Tesla Model 3
Tesla’s Model 3 is already a game changer: Tech, Value and Economics prevail
Yesterday I spoke to BBC Newsday about the Tesla Model 3 and one of the questions they asked was “is the Tesla Model 3 a game changer”. Even before incentives the Model 3 competes with other entry level luxury vehicles like the BMW 3 series and Audi A4. With incentives it moves even further down-market, competing with big sellers like the Toyota Camry (the USA’s top selling car in 2016). That definitely moves Tesla into the mass market with a lot of opportunity to grow. There are some additional factors though that I think makes it a true game changer.
Industry Affect
It’s already a game changer. Just over a year ago most automakers still dismissed Tesla as a niche manufacturer and articles still wrote about how electric vehicles were decades out or may never come to fruition. Then Telsa had almost 400,000 preorders for a vehicle no one had actually driven, most had only seen through their computer screens, and wouldn’t be available for over a year. I was one of those people.
Fast forward to today, with manufacturers practically falling over each other to announce their own electric vehicle programs and new targets. The discussion has flipped. Articles are no longer written about if electric vehicles are coming but how quickly. I think we have the Tesla Model 3 to thank for that.
Value Proposition
Preorders are one thing, but can the Model 3 compete in a world of mostly combustion vehicles? That will depend on the value customers assign to it. My opinion is that Model 3 is the first lower cost electric vehicle to cross the ‘value threshold’. What I mean by that is that a buyer considering two vehicles in the same class and quality, one electric and one combustion, would chose the Model 3 over the combustion option. The Model 3 is just the better all-around car.
(Tesla)
Consider the Chevy Bolt, a good car, but a more difficult sell on value proposition. Does it actually provide $37,500 worth of value to the buyer or could I purchase an internal combustion vehicle that provides me more value (as per classic capitalism this is largely ignoring the societal and environmental benefits to others, which can be difficult for most buyers to quantify – it’s not right, just reality).
“The Model 3 is just the better all-around car”
The factors at play are complex, the initial purchase price, comfort, reliability, range, acceleration and speed, safety, handling, aesthetics, operating costs, convenience, and environmental impact. These all go into a buyer’s value calculation, mostly subconsciously. For me I can’t think of another vehicle that hits those categories as well as the Model 3.
Economics and Cost Reductions
Customer value is great but Tesla more than any other automaker needs to produce electric vehicles with a decent profit margin. It doesn’t have a lot of gas guzzling expensive SUVs to offset losses on EVs. Other automakers have claimed they are perfectly willing to make EVs at a loss, which seems largely driven by meeting emissions targets in key US states (California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont). That may also be why GM is pulling back on Bolt production, if they’re approaching their quotas in those states . In Ontario Canada, which has no such requirements, the Chevy Bolt is sold out until January 2018 and the only one available to test drive is at the non-profit organization Plug’n Drive in Toronto. A lot has been made in the past of Tesla’s business losses, but those include capital investments and R&D. They do in fact make a profit on their vehicles, but invest more money on improvements and expansions than that profit totals. Making an affordable electric vehicle at a profit is a challenge Tesla seems confident they’ve achieved. That’s a big deal. A game changer.
Technology Innovation
To be a game changer though the Model 3 can’t just be another lower priced electric vehicle. It has to be innovative and it is absolutely that. It will be using a new battery format, autonomous driving hardware, and it’ll likely be using Tesla’s newly optimized powertrain with 1 million miles capability + faster acceleration.
Tesla Model 3 prototype from the March 31, 2016 unveiling event in Hawthorne, CA
With those improved batteries and powertrain it should be one of the most efficient electric vehicles on the road. There’s also the Supercharger network which really opens up the options for long distance driving, more than any other manufacturer. These capabilities will set a new benchmark for affordable electric vehicles.
Tonight it will be very interesting to see what the final specs. Will anyone be able to match it? Let the (affordable) EV space race begin!
What do you think? Is the Model 3 a game changer and why?
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
Lifestyle
Tesla makes the cut on California’s newest EV Rebate program
California just signed a $270 million EV rebate into law and it starts this summer.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 168 into law on Monday, July 13, 2026, creating a $270 million EV rebate program that delivers money directly at the dealership rather than as a tax credit applied months later. The program, called MyFirstEV, is funded equally by California’s state budget and participating automakers, with each contributing $135.5 million to make the math work.
The timing is directly tied to the loss of federal support when the $7,500 federal EV tax credit ended, removing the most significant consumer incentive that had driven EV adoption in the U.S. California, which accounts for roughly one-third of all EVs sold nationally, moved to fill that gap with a state-level replacement.
The rebate structure is straightforward. First-time EV buyers can receive $3,500 off any new battery-electric vehicle with an MSRP up to $50,000. Used EVs priced at $25,000 or below qualify for a $1,750 rebate. The credit is applied at the point of sale, which removes the friction of the old federal system where buyers had to wait for tax season to see the benefit. The program goes live later this summer, with the California Air Resources Board expected to release full participation details next month.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
For Tesla buyers, the implications are mixed. The Tesla Model 3 RWD at $42,490 and the Model 3 Long Range at $47,490 both fall under the $50,000 cap and would qualify for the full $3,500 rebate for first-time buyers. The Model Y, which starts at $44,990 after Tesla’s recent price adjustment, also qualifies. The Model X, Model S, and Cybertruck all exceed the cap and receive no benefit. As Teslarati has reported, the program also includes a carve-out exempting California-based automakers like Rivian and Lucid from the price cap entirely, a provision that puts Tesla at a disadvantage since it relocated its headquarters to Texas in 2021.
Other qualifying vehicles include the Chevrolet Equinox EV, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, and Volkswagen ID.4.
Tesla Diner is throwing a birthday party with a Franz-signed special treat
Elon Musk says your Tesla will start to learn your individual preferences
