News
Tesla Model Y vs Model 3 casting comparison shows that legacy auto’s ‘soil-your-pants’ moment is at hand
Back in April 2018, automotive teardown expert Sandy Munro mentioned that if Tesla had contracted an experienced automaker to produce the early-production Model 3’s body, the electric car maker would have “wiped the floor with everybody.” This is because from the suspension down, the Model 3 was a stellar piece of engineering, despite its body having several issues.
Its electric motors were compact, powerful, and cost effective; its batteries are the best in the industry, and its driving dynamics give the impression that the vehicle was riding on rails. Munro noted that if Tesla had hit a home run with the Model 3’s “dinosaur technologies” like its welds and casts, even veteran auto giants like Toyota would appropriately be “crapping their pants.”
It has been nearly two years since Munro mentioned those words during an appearance at YouTube’s Autoline After Hours. Tesla has changed a lot since then, and the company has even released its latest vehicle, the Model Y crossover. Sharing 75% of the Model 3’s parts, the Model Y is designed as a mass-market electric vehicle, and one that can be even more disruptive as its sedan sibling.
Munro, for his part, has acquired and started a teardown of the all-electric crossover. And based on his findings thus far, it appears that Tesla’s “dinosaur technologies” have improved vastly since the Model 3. This is most evident in the rear casting utilized on the two vehicles.
One look at the Model Y and Model 3’s rear casts shows that the two vehicles are already worlds apart in terms of build quality and design. Munro noted that he did not like the Model 3’s rear casting at all, since it was also over-engineered, with about 100 parts utilized for its rear trunk.
In a way, the Model 3’s rear casting represented the hubris that Elon Musk has admitted to in the past, as it showed Tesla essentially trying to fix something that is not necessarily broken. The result of this was a lot of challenges for Tesla, and a lot of issues with the early-production Model 3’s rear casting.
The Model Y is an entirely different animal. The all-electric crossover features what could only be described as a giant rear casting that is the complete antithesis of the Model 3’s. It has few parts, its welds are consistent, and it features a trunk tub that is similar to those utilized by the world’s best automakers. It’s pretty much what the Model 3 could have been if Tesla was more experienced when they started building the all-electric sedan.
If the Model 3’s rear casting was an exercise in hubris, the Model Y’s rear cast is an exercise in humility. It showed that Tesla is flexible, and that it’s willing to learn, even if it meant abandoning its initial plans and starting from the ground up. Tesla evidently abandoned the early-production Model 3’s rear casting and trunk design. And it’s all the better for it.
A lot of this could be attributed to Elon Musk himself. Munro has noted in the past that he and the Tesla CEO had talked over the phone during his Model 3 teardown, where Musk explained the reasons behind some of the findings about the all-electric sedan. Munro’s firm later sent Tesla a pro bono list of over 200 suggestions that can improve the Model 3’s body.
These suggestions seem to have come to life in the Model Y. Granted, the teardown process for the all-electric crossover has only just begun. Still, several aspects of the vehicle, most notably its rear casting, shows that Tesla did learn from the Model 3, and it has become a much more mature automaker today. Other suggestions from the teardown expert were also applied to the Model Y’s other components, such as its wiring.
It should be noted that Tesla’s fast evolution is partly due to the company’s Silicon Valley startup roots. Startups are notorious for quick, drastic changes in direction, and workers at these companies are required to be tough and flexible. Tesla embodies this, making the company notoriously challenging to work for compared to conventional car companies like GM or Ford.
Yet despite this, Tesla has ranked consistently among the most attractive firms for engineering students. This is because in Tesla, conventional corporate bureaucracy is replaced with an open communication system that allows even interns to share their ideas with company executives. Some of the issues in the Model 3’s early production lines, for example, were addressed by interns, who were later hired full-time by Tesla.
The Model Y is a crossover, which means that it is competing in one of the fastest-growing segments in the auto industry today. With the Model Y, Tesla has the chance to make its biggest mark in the market yet. Fortunately, the electric car maker appears to have done its homework before it released its newest vehicle. One could even argue that Tesla released the Model Y at the perfect time. A mass-market all-electric vehicle that can disrupt the market of crossover SUVs requires a mature company, after all, and Tesla has only started to fit this bill recently.
Just two years ago, Munro mentioned that if the Model 3 had a properly-built body, veteran automakers like Toyota would be “crapping their pants” because of how outclassed they would be. With how the Model Y is turning out, it appears that legacy auto would be wise to keep some extra pairs of pants for the coming years, just in case.
Watch a deep dive into the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y’s rear casts in the video below.
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
