Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the automaker’s next vehicle platform will exceed Model 3 and Model Y production output, be roughly half the cost of the Model 3 and Model Y platforms, and be smaller in size.
Musk and other Tesla executives were asked about any potential developments from the next generation of Tesla vehicles. The question mentioned the dramatic drop in cost from the Model S and Model X platform to the Model 3 and Model Y platform. The Model 3 and Model Y brought Tesla’s electric vehicles to levels of mass affordability, which truly sparked the beginning of the transition to electric vehicles.
The Model 3 and Model Y are Tesla’s best-selling vehicles, accounting for 95 percent of the company’s total delivery mix for Q3, according to data from the automaker.
The retail investor asked whether Tesla’s third platform has an expected release date, along with what the company expected in terms of the total reduction in cost.
Earlier in the call, Tesla’s executives fielding questions during the Q3 Earnings Call scoffed at the idea of revealing development timelines for future vehicles and plans of the vehicle roadmap. Musk said the company was always moving forward with developments but was unwilling to give any specific details.
However, more color was offered from the Tesla CEO when he was asked about the company’s third vehicle platform.
It will exceed Tesla Model 3 and Model Y production output
Tesla Model Y production at Gigafactory Texas (Credit: Tesla)
Musk said the third-generation Tesla vehicle would be produced in quantities that outshine the Model 3 and Model Y. In fact, it would outpace manufacturing of all other Tesla vehicles combined.
This may be due to the vehicle’s size, which we’ll get to later. However, it is a true testament to Musk’s belief in Tesla’s manufacturing. With the utilization of one-piece castings, the Giga Press, and other manufacturing techniques, Tesla truly outshines many companies in terms of manufacturing efficiency. However, the company has still struggled with the build quality of its cars, which has been an issue for several years.
“Tesla will be head and shoulders above everyone else in manufacturing, that is our goal.” -Elon Musk
Tesla’s current annual production capacity is listed at roughly 1.9 million units. This figure is reflected in the Q3 2022 Shareholder Deck, which was released on October 19.
It will be roughly half the cost of the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y platform
Tesla’s goals reflected in Elon Musk’s Master Plan revealed a trickle-down pricing strategy that would ultimately see premium-priced vehicles fund projects for more affordable cars down the line. The 2008 Roadster led to the Model S and Model X, which led to the Model 3 and Model Y.
Each vehicle chapter became more affordable, helping surge the adoption of electric vehicles. Musk confirmed the next vehicle platform will be roughly half the cost of the Model 3 and Model Y, bringing up flashbacks of the rumored $25,000 Tesla.
Elon Musk unveiling the Model 3 in March 2016
Musk neither confirmed nor denied that Tesla was developing a $25,000 model during the Q4 and Full Year 2021 Earnings Call in January. However, he did confirm on the Q3 call that the next vehicle platform is “the primary focus of the vehicle development team.”
The next vehicle is also fully expected to be used as the fully autonomous Robotaxi, which is still a few years away. However, the vehicle is not likely to come within the two years, as Tesla is turning its focus to ramping Cybertruck manufacturing and Semi production, which it targets to be 50,000 by 2024.
It will be Tesla’s smallest vehicle
Musk said that the new vehicle platform would also be smaller in size, as it would also help cut the total cost of the vehicle.
However, projections of what the $25,000 model would look like are usually smaller and more compact than the Model 3.
Credit: Alwinart/Twitter
While these are not officially Tesla designs, what is illustrated above is likely a similar size to what the company will bring to the table for the $25,000 model. The cost reduction can start at the dimensions of the vehicle overall, which will cut costs significantly. However, the real reduction comes from developing new batteries and the scaling of production. Musk also detailed on the Q3 Earnings Call that he still sees a path to a potential $70 per kWh cell, which is 30 percent less expensive than the projected “price parity” number, which lies at $100 per kWh. This, in theory, would bring EVs to the same cost as gas cars.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
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
