News
Tesla Model 3 vs 2018 Nissan Leaf – A side by side comparison
Tesla’s mission is simple and includes getting other automakers to join in the party. The Chevy Bolt, quirky as it may look, technically beat Tesla to market with a 200+ mile range EV that can be had for the $35,000 ballpark. Nissan, who I humbly believe to be the only other automaker currently taking full EVs seriously, has just announced their all new 2018 Leaf. The party is undoubtedly slow, but other automakers such as Volvo have at least talked about “electrification” (clever marketing shorthand for hybrids) but we can no longer deny that electric vehicles are here and their growth will not be able to be stopped.
Just as every concept EV talked about before 2016 was touted as a “Tesla killer,” it is now impossible not to compare every new electric offering with the much anticipated Tesla Model 3. So let’s do just that. The table below highlights some key specs for each.
| NISSAN LEAF | TESLA MODEL 3 | |
| Base price, before tax credits | $29,990 | $35,000 |
| Price with options | SL – $36,200 | Premium + EAP – $45,000 |
| Range (miles) | 150 (higher coming 2019) | 220 (310 for $9,000 upgrade) |
| Battery | 40 kWh/ (higher coming 2019) | Undisclosed |
| Charge time – Level 2 | Up to 22 miles per hour | Up to 30 miles per hour (std batt) |
| Charge time – Level 3 | Up to 88 miles per ½ hour | Up to 130 miles per ½ hour (std) |
| Charging network | No dedicated network | Tesla Supercharger, pay per use |
| Overall Length/Width | 176.4” / 70.5” | 184.8” / 82.2” |
| Cargo space | 23.6 cf | 15 cf |
| Body style | 4-door hatchback | 4-door sedan |
| Infotainment | Apple CarPlay, Android Auto | Tesla’s own |
| Main display | 7” | 15” |
| 0-60 mph time | 8 seconds (Motor Trend est.) | 5.6 seconds |
| Driver’s Assist Suite | ProPILOT ($2,200) | Autopilot ($5,000) |
| Automatic Emergency Braking | Standard | Standard |
If you want to get into a relatively long range EV (150 miles or greater) for the lowest possible price, the base 2018 Nissan Leaf wins out. I will also assume that you will be able to get your hands on a Leaf much sooner than a Model 3. Finally, if you absolutely insist on a hatchback, the Leaf has it.
Outside of those three things, and possibly the still large size of a Model 3, I can’t personally find any reason to choose a Leaf over a Model 3. To be clear I’m proud of Nissan for upping their game a bit. The 2018 version is in my very humble opinion, far superior in the looks department to the frog-like 2017 it is replacing. Nissan’s V-Motion grille is sharp, and hopefully takes your attention off the obvious charge port cover above it. The lines of the car itself are much more closely aligned with Nissan’s other offerings, which I find to have adequate design. Similarly, the rear tail lights are modern and edgy. If you can excuse all the buttons, the interior looks sharp. The Apple and Android faithful alike will appreciate the available car play integration. The bottom line for me is that every EV is a step in the right direction, even if this car won’t compel families to ditch the gasoline completely. In the absence of a reliable and dedicated fast charging network for long distance travel, the Leaf is still primarily a commuter car. 150 miles of range will simply allow a few after work activities without much thought.
I am excited to see the range and price that Nissan makes available in 2019 because for now, the base cost per mile of $199.93 falls far short of Tesla’s $159.09. I’d also like to see them re-think their battery management system, which I am to understand leaves something to be desired. One owner described his experience with a 2014 Leaf as losing 20% capacity thus far.
When looking at what we know about the Model 3 however, I can’t really compare the Leaf in any serious manner. I’m trying to be reasonable, to give Nissan a fair shake, but there are several things that make me a Tesla fanatic that are sorely missing from the Leaf – and any other current EV for that matter – that may or may not ever come close.
Supercharging. EVs will remain a commuter or secondary car until you can load up the kids and head to Disney with the reasonable assurance that there are plenty of chargers along the way that will a) be working, and b) charge quickly. Tesla has made a huge commitment in this front because they know that’s what it takes.
Over the air updates. I have not yet heard of Nissan taking this approach, but I suspect if they do, it would be limited to maps and small changes. I don’t foresee the Leaf being able to give your car the sudden ability to automatically open your garage four years after you’ve purchased it. Some current automakers do have software updates for their vehicles, but my understanding is that you have to bring it in to the dealership to have it done. This totally defeats the purpose.
Dealerships. You’d be hard pressed to find a harsher critic of dealerships than I. Whether discussing the 2011 Jeep Wrangler that took me 3 hours to get for the exact price I walked in and demanded, or that time I spoke on behalf of a recently widowed neighbor with an actual cash budget who could not, no matter how you pitch it, afford that extended dealer’s warranty package, I can go on and on and about how much I dislike the experience. It always takes hours. You always get passed around from salesperson to manager to finance person. You may even get your credit run 10 times simultaneously (I’m talking to you, Hyundai dealership!) No thank you. I will order my car online, know the exact price and meet you there with a pre-printed check for the exact amount owed.
Looks. I get it, I really do, people love hatchbacks. My Model S is a hatch and has accommodated many a Home Depot trip. My once beloved Scion tC was a hatch, and once hauled 27 boxes of Pergo brand laminate floor planks. Even the Jeep with the horrible dealership experience picked up a washing machine. A washing machine! But I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that you could conceivably compare the gorgeous, timeless and sleek looks of the Model 3 with the quirky, if a bit modern and sharp, Nissan Leaf.
Performance. There’s a reason I never considered a hybrid or EV before. Now that I’m a bit older and have the budget to pick a car I actually like, I’m not going to voluntarily drive something that takes 8 seconds to get to 60. I want tight steering, good handling, and the ability to make my passengers squeal with delight when I punch it.
Interior. This is a personal preference and I’m with you if you think the minimalistic interior of the Model 3 is crazy. It is. But I can just about promise you that you will not miss all those buttons. I sat in a Porsche Macan at the auto show and while I expected to feel great inside a new offering from a brand with as much clout as Porsche, I was too busy wondering what in the world all those buttons did. It’s almost a joke how many.
Confession: I started this post excited about the new Leaf. I tweeted about it first thing this morning; the more the merrier in EV world if you ask me. But when getting right down to the specifications, it’s hard not to see that everyone else still has a long way to go. They’re taking baby steps while Tesla is competing in the long jump.
What do you think? Do the two cars compare? Tell us in the comments!
Tesla deliveries got a big boost in expectations from Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs, who believes the company will report some stronger-than-expected numbers when the second quarter comes to an end in the coming weeks.
Goldman Sachs has raised its vehicle delivery forecast for Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) in the second quarter of 2026, signaling growing confidence in the electric vehicle leader’s near-term momentum despite mixed market signals. Analyst Mark Delaney lifted the bank’s Q2 estimate to 420,000 units from a previous 405,000, surpassing the Visible Alpha consensus estimate of 400,000.
The upward revision stems from stronger-than-expected sales data across key regions. Europe stands out with projected year-over-year growth of 85-90 percent, driven by robust demand for Tesla’s Model Y and refreshed offerings. China posted high single-digit gains, while markets like South Korea and Australia also contributed positive momentum. These gains help offset mid-teens declines in U.S. deliveries through May, where broader EV market headwinds and competition persist.
Goldman extended its optimism to the full year, increasing its 2026 delivery projection to 1.73 million vehicles from 1.72 million. Longer-term forecasts remain unchanged, with 1.88 million units expected in 2027 and 1.96 million in 2028. The bank also nudged its 2026 earnings-per-share estimate higher to $1.35 from $1.30, reflecting anticipated margin benefits from higher volumes and operational efficiencies.
Despite these positive adjustments, Goldman maintained its Neutral rating and $375 price target on Tesla shares. At current trading levels near $411, the stock sits about 8-9 percent above the target, highlighting ongoing valuation concerns even as delivery momentum builds. Tesla’s Q1 2026 deliveries totaled 358,023 units, setting a baseline for recovery expectations in the current period.
This update arrives as Tesla prepares to report official Q2 figures shortly after June 30. Investors and analysts will closely watch not only headline delivery numbers but also regional breakdowns, average selling prices, and progress on energy storage deployments and autonomous technology initiatives.
The move by Goldman Sachs underscores a broader narrative for Tesla: while legacy auto markets face softening demand and tariff uncertainties, Tesla’s global footprint and product pipeline provide resilience. Europe’s surge reflects pent-up demand and policy support for EVs, while China’s steady growth highlights Tesla’s competitive positioning against local rivals.
Tesla still has its work cut out for it, including U.S. price sensitivity and intensifying competition. Yet Goldman’s revision adds to a series of analyst notes suggesting Q2 could mark a turning point. As Tesla pushes toward higher production rates at facilities in Fremont, Shanghai, and Berlin, sustained execution will be key to validating these higher forecasts.
We have said numerous times that deliveries are becoming a less important metric in the grand scheme of things, as AI truly takes precedence in the company’s thesis.
For Tesla bulls, the Goldman note reinforces faith in underlying demand trends. For skeptics, the unchanged rating serves as a reminder that delivery beats alone may not immediately resolve valuation debates in a high-interest-rate environment. Tesla’s stock reaction will likely hinge on the official numbers and management commentary in the coming weeks.
SpaceX has exercised its option to acquire Cursor, the innovative AI coding company, in an all-stock transaction valued at $60 billion. The deal, announced on June 16, marks a significant step in SpaceX’s expansion into advanced artificial intelligence, building on months of close collaboration between the companies.
Cursor, officially operated by Anysphere, Inc., is an AI-native code editor and coding agent designed to transform software development. Founded in 2022 by a group of MIT graduates in San Francisco, Cursor builds on the familiar foundation of Visual Studio Code but integrates powerful AI capabilities directly into the core experience.
Unlike traditional code editors or simple extensions, Cursor functions as a full “coding agent” that turns natural-language instructions into actionable code.
SpaceX has exercised the option to acquire @cursor_ai in an all-stock transaction with the goal of building the world’s most useful AI models.
For the past few months, SpaceXAI has been jointly training a model with Cursor, which will be released in Cursor and Grok Build soon.… https://t.co/X5mepgXgjJ
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) June 16, 2026
Developers interact with Cursor through features like its Composer agent, which can search entire codebases, edit multiple files, run terminal commands, debug issues, and complete complex multi-step programming tasks autonomously.
Users describe high-level goals, such as “build a scalable API endpoint with authentication,” and the AI plans, implements, tests, and refines the solution while the human oversees decisions. Additional tools include advanced autocomplete (Tab), context-aware chat, and infrastructure for handling billions of daily requests.
The platform has gained considerable traction, surpassing $3 billion in annual recurring revenue by early 2026 and earning adoption by over half of the Fortune 500 companies. Its agentic approach accelerates development dramatically, allowing engineers to focus on architecture and creativity rather than repetitive coding.
The acquisition integrates Cursor’s leading product, expert team of roughly 300 engineers, and distribution network among top software developers with SpaceX’s unparalleled computational resources. SpaceX’s Colossus supercomputer, equivalent to a million H100 GPUs, has already powered joint training of next-generation models. These models are expected to launch soon within Cursor and SpaceX’s Grok Build environment.
This combination positions SpaceX to develop the world’s most capable AI systems for coding and knowledge work. Access to Cursor’s real-world usage data from millions of professional developers provides unparalleled feedback loops for model improvement. Training on Colossus enables rapid iteration on massive datasets, potentially creating AI that outperforms current leaders in reliability, context handling, and complex reasoning.
For SpaceX, the benefits extend far beyond software tools. Rocket engineering, satellite constellation management, autonomous flight systems, and Starship development involve millions of lines of highly specialized, safety-critical code.
Cursor’s AI agents, supercharged by proprietary models trained on SpaceX’s domain expertise, could slash development timelines, reduce errors, and enable faster innovation cycles. This vertical integration of AI tooling strengthens SpaceX’s competitive edge in both aerospace and the broader AI race, complementing its xAI initiatives.
The deal reflects the exploding value of AI-native developer platforms. By owning Cursor outright, SpaceX secures a strategic talent pool and product pipeline that will accelerate internal projects while potentially offering enhanced tools to the wider engineering community. As AI continues reshaping software creation, this acquisition underscores SpaceX’s commitment to leveraging cutting-edge technology for ambitious goals, from Mars colonization to global connectivity.
Tesla’s Cybercab has taken a significant step toward production with new technical details emerging from 2026 EPA certification documents.
The filings, which include a Certificate of Conformity issued in late May, provide the most comprehensive public look yet at the purpose-built autonomous vehicle designed for high-volume, low-cost ride-hailing operations.
At its core, the Cybercab is a front-wheel-drive electric vehicle powered by a single 163 kW (219 horsepower) AC permanent magnet motor. Despite its modest output, prioritizing efficiency and cost over neck-snapping acceleration, the vehicle boasts a strong power-to-weight ratio thanks to its lightweight curb weight of 3,113 pounds and a GVWR of 3,730 pounds.
It operates on a 326-volt electrical architecture with a compact ~48 kWh lithium-ion battery pack. The standout revelation is the vehicle’s exceptional efficiency, which Tesla has routinely flexed in the past.
EPA lab tests list an equivalent all-electric range of 418 miles combined and 375 miles on the highway. Tesla has previously targeted around 300 miles of real-world range, and analysts expect the final EPA-rated figure to land near 280-300 miles after adjustment factors.
At a certified 165 Wh/mi in earlier testing, the Cybercab is reportedly the most efficient EV ever produced, significantly outperforming vehicles like the Lucid Air Pure.
New information about @Tesla‘s Cybercab has been revealed in public EPA documents.
• Front-wheel drive
• Battery capacity: ~48 kWh
• 219 horsepower
• Curb weight: 3,113 lbs
• GVWR: 3,730 lbs
• Motor power: 163kW
• Voltage: 326vEquivalent All Electric Range is listed at… pic.twitter.com/D4gkJJTj25
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 15, 2026
This efficiency stems from deliberate design choices tailored for robotaxi duty. The two-seater features a highly aerodynamic shape, minimal weight, which is aided by structural battery integration of what are likely 4680 cells, and no steering wheel or pedals in its fully autonomous configuration.
For ride-hailing fleets, where average trips are short, and can be just five or ten miles, the smaller battery enables faster charging cycles, lower material costs, and reduced vehicle price, a key to Tesla’s goal of a ~$30,000 production cost.
Implications for Autonomous Mobility
These specs underscore Tesla’s strategy: maximize utilization and minimize operating expenses. A ~48 kWh pack could support dozens of short rides per charge, with energy costs potentially dropping below 20 cents per mile at scale. Front-wheel drive simplifies manufacturing and maintenance compared to dual-motor AWD setups in passenger Teslas.
The 219 hp motor provides ample performance for urban and highway speeds without excess, addressing questions about why such power is needed in a “slow” autonomous vehicle. Quick merges and hill climbing still matter for safety and passenger comfort.
Production has already begun at Giga Texas, with EPA certification clearing the path for U.S. deployment. While unsupervised Full Self-Driving remains the critical hurdle, these details paint a compelling picture of a vehicle engineered from the ground up for the robotaxi future: affordable to build, cheap to run, and capable of delivering strong range on a fraction of the battery capacity found in today’s EVs.
As Tesla ramps toward volume output, the Cybercab could reshape urban transportation economics.
Tesla deliveries get a big boost in expectations from Wall Street
SpaceX makes first acquisition post-IPO with coding leader Cursor
