model 3’s powertrain is “next-gen military-grade tech years ahead of its peers.”
UBS’ report claims that Tesla would be losing about $5,900 for every $35,000 Standard trim Model 3 it sells. Nevertheless, it must also be noted that when UBS conducted an analysis of the Chevy Bolt last year, the investment bank concluded that GM was losing $7,400 on every Bolt that was sold at its $37,000 price tag before government incentives. UBS was quite optimistic about GM’s plans for a self-driving car ride-sharing service, which could give the veteran automaker recurring revenue. That said, UBS is also not accounting for Tesla’s possible revenue from the Tesla Network, the company’s planned self-driving car ride-sharing service.
Watch Autoline’s John McElroy briefly discuss Sandy Munro’s possible legal troubles resulting from his Model 3 analysis in the video below.
Investor's Corner
Tesla (TSLA) Q4 and FY 2025 earnings results
Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings come on the heels of a quarter where the company produced over 434,000 vehicles, delivered over 418,000 vehicles, and deployed 14.2 GWh of energy storage products.
Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) has released its Q4 and FY 2025 earnings results in an update letter. The document was posted on the electric vehicle maker’s official Investor Relations website after markets closed today, January 28, 2025.
Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 earnings come on the heels of a quarter where the company produced over 434,000 vehicles, delivered over 418,000 vehicles, and deployed 14.2 GWh of energy storage products.
For the Full Year 2025, Tesla produced 1,654,667 and delivered 1,636,129 vehicles. The company also deployed a total of 46.7 GWh worth of energy storage products.
Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 results
As could be seen in Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 Update Letter, the company posted GAAP EPS of $0.24 and non-GAAP EPS of $0.50 per share in the fourth quarter. Tesla also posted total revenues of $24.901 billion. GAAP net income is also listed at $840 million in Q4.
Analyst consensus for Q4 has Tesla earnings per share falling 38% to $0.45 with revenue declining 4% to $24.74 billion, as per estimates from FactSet. In comparison, the consensus compiled by Tesla last week forecasted $0.44 per share on sales totaling $24.49 billion.
For FY 2025, Tesla posted GAAP EPS of $1.08 and non-GAAP EPS of $1.66 per share. Tesla also posted total revenues of $94.827 billion, which include $69.526 billion from automotive and $12.771 billion from the battery storage business. GAAP net income is also listed at $3.794 billion in FY 2025.
xAI Investment
Tesla entered an agreement to invest approximately $2 billion to acquire Series E preferred shares in Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, xAI, as part of the company’s recently disclosed financing round. Tesla said the investment was made on market terms consistent with those agreed to by other participants in the round.
The investment aligns with Tesla’s strategy under Master Plan Part IV, which centers on bringing artificial intelligence into the physical world through products and services. While Tesla focuses on real-world AI applications, xAI is developing digital AI platforms, including its Grok large language model.
Below is Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2025 update letter.
TSLA-Q4-2025-Update by Simon Alvarez
News
Tesla rolls out new Supercharging safety feature in the U.S.
Tesla has rolled out a new Supercharging safety feature in the United States, one that will answer concerns that some owners may have if they need to leave in a pinch.
It is also a suitable alternative for non-Tesla chargers, like third-party options that feature J1772 or CCS to NACS adapters.
The feature has been available in Europe for some time, but it is now rolling out to Model 3 and Model Y owners in the U.S.
With Software Update 2026.2.3, Tesla is launching the Unlatching Charge Cable function, which will now utilize the left rear door handle to release the charging cable from the port. The release notes state:
“Charging can now be stopped and the charge cable released by pulling and holding the rear left door handle for three seconds, provided the vehicle is unlocked, and a recognized key is nearby. This is especially useful when the charge cable doesn’t have an unlatch button. You can still release the cable using the vehicle touchscreen or the Tesla app.”
The feature was first spotted by Not a Tesla App.
This is an especially nice feature for those who commonly charge at third-party locations that utilize plugs that are not NACS, which is the Tesla standard.
For example, after plugging into a J1772 charger, you will still be required to unlock the port through the touchscreen, which is a minor inconvenience, but an inconvenience nonetheless.
Additionally, it could be viewed as a safety feature, especially if you’re in need of unlocking the charger from your car in a pinch. Simply holding open the handle on the rear driver’s door will now unhatch the port from the car, allowing you to pull it out and place it back in its housing.
This feature is currently only available on the Model 3 and Model Y, so Model S, Model X, and Cybertruck owners will have to wait for a different solution to this particular feature.
News
LG Energy Solution pursuing battery deal for Tesla Optimus, other humanoid robots: report
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
A recent report has suggested that LG Energy Solution is in discussions to supply batteries for Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot.
Optimus is expected to be one of Tesla’s most ambitious projects, with Elon Musk estimating that the humanoid robot could be the company’s most important product.
Humanoid robot battery deals
LG Energy Solution shares jumped more than 11% on the 28th after a report from the Korea Economic Daily claimed that the company is pursuing battery supply and joint development agreements with several humanoid robot makers. These reportedly include Tesla, which is developing Optimus, as well as multiple Chinese robotics companies.
China is already home to several leading battery manufacturers, such as CATL and BYD, making the robot makers’ reported interest in LG Energy Solution quite interesting. Market participants interpreted the reported outreach as a signal that performance requirements for humanoid robots may favor battery chemistries developed by companies like LG.
LF Energy Solution vs rivals
According to the report, energy density is believed to be the primary reason humanoid robot developers are evaluating LG Energy Solution’s batteries. Unlike electric vehicles, humanoid robots have significantly less space available for battery packs while requiring substantial power to operate dozens of joint motors and onboard artificial intelligence processors.
LG Energy Solution’s ternary lithium batteries offer higher energy density compared with rivals’ lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, which are widely used by Chinese EV manufacturers. That advantage could prove critical for humanoid robots, where runtime, weight, and compact packaging are key design constraints.