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.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
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
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
