News
Tesla Model 3 gets scathing teardown review: “I can’t imagine how they released this”
Sandy Munro, CEO of Munro & Associates, an automotive benchmarking firm based in Detroit, believes that the Tesla Model 3’s build quality is incredibly lacking. In a video of his observations on the vehicle, the teardown specialist lamented on the Model 3’s apparent haphazard construction and flawed design, from its panel gaps and trunk to its non-mechanical interior rear door handles.
The automotive veteran’s comments and observations on Tesla’s vehicle were featured in a recently uploaded video from Autoline Network, where host John McElroy tackled the flaws of the Model 3 with the Detroit veteran. From a general standpoint, the Munro & Associates CEO had a lot of issues with the car’s fit and finish, with the automotive teardown expert stating that he could not imagine “how they (Tesla) released this (the Model 3).”
One particular pain point for Munro was the glaring panel gaps in the vehicle. On the rear trunk of the Model 3, the Detroit-based executive noted that some gaps were so huge, he could fit his thumb in. Using some classic hyperbole and seemingly jabbing at Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s long-term plans for SpaceX, Munro quipped that the gaps in the car could be seen all the way “from Mars.”
The Model 3’s door handles did not get any approval from the Detroit veteran, too. According to Munro, the mechanism of the front door handles on the mass market electric compact sedan is far too complicated to operate. Munro, who admitted that his wrists were previously injured in an accident, went so far as to state that the doors were “impossible” to open with one hand, and that it caused him great pain to use. The CEO summarized his comments by saying that he “hated” the car’s door handles.
Apart from the front door mechanism and the panel gaps on the Model 3, Munro also took issue with the lack of mechanical door handles for the car’s rear seats. According to Munro, the lack of mechanical door mechanisms on the rear would force passengers to crawl out of the car from the trunk in the event of an accident, which is incredibly difficult and risky. Coupled with the heavy trunk of the Model 3 and the car’s confusing cut zones for emergency personnel, the Detroit veteran noted that Tesla’s latest vehicle is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Overall, Munro concluded that Tesla had done a really bad job with the Model 3. In the Detroit veteran’s opinion, however, the main flaw of the car was the fact that it was designed by a company that is not experienced in the auto industry at all.
“This thing is a miserable job, and we’ve come to the conclusion that these guys at Tesla are definitely electronics snobs.”
Many of the auto veteran’s statements in the recently uploaded video seem to be a deliberate attempt to damage the credibility of an otherwise critically-acclaimed car. Since Tesla has begun the deliveries of the Model 3, the mass market electric compact sedan has garnered rave reviews from multiple online publications and customers alike. While the car is not perfect in any way, the Model 3 is nonetheless hailed as a vehicle that can very well usher in a new era in transportation.
Quite interestingly, Munro’s bias does not seem to come from an anti-electric car standpoint. In the past, the auto veteran hailed the BMW i3 as a masterfully manufactured car, and he was pretty impressed with the Chevy Bolt EV, too. Perhaps the reason could be provided by Jalopnik, however, which reported that Munro & Associates’s most prolific clients are GM, Ford, and Chrysler, otherwise known as the Big Three of the legacy American auto industry.
Tesla’s long-standing saga regarding its door handles and a manual release has entered its latest chapter, and as a result, a big change is coming.
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denied Tesla’s petition that was seeking a defect investigation into roughly 180,000 Model 3 vehicles for an issue involving the emergency mechanical door release.
🚨 The NHTSA denied a petition from Tesla that would have thrown out concerns regarding its door handles.
NHTSA said Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect warranting an investigation. The agency said a rulemaking process would be a better strategy. pic.twitter.com/j6PzUBM1mT
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 24, 2026
NHTSA said that Tesla’s petition did not present evidence of a safety-related defect in the door handles or their emergency releases. Instead, the agency determined that it would rather solve the issue of the lack of labeling or location of emergency mechanical door releases and the federal safety rules that govern them.
Essentially, the NHTSA wants to create and enforce rules that would require automakers to make emergency door latch releases more clearly labeled in a car. Despite a Tesla having manual door releases on all four passenger doors, many people do not know they exist or how they work.
Tesla addresses door handle complaints with simple engineering fix
In recent times, Tesla has faced some criticism involving its door handles, specifically because some occupants have reported that they are unable to exit their vehicles after losing power. The door handles on a Tesla are electronically operated, but in the event that the 12V battery dies, there is a manual release that can be used.
The NHTSA only identified a single complaint involving the mechanical door releases: a 2022 Model 3 owner said the release was concealed and unlabeled after the vehicle lost power after a front-end collision. It has also already started to create a separate rulemaking process to make emergency door-egress systems more obvious.
It should be noted that all Teslas have mechanical emergency door releases, but they are placed in various locations as the vehicles have aged and been redesigned from year to year. Refer to the safety manual for your vehicle if you have any confusion about where the emergency releases are and how they work.
News
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
SpaceX pushed Starship Flight 13 to Friday, blaming weather instead of the previous engine issues.
SpaceX called off Thursday’s launch attempt of Starship Flight 13, pushing the mission to Friday because of weather tied to Tropical Storm Bertha. The company confirmed the delay on X, noting “Now targeting Friday, July 24 for Starship’s thirteenth flight test, due to weather. A key objective for the flight test is to get clear imagery from the ground of Starship’s heatshield as it flies at a higher dynamic pressure during ascent, which won’t be possible with today’s weather conditions.”
This is the second delay for Flight 13 in two weeks. SpaceX first tried to launch the mission on July 16, but the countdown ended in an automated abort at T-0 when four of Super Heavy Booster 20’s 33 Raptor engines failed to ignite. Musk said at the time that two Raptors would need to be removed and replaced, as Teslarati reported. The company spent the following week destacking Ship 40 and Booster 20, swapping engines, and running leak checks before restacking the vehicle on Pad 2 Wednesday night, according to Spaceflight Now’s live coverage.
Unlike the engine problem, Thursday’s delay has nothing to do with the hardware. SpaceX wants clean footage of Starship’s heat shield captured from the ground as the vehicle flies through max dynamic pressure, something the storm’s cloud cover over South Texas would not allow. The company said visibility should improve for Friday’s attempt, with the same 90 minute window opening at 5:45 p.m. CT.
Flight 13 will be the second outing for the V3 versions of Starship and Super Heavy, following their debut on Flight 12 in May. The mission carries 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, the first time SpaceX has flown operational satellites rather than mass simulators on Starship. Six of those satellites are fitted with cameras to inspect the heat shield from a different angle during ascent, giving engineers a second data source beyond the ground imagery the weather is currently blocking.
Booster 20 will attempt a boostback burn and a splashdown landing burn in the Gulf of America, while Ship 40 follows a suborbital trajectory toward a landing in the Indian Ocean. The flight plan largely mirrors Flight 12, though the booster will run a more aggressive ascent burn after max Q this time, and the ship’s heat shield includes load sensing tiles meant to measure stress at the higher dynamic pressure SpaceX is targeting.
If Friday’s attempt succeeds, Flight 13 could be the last suborbital test in the program. SpaceX is already looking to push for an orbital flight on Flight 14.
Tesla stock (NASDAQ: TSLA) endured one of its sharpest single-day declines in years on July 23, tumbling approximately 14.5 percent and closing near $320 after opening the session around $374. The drop erased more than $140 billion in market value amid heavy trading volume and left the shares at multi-week lows.
The sell-off followed the company’s second-quarter 2026 results, released the previous evening. Tesla reported record revenue of $28.2 billion, up 26 percent year over year, driven by a Q2-record 480,126 vehicle deliveries. Energy storage deployments also rose strongly.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Yet profitability disappointed sharply. Operating income fell 57 percent to $398 million, compressing the operating margin to just 1.4 percent. Non-GAAP earnings per share came in at $0.33, well below the roughly $0.53 analysts had expected. Free cash flow turned negative by $1.1 billion as capital expenditures surged 142 percent to $5.8 billion, largely tied to accelerated spending on artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous systems.
The losses on capex were expected, as Tesla said it would be spending heavily in 2026.
Investors also reacted to lingering uncertainty surrounding key product timelines. During the Earnings Call, management reiterated ambitions for Robotaxi deployment and the Optimus humanoid robot, but offered limited new concrete milestones, renewing questions about execution pace that have long accompanied Tesla’s ambitious roadmap.
The magnitude of the decline places it among Tesla’s more severe one-day percentage losses since its 2010 initial public offering. Historically, the two largest single-day drops (split-adjusted) remain September 8, 2020, when shares fell 21.1 percent amid broader market volatility and valuation concerns, and January 13, 2012, with a 19.3 percent plunge during the company’s early growth struggles.
Other notable declines include an 18.6 percent drop on March 16, 2020, at the onset of pandemic-related market turmoil. Thursday’s move ranks roughly ninth on the all-time list but stands out as the steepest in more than a year.
Despite the short-term pain, Tesla’s long-term trajectory has repeatedly recovered from such volatility. The latest results underscore both the strength of its core automotive and energy businesses and the near-term costs of heavy investment in next-generation technologies.
Tesla door handle saga gets its latest chapter and a big change is coming
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 faces wrath of the Texas skies
