News
Tesla Model 3 vs BMW i4: How hubris is killing a potential ‘Tesla Killer’
Recently, BMW took the wraps off yet another one of its concept electric vehicles, the i4 sedan. The BMW i4 is poised to rival the Tesla Model 3, an electric car that is so disruptive, it is shaking up the midsize high-performance sedan market. Unfortunately for the German carmaker, one has to wonder if BMW’s efforts with the i4 are simply far too late.
Behind the possible clash between the Tesla Model 3 and the BMW i4 is a history that spans years, all the way back to 2013, when Tesla was just starting the production of its flagship Model S and the German automaker was coming up with the i3. But despite the two vehicles being all-electric cars, they could not be any more different.
Tesla designed the Model S as a sedan that can take on the Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and it has the looks, range, and performance to match. BMW, on the other hand, designed the i3 like a novelty vehicle, with a carbon fiber body, limited range, and performance that’s at home in inner-city streets. This distinction between the Model S and i3 foreshadowed the future of the two companies’ electric vehicle programs, as Tesla would follow up on the Model S with the Model X and Model 3, and BMW would end up being stuck with the i3 until today.
Yet despite having just one key pure electric car in its lineup, BMW has put a lot of effort in convincing the auto industry that it is taking electric vehicles seriously. Concept after concept was unveiled to much fanfare, but so far, none of the company’s fancy vehicles like the iNext have a legitimate release date. While this was happening, Tesla was growing, refining its processes, and making its vehicles like the Model 3 even better.
The Model 3 may not be the quickest vehicle in Tesla’s lineup, but it is the most disruptive. Priced aggressively and designed to take on the most established premium midsized sedans like the BMW 3-Series and the Mercedes-Benz C-Class, the Model 3 was poised to make waves, and make waves it did. The Model 3 Performance, the most powerful of the lineup, even managed to beat the legendary BMW M3 on the track, hands down. The idea of an electric sedan outperforming the M3 on the track would have probably warranted mockery had it been suggested during the days of the Model S and i3, but it is a painful truth that the German automaker has to swallow now.
It was not long before it was evident that the i3 won’t be enough to take on vehicles like the Model S or Model 3. Yet, BMW seemed to still take its sweet time developing its electric cars, with some executives even adopting the narrative that there is not enough demand for pure EVs anyway. It is then unsurprising that today, Tesla’s lead in electric mobility has become so stark, it is almost embarrassing for some legacy automakers like BMW.
When BMW announced the unveiling of its i4 concept on Twitter, the electric vehicle community immediately poked fun at the automaker for showing off yet another concept car. The car had impressive specs, though, with BMW stating that the i4’s single motor will generate about 530 hp, about on par with one of the automaker’s V8 engines. The i4 is pretty quick too, with a 0-62 mph time of about 4 seconds. Range-wise, estimates point to the i4 having about 270 miles in between charges.
While these specs are decent and a notable improvement over the i3, the i4 does show several signs suggesting that BMW is still not going all-in on electric cars. A look at the vehicle’s exterior alone shows that the i4 is still designed like a conventional car, with a long sloping hood that lacks any sort of frunk due to the space being allotted for electronics. Overall, the i4 boasts an attractive design that would likely end up being a template for the next-generation BMW 3-Series, but a ground-up EV it does not seem to be.
And here lies the issue with BMW so far. It appears that even after years of the i3 never really taking off, the company is still under the impression that it can ride the EV wave with a car that is just adequate in features and performance. Considering BMW’s long history as an automaker, such appears to be a big sign of hubris. And at this point in the EV race, that could be very costly.
BMW is one of three prolific auto houses in Germany, and so far, it is the one that seems to be lagging behind the most when it comes to electric vehicles. Daimler may be seeing challenges with the Mercedes-Benz EQC, but the company has some fallback in the company’s electric trucks like the Freightliner eCascadia, which only has a few rivals like the Tesla Semi.
Volkswagen has adopted a very aggressive strategy with its EV push. So serious is VW with its electric cars that the company’s CEO, Herbert Diess, is pretty much putting his career on the line to ensure that the automaker can roll out a mass-produced vehicle like the ID.3, a car that has the potential to be this generation’s Beetle. And then there’s BMW, still with its concepts, and a Model 3 competitor that is still over a year away at the best case scenario.
The term “Tesla Killer” has become ubiquitous with the number of electric cars that are being developed by legacy automakers. Yet over the years, each and every one of these alleged killers, from the Chevy Bolt to the Jaguar I-PACE, have proven to be incapable of outgunning Tesla’s electric cars in their own game. For the i4 to be a legitimate rival to the Model 3, it must beat Tesla with not just its badge’s pedigree. Otherwise, BMW may end up killing its “Tesla Killer” even before it had a chance to compete, thanks to an EV effort that is uninspired at best.
Investor's Corner
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
Tesla’s Cybercab line now builds robotaxis faster than Tesla can deploy them, Lars Moravy says.
Tesla’s Cybercab line in Texas can now build the two seat robotaxi faster than the company can put it into service, according to Lars Moravy, Tesla’s Vice President of Vehicle Engineering. “We don’t run every day because the line can run so fast. It’s currently outpacing our deployments,” Moravy said in a new Cybercab deep dive from Munro Live. “So, it’s a bit of a race right now. Who’s going to go faster? Right now the manufacturing line’s ahead.”
Tesla’s official Robotaxi account shared a Cybercab analysis video on X on Monday, calling it a “Cybercab engineering deep dive.” Moravy’s comments go further than what he told analysts on the Q3 earnings call last week, when he said the Cybercab line’s listed capacity of more than 125,000 units a year undersells what it can actually run.
The tour shows where that speed comes from. Tesla’s unboxed process splits the Cybercab into front, rear, side and center modules that are built and tested on their own before they meet on a short final line. That final line has just 25 fully automated stations, which Tesla’s team estimated is a fifth to a tenth of what a Model Y needs. The full line is about 78% automated, the framing line is already at 100%, and the layout uses roughly 50% less floor space per vehicle. The stated goal is “100% automation in 10 second cycle time,” or one finished Cybercab every 10 seconds.
Tesla also deleted the paint shop. Only the side modules are coated, and the exterior panels get their color inside the molding machine. Engineers said the car is designed to run at least 500,000 miles, which matters for a vehicle that will spend most of its day carrying riders.
The battery got the same treatment. The Cybercab uses an 88S6P pack of 4680 cells in a steel enclosure, a first for Tesla, with each module potted separately so a single failed module can be swapped instead of the whole pack. Wireless battery management boards replace a wiring harness, and new contactors are fast enough to drop the pyro fuse entirely. Tesla’s battery director graded the pack an A minus, compared with a D for the Model Y structural pack and a B minus for Cybertruck. Up front, the drive unit runs an 11:1 gear ratio versus roughly 9:1 on most Teslas, since the Cybercab does not need a high top speed.
Cybercab engineering deep dive — Robotaxi (@robotaxi) October 26, 2026
The deployment side is now the bottleneck Moravy described. Tesla had more than 50 Cybercabs working the Formula 1 weekend in Austin, and Texas records show 463 Cybercabs registered. Tesla said on its earnings call that Cybercab service will launch in Dallas next month, and Moravy said the company is aiming to get Cybercabs to customers by the end of 2026. Every unit built so far has gone into Tesla’s own fleet since the line moved into volume production in April.
Munro Live also asked when it could get a Cybercab to tear down. Tesla’s answer: “Not yet.”
SpaceX’s Raptor engine family has steadily increased sea-level thrust while simultaneously reducing mass, turning iterative engineering gains into substantially higher performance for the Super Heavy booster. CEO Elon Musk shed more light on how powerful Raptor 4 will be, and it’s pretty crazy.
Raptor 1 delivered 185 metric tons of thrust at roughly 2,080 kilograms, while Raptor 2 raised that to 230 tons while cutting mass to about 1,630 kilograms. SpaceX data for Raptor 3 lists a target of 280 tons at 1,525 kilograms (with further reductions in associated vehicle hardware), while operational flight ratings have been cited near 250 tons.
This morning, Elon Musk stated that Raptor 4 is expected to reach 300 tons of sea-level thrust at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3. Across these versions, thrust has risen by more than 60 percent from the first engines while engine mass has fallen, producing a sharp improvement in thrust-to-weight ratio. This is a true testament to how great SpaceX engineering has been:
🚀 Elon says Raptor 4 will make 300 tons of thrust at sea level at roughly the same mass as Raptor 3.
How far Raptor has come:
Raptor 1: 185 tf, 2,080 kg
Raptor 2: 230 tf, 1,630 kg
Raptor 3: 250 tf, 1,525 kg
Raptor 4: 300 tf33 on Super Heavy = ~9,900 tf, nearly 3x Saturn V https://t.co/HQDswZhyvL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
With 33 engines on SuperHeavy, the jump from earlier versions to a 300-ton Raptor 4 would produce roughly 9,900 metric tons of total liftoff thrust, nearly three times the Saturn V’s approximately 3,400 metric tons from its five F-1 engines.
This is not just a larger number on a data sheet, either, as sea-level thrust is the force available the moment the vehicle leaves the pad. This is when it is heaviest and still deep in Earth’s gravity well and dense atmosphere.
Higher levels of sea-level thrust directly improves the initial thrust-to-weight ratio of the full stack. A higher ratio produces faster acceleration off the pad, which shortens the time the rocket has to spend fighting gravity, and gravity losses during the first minute or two of the flight are a major drain on total available delta-v. Every second shaved off of that early climb preserves more propellant energy for reaching orbital velocity or for carrying extra payload.
Because Super Heavy’s engine count is constrained by vehicle diameter and packing density, increasing thrust per engine is the most straightforward way to raise total liftoff performance without redesigning the booster structure or design.
The same-mass target for Raptor 4 is equally important. Holding engine mass roughly constant while raising thrust improves the engine’s own thrust-to-weight ratio and reduces the structural and propellant mass fraction that must be carried solely to support the engines.
Earlier Raptor iterations also simplified or eliminated extensive vehicle-side hardware such as heat shields. These gains compound: more force for less installed mass leaves additional capacity for propellant, payload, or operational margins such as engine-out capability.
For Starship’s architecture, the practical effects are large. Greater liftoff thrust supports heavier vehicles, larger propellant loads, and higher payloads to low Earth orbit, figures SpaceX has targeted in the 100-plus-ton reusable range. That capacity underpins orbital refueling, lunar missions, and eventual Mars cargo and crew flights.
Continued growth in sea-level thrust therefore tightens the gap between theoretical rocket performance and the high flight rates and reusability needed to make large-scale space transport practical.
Tesla has expanded its Tesla Assisted Driving (TAD) suite to its tenth European country, as Latvia joined a growing list of European Union member states authorizing the company’s advanced driver assistance technology.
Tesla Europe announced this morning that the system is now approved in Latvia, with a software rollout to begin soon.
The approval and rollout follow recognition of a provisional European type approval originally granted by the Netherlands’ RDW authority on April 10.
🚨 Latvia has just received approval for Tesla Full Self-Driving (Supervised)
This is the 10th country in the EU to gain approval:
1. Netherlands — 10 April 2026 (original RDW approval)
2. Lithuania — 20 May 2026
3. Estonia — 29 May 2026
4. Denmark — 9 June 2026
5. Belgium — 10 June 2026
6. Slovenia — 7 September 2026
7. Czechia — 21 September 2026
8. Croatia — 29 September 2026
9. Slovakia — 16 October 2026— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) October 26, 2026
Latvia’s Road Traffic Safety Directorate (CSDD) evaluated the Dutch documentation, coordinated with the other national authorities, and reviewed updates from Tesla. These included tightened limits on speed offsets, automatic resets of any manual speed adjustments after each trip, and stronger driver monitoring.
In Europe, the feature is marketed as Tesla Assisted Driving after a recent rule change that labeled the name “Full Self-Driving” as misleading.
The system remains an SAE Level 2 driver assistance tool, not unsupervised autonomy. It can control speed, steering, braking, lane changes, and intersections while following a navigation route. Drivers need not keep their hands on the wheel at all times, yet they must continuously monitor the road and be prepared to intervene immediately.
The sequence of EU recognitions began with the Netherlands in April and continued through Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Croatia, and Slovakia. Most have relied on mutual recognition of the single Dutch provisional approval rather than independent national testing.
These national clearances do not yet constitute bloc-wide authorization. An EU-wide decision requires a qualified majority in the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles: at least 15 of 27 member states representing 65 percent of the EU population. Larger markets, like Germany, France, and Italy, remain under review, and a vote is expected this December.
However, for Latvian Tesla owners with compatible vehicles and software, the imminent rollout expands access to the supervised system while underscoring that attentive human oversight remains essential.
Tesla has a Cybercab problem nobody saw coming
How SpaceX Is raising Raptor’s sea-level thrust while holding engine mass steady
