News
Tesla teardown specialist Sandy Munro lays the law on TSLAQ over false allegations
When Sandy Munro started his analysis of an early production Tesla Model 3, he was aghast at the vehicle’s quirks, and he made his disapproval known. Munro did not pull his punches back, pointing out the vehicle’s build quality issues and outlining exactly what was wrong with the all-electric sedan. Yet as soon as his analysis took him beyond the Model 3’s bodywork, Munro found something remarkable: Tesla’s tech was beyond everyone else’s in the automotive industry, and it’s not even close.
By the time he was finished tearing down the Model 3, Munro was already quite impressed with Tesla. Everything, he noted, from the Model 3’s suspension down to its batteries was on point, and the company’s tech was insane. Munro suggested that if Tesla had only paid more attention to its basics like build quality, the electric car maker would have wiped the floor with legacy automakers. These developments could all be reviewed through Munro’s multiple appearances at Autoline After Hours, where he is featured as a guest from time to time.
Munro and his company, Munro and Associates, eventually took on their next Tesla project by tearing down an early production Model Y. The veteran was gracious enough to share his insights on the vehicle through a series that he and his team uploaded on YouTube. The video series documented every step of the Model Y’s teardown process, and while Munro still observed a number of build quality-related points for improvement in the all-electric crossover, he was impressed overall. So impressed, in fact, that Munro opted to share his enthusiasm for the vehicle openly. Recent videos even include “tips” for Tesla that could improve their vehicles further.
#MunroAssociates Tips For #Tesla E3 – Night Vision HUD & Wire Reductionhttps://t.co/WlzodSDwWO pic.twitter.com/5dDEu9LzU9— Munro & Associates (@MunroAssociates) July 25, 2020
This did not sit well with Tesla critics, particularly the online TSLAQ group. Tesla critics and short-sellers are known to propagate the occasional conspiracy theory, whether that involves accusations of abuse by the Tesla CEO to alleged cover-ups by government agencies that are supposedly paid by the electric car maker to do their bidding. Granted, most of these conspiracy theories are just noise, but sometimes, this noise can result in very real repercussions. Unfortunately, this exact thing happened to Sandy Munro.
When it became evident that Munro was openly supportive of Tesla and the Model Y, it did not take long for the TSLAQ Twitter community to insinuate that the teardown expert was actually being paid by the electric car maker for good publicity. Notable short-sellers joined in on the insinuations, TSLAQ trolls dared Munro to file a lawsuit against them, and some members of the media who are known to be critical of the electric car maker brought up the fact that the teardown expert’s stance on Tesla changed over time.
These, of course, neglect to explore one possible explanation for Munro’s shift on his stance about Tesla. While Munro was openly critical of the Model 3 during his first look at the car, he was eventually won over by the tech and innovation that was put into the vehicle. The Model Y, which followed the Model 3, embodied many of Munro’s own points for improvement that he raised during his analysis of the all-electric sedan. Perhaps, just perhaps, Tesla is improving as an automaker, and the company’s electric cars are really in the bleeding edge of automotive tech.
Ever the fighter, Munro has posted a stern response to the insinuations leveled against him by Tesla critics. In a YouTube video, Munro laid down the law on TSLAQ, declaring that neither he nor his company is being paid to talk positively about the electric car maker. And in true Munro fashion, the teardown expert came with evidence, explaining exactly how innovations like the Octovalve are only possible in a company that works like Tesla. Following is his statement.
“Munro and Associates is not, I repeat, is not paid by Tesla to say or do or receive anything that we have. I know that some people are saying things like that. They don’t know what they’re talking about. I have to try and defend myself periodically, and this is it. So, I can tell you a little something right now that the Tesla haters or basically the people that are trying to drive me out of business are saying — that Tesla would never tell you.
“So this is part of the Octovalve. And what we’ve noticed is, we had one of our customers come in with a brand new Tesla. It was built about one month ago and we noticed that their product, the product that you’re seeing here — the aluminum supermanifold — their product had 13 design changes associated with it. Thirteen. I’m going to tell you. I couldn’t get one design change through in a year when I was at Ford Motor Company. They (Tesla) did 13 in three months. That’s why they’re kicking some serious butt.
“Another thing that we found was when we got our vehicle, there was no shroud around the compressor. Their vehicle had an excellent design for a shroud, and it looked spectacular. Now am I saying things that Tesla told me to tell you? I don’t think so… Munro and Associates and myself as the number one associate, we are in this strictly for the right reasons. I am not bought by anyone. No one in this company is bought by anyone. We are a consulting house that tells the truth all the time — good, bad, or ugly — and I’m just starting to find out about this. It’s all crap. Don’t believe any of it.”
Most of the tweets posted online which suggested that Munro was a paid shill for Tesla have already been deleted, though some screenshots of the posts have made the rounds online. It is through these that it was revealed that Sandy Munro has started preparing a lawsuit to hold the TSLAQ members liable for damages, seeing as one of his key clients was affected by the accusations. Based on a message sent by the veteran teardown specialist to a key Tesla critic, it appears that Munro is dead serious, and he is looking to hold those involved in the issue accountable.
Watch Munro’s statement on the allegations in the video below.
Elon Musk
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
ARK Invest breaks down six reasons SpaceX’s $1.75 trillion IPO valuation may be justified.
ARK Invest, which holds SpaceX as its largest Venture Fund position at 17% of net assets, has published a detailed investor guide to why a SpaceX IPO may be grounded in a $1.75 trillion target valuation.
The financial case starts with Starlink, SpaceX’s satellite internet constellation, which has surpassed 10 million active subscribers globally as of early 2026, with 2026 revenue projected to exceed $20 billion. ARK’s research puts the total satellite connectivity market opportunity at roughly $160 billion annually at scale, and Starlink is adding customers faster than any telecom network in history. That growth alone would justify a substantial valuation.
Additionally, ARK notes that SpaceX has reduced the cost per kilogram to orbit from roughly $15,600 in 2008 to under $1,000 today through reusable Falcon 9 hardware. A fully operational Starship targeting sub-$100 per kilogram would represent a significant cost decline and open markets that do not currently exist. SpaceX executed a staggering 165 missions in 2025 and now accounts for approximately 85% of all global orbital launches. That infrastructure position took decades to build and would be nearly impossible to replicate at comparable cost.
SpaceX officially acquires xAI, merging rockets with AI expertise
The February 2026 merger with xAI added a layer to the valuation that straightforward financial models struggle to capture. ARK argues that at sub-$100 launch costs, orbital data centers could deliver compute roughly 25% cheaper than ground-based alternatives, without power grid delays, permitting friction, or land constraints. Musk has stated a goal of deploying 100 gigawatts of AI computing capacity per year from orbit.
The $1.75 trillion figure itself is not a conventional earnings multiple. At roughly 95x trailing revenue, it prices in Starlink’s adoption curve, Starship’s cost trajectory, and the orbital compute thesis together. The public S-1 prospectus, due at least 15 days before the June roadshow, will give investors their first complete look at the financials to test those assumptions. ARK’s position is that the track record earns the benefit of the doubt. Fully reusable rockets were considered unrealistic for years. Starlink was considered financially unviable. Both happened on timelines that surprised skeptics.
Elon Musk
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
ARK’s SpaceX IPO Guide makes a compelling case on why $1.75T may not be the ceiling
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
