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.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
