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
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
