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.
In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.
Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.
Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue
Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.
The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”
Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”
Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”
Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.
Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.
SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.
The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.
Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.
There are plenty of ways the company can do this:
Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts
SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.
High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity
The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.
Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.
Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.
High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online
GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.
Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications
Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.
These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.
Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages
SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.
Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.
SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.
Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.
Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”
Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.
🚨 Tesla is recalling 20,349 2020-23 Model Y vehicles and 2017-23 Model 3 vehicles due to an excessively bright headlamp low beam.
Currently, there is no remedy plan in place, as it is still being developed. pic.twitter.com/y34cIO2U0B
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 11, 2026
Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.
However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.
Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.
Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.
Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley
SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says
