The Tesla Model Y and Model 3 are both designed to cater to the mass market. Both vehicles share 75% of their parts since they’re optimized for quick production. But even vehicles that are three-quarters similar have key differences, some of which were revealed in the recently-released Tesla Model Y Owner’s Manual.
From their tow eye hooks to their speakers to their wheel configuration, the Model Y and Model 3 feature subtle differences that make them distinct from each other. Here are 12 of these key differences, as outlined by Tesla owner-enthusiast Tesla Raj in a recent video.
We’ve highlighted some of the key differentiators below.
Tow Eye Hook
Tesla has added a second tow eye hook to the back of the Model Y for added convenience when towing the vehicle from either end.
In times when a Tesla Model Y may need to be transported on a flatbed truck, the vehicle can be placed in Transport Mode and winched by way of a tow eye hook and onto the back of a flatbed truck while its wheels remain free-rolling.
Compared to the Tesla Model 3, which is equipped with a tow eye hook only in the front of the vehicle, Model Y has a cover on the right side of the rear bumper to conceal the second tow eye. This can be seen in the vehicle’s diagram in the Model Y Owner’s Manual.
-
-
- Tesla Model Y frunk tow eye (Credit: Ben Sullins)
Emergency Door Release Handles
The Tesla Model 3 met some criticism when it was produced with emergency release handles only available on the front doors. Tesla addressed the issue in Model Y by adding emergency release handles on all doors. The Model Y rear emergency release handle is located under a flap inside the bottom of the rear door pocket.
Emergency release handles are only required in situations where the vehicle does not have power. “In the unlikely situation that Model Y has no power, these electrically-powered buttons at the top of the door handles no longer work. However, the doors are equipped with mechanical releases so that you can still open them,” notes Tesla in its Model Y Owner’s Manual.
-
- Tesla Model Y emergency door release (Credit: Tesla)
-
- Tesla Model Y rear door emergency release (Source image: Eweaver1983271 via Reddit)
Trunk Space, Rear Seats, and Legroom
No surprises, but the trunk space for Model Y is drastically larger than that of the Model 3. Factoring in Model Y’s taller hatchback design versus Model 3’s traditional trunk and the difference in cargo space becomes obvious. Model Y boasts a massive 68 cubic feet of cargo volume compared to 15 cubic feet for Model 3.
The rear seats of the Model 3 and Model Y are also quite different in the way that the all-electric sedan’s fold 60/40. Model Y, on the other hand, has three seats, all of which could be folded down individually. The Model 3’s rear seats can also be folded down only through the rear, while the Model Y provides two ways to fold down its second-row seats and includes a center passthrough when the middle seat is folded down.
-
Model Y has two switches on the left side of the trunk that gives owners ease of access to the second-row seats directly from the trunk. Activating the switch will fold-down each corresponding rear seat.
The Model Y seats appear to be the same design as the Model 3, however, are mounted on risers for better legroom and overall comfort than Model 3. Rear seat legroom in the Model Y is improved over Model 3 by roughly 15%, although it looks like some of it was borrowed from the 2% reduction in front legroom when compared to Model 3. The headroom between Model Y and Model 3 is relatively the same and differ only by 1-2%.
Tesla Model Y vs Model 3 Leg Room
- Front: Model Y – 41.8 in (1,063 mm) vs Model 3 – 42.7 in. (1,085 mm)
- Rear: Model Y – 40.5 in (1,029) vs Model 3 – 35.2 in (894 mm)
-
- Tesla Model Y trunk (Credit: Eweaver1983271 via Reddit)
-
- Tesla Model Y rear seat fold down levers (Credit: Tesla)
-
- Tesla Model Y rear door emergency release (Source image: Eweaver1983271 via Reddit)
Wiring System and Heat Pump
Arguably the most notable difference between the Model Y and Model 3 in terms of core design improvement is the wiring system and heat management. Tesla added a heat pump to the Model Y, which could help the all-electric crossover maximize its range during winters. In addition and as pointed out by TeslaRaj in his video, the diagram for Model Y appears to show a single track for wiring as opposed to Model 3 which has two.
-
Teslarati will explore both of these points in detail in an upcoming story.
Wheel Size and Specifications
The Tesla Model Y’s wheels are 9.5 inches wide, which are slightly larger than the Model 3’s 8.5-inch wheels. It should be noted that the Model Y Performance comes with a staggered wheel setup, with the front wheels being 9.5 inches and the rear wheels being 10.5 inches wide.
See more: Tesla Model Y with Performance Upgrade Uberturbine Wheels
Tesla Model Y wheel specifications (Credit: Tesla)
Rear Speakers
Both the Tesla Model 3 and the Tesla Model Y are fitted with a suite of premium speakers that provide a great listening experience for owners. They do have differences in the way that the Model 3’s rear speakers are located on a shelf behind the rear seats, while the Model Y has its rear speakers on the trunk hatch.
Coat Hooks
Both the Tesla Model 3 and the Model Y come with coat hangers, though the all-electric sedan’s is located on the crossbar that goes between the B pillars. The Model Y, with its seamless glass roof, has its coat hangers in the second row.
-
Inductive Phone Charger
The Tesla Model Y is equipped with a wireless charging pad, as well as USB-A and USB-C slots. On the other hand, the Model 3 is fitted with wired charging options and a dual USB-A slot. Owners would likely appreciate the Model Y’s wireless charging features, as most flagship and midrange mobile devices today come standard with wireless charging. See Tesla Model Y wireless phone charger.
Rear USB ports
The USB ports of the Model 3 and Model Y in the second row are also different. The Model 3 is fitted with two USB-A ports, while the Model Y is equipped with two USB-C ports. Considering that the two vehicles share 75% of their parts, it would not be surprising if Tesla ends up equipping the Model 3 with USB-C ports in the future.
Tesla notes in the Model Y Owner’s Manual that the rear USB ports are for charging devices and do not communicate with the vehicle like the front USB ports that can be used for recording via TeslaCam.
Power Liftgate
The Model Y is equipped with a power liftgate, which provides owners an automatic and convenient way to open and close the vehicle’s rear hatch by way of the center touchscreen or Tesla mobile app. This feature is not present in the Model 3, which is one of the reasons why aftermarket power truck mods became quite popular in the Tesla community.
See Tesla Model Y’s power liftgate in action.
-
A big thanks to Tesla Raj for compiling this info. Check out this video below.
-
Elon Musk has declared that SpaceX has effectively solved one of Starship’s most persistent engineering challenges: the reliability of its heat shield tiles.
During the company’s first-ever Earnings Call, the SpaceX CEO stated:
“I don’t want to jinx it or anything, but I think I would call the heat shield problem solved at this point. All indications from data and visual inspection is we have solved it. That doesn’t mean we won’t make improvements, but we do not see any technical obstacles to achieving rapid reusability at this point.”
Starship’s heat shield consists of roughly 18,000 hexagonal ceramic tiles covering the windward side of the upper stage. These tiles form the thermal protection system that shields the vehicle’s stainless-steel structure from the extreme heat of atmospheric reentry.
Elon says he believes the heat shield problem with Starship is currently solved.
He called it “arguably the single biggest problem” pic.twitter.com/eEE9vM5zlz
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) August 4, 2026
During descent, atmospheric friction generates temperatures exceeding several thousand degrees Celsius and creates plasma flows capable of melting unprotected metal. The tiles absorb, radiate, and insulate against this energy, allowing the vehicle to survive and potentially fly again. Without a durable heat shield, full and rapid reusability, the cornerstone of Starship’s design for frequent launches, satellite deployments, and deep-space missions, would remain impossible.
The tiles have long been a source of difficulty. On earlier test flights, a significant number of tiles detached during ascent due to vibration, aerodynamic loads, and imperfect attachment methods using pins and adhesives. Gaps between tiles allowed hot plasma to infiltrate, causing secondary damage and hot spots on the underlying structure.
These issues echoed challenges faced by NASA’s Space Shuttle, whose ceramic tiles required extensive, labor-intensive inspections and replacements between missions, preventing rapid turnaround. SpaceX has iteratively improved materials, standardized tile shapes, refined attachment techniques, added secondary ablative layers, and tested sealing methods such as “crunch wrap” felt to close gaps.
Progress was visible across Flights 10–12, with steadily better tile retention, yet questions remained about whether the system could support the minimal-refurbishment goal of rapid reuse.
Flight 13 on July 24 provided the decisive evidence. Ship 40 flew a deliberately more demanding profile with higher dynamic pressure to stress the heat shield beyond typical operational loads. It successfully deployed 20 operational Starlink V3 satellites, the first such payload on a Starship mission, performed an in-space Raptor engine relight, and executed a controlled reentry.
Elon Musk sheds two new bits of detail on Starship after 13th test launch
Cameras on six of the satellites and onboard sensors captured extensive imagery and data of the shield throughout the flight. The ship then achieved its softest splashdown to date in the Indian Ocean, remaining intact and floating rather than breaking apart or exploding as on prior missions. This allowed drone inspections and continuous telemetry of the heat shield in near-real time.
Post-flight analysis showed the majority of tiles remaining attached with only minor damage and limited plasma streaking at seams. Musk noted that the mission delivered “all the heat shield data we needed and then some.” Combined with visual inspections, these results underpinned his subsequent assessment that the core technical barriers to rapid reusability have been cleared. While refinements will continue, Flight 13 marked a pivotal step toward Starship’s operational future.
SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell outlined ambitious plans for Starlink Mobile during the company’s August 4 Earnings call, signaling a direct challenge to U.S. wireless giants like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.
Shotwell noted that the three companies generate roughly $600 billion in combined annual revenue. “I anticipate us to be able to acquire quite a few of their customers because I think our service will be better,” she said. “We will eliminate dead zones leveraging the satellites in orbit. It will be better during any natural disaster… I’m quite excited about Starlink Mobile.”
SpaceX President & COO Gwynne Shotwell on @Starlink Mobile and its impact on Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile:
“Roughly, between them, $600 billion a year. I anticipate us to be able to acquire quite a few of their customers. Our service will be better. We will eliminate dead zones… pic.twitter.com/UYZUkrGc0L
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 4, 2026
SpaceX intends to combine its satellite constellation with terrestrial infrastructure. The company has acquired about 65 MHz of spectrum from EchoStar and plans to deploy next-generation Starlink Mobile satellites in 2027, with upgraded service targeted for the end of that year.
Shotwell described the enhanced network, leveraging more satellites and spectrum, as potentially “100 times better” than the current direct-to-cell offering, which already supports basic texting and app-based voice/video in coverage gaps through partnerships. She also indicated plans for low-cost cellular base stations that could integrate with existing Starlink dishes, creating a hybrid system for broader capacity in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
For the general public, Starlink Mobile promises significant advantages. Satellite connectivity can fill gaps where traditional cell towers fail, delivering service in remote locations, mountains, or during outages caused by storms, wildfires, or infrastructure damage—conditions in which ground networks often collapse.
Users could enjoy more consistent coverage without relying solely on dense tower builds, potentially at competitive prices as SpaceX scales. The hybrid approach aims to support full mobile services, including higher-speed data, while working with unmodified smartphones over time.
These developments revive long-standing but unfounded rumors of a Musk-developed “Tesla phone.” Speculative claims of a “Pi Phone” or similar device with built-in Starlink connectivity have circulated for years on social media, often featuring fabricated images and details. Elon Musk has repeatedly denied any such plans, stating Tesla has no intention of entering the smartphone market unless forced by extreme circumstances with app stores.
No official product, filings, or development announcements have ever materialized; the rumors remain hoaxes.
The announcement quickly pressured telecom stocks. Shares of AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile fell between roughly 2 and 4 percent in after-hours and premarket trading as investors weighed the competitive threat from a hybrid satellite-terrestrial network.
While execution challenges remain—spectrum deployment, infrastructure rollout, and regulatory hurdles—Shotwell’s remarks mark SpaceX’s clearest signal yet of entering the consumer mobile market as a full competitor.
Venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya has cautioned investors shorting SpaceX shares, drawing a direct parallel to the intense short-selling pressure Tesla faced in its early public years.
Responding to reports of elevated short interest in the newly public rocket, satellite, and AI company, Palihapitiya noted that similar dynamics played out with Tesla, where aggressive short sellers ultimately “went broke.”
SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) went public on June 12, 2026, in the largest IPO on record, pricing at $135 per share. Shares quickly surged to an all-time high of $225.64 just days later, briefly implying a valuation exceeding $2 trillion. The stock has since retreated sharply amid valuation concerns, lockup expiration fears, and broader market dynamics.
By early August, it traded near $108–$125, representing a roughly 50 percent decline from the peak and bringing the market capitalization closer to the $1.5–1.7 trillion range. On August 4, shares closed up more than 9 percent at $125.33 ahead of earnings before facing pressure in after-hours and premarket trading.
Short interest has climbed dramatically. According to S3 Partners data widely cited in market reports, short positions reached approximately 219.3 million shares by late July, about 34 percent of the limited public float of roughly 640 million shares, and represented a notional value of around $24.6 billion.
Utilization of shares available to borrow hit 95 percent, with borrow fees rising. This level of shorting exceeded the dollar value of short bets against Tesla at the time and built rapidly ahead of two catalysts: the company’s first post-IPO earnings and an August 6 lockup expiration that could free up to 911.5 million additional shares.
CEO Elon Musk has issued warnings of his own. In mid-July, as short interest approached one-third of the float, he posted that “the survival probability of firms who maintain a significant short position in SpaceX over time is very low,” reiterating his view that the company could ultimately be worth more than Earth if it achieves its goals.
On August 4, just before earnings, Musk responded to the latest short-interest data by saying, “I try to warn them, but they just double down.”
SpaceX delivered its first quarterly results as a public company after the close on August 4. Second-quarter revenue rose 92 percent year-over-year to $7.8 billion, beating consensus estimates near $6.8–6.9 billion.
The net loss narrowed to $541 million, or 9 cents per share, better than the roughly 23–24 cent loss expected. Starlink/connectivity contributed about $4.3 billion (up 66 percent), while the AI business generated $2.6 billion (up roughly 250 percent). Capital expenditures were heavy at $18.4 billion, largely tied to AI infrastructure. Management projected a $100 billion annualized revenue run rate by year-end 2026 and outlined a path toward $1 trillion in annual revenue by 2030.
The combination of Chamath’s historical reminder, Musk’s repeated alerts, and the company’s ambitious growth targets underscores the high-stakes debate surrounding SPCX. Short sellers are positioned for near-term supply pressure from the lockup, while long-term bulls point to Starlink scale, Starship progress, and AI compute expansion as reasons the bears may ultimately face the same fate as many early Tesla skeptics.
SpaceX has solved Starship’s biggest challenge, Elon Musk says
SpaceX is coming for wireless giants with Starlink Mobile
