Sandy Munro, a teardown specialist and auto industry veteran, is releasing the results of a study he conducted with battery expert Mark Ellis comparing the motors inside four electric vehicles, one of which was a Tesla Model 3. Despite analyzing the vehicle for a long time, the auto expert states that there are still mysteries that he is yet to uncover on the electric sedan.
“The Tesla has a lot of stuff hidden. The Tesla is a big mystery. It’s not obvious sometimes what clever things they’ve done, ” he commented about the California-based car maker’s motor in a recent interview summarized by Industry Week. “There’s mysteries every day. We thought we were clever, but we’re not that clever.”
One of the clever features Munro and Ellis discovered in their Model 3 teardown was the disconnect device for the high voltage. “It’s not really a fuse…It’s like a little explosion. If the car rolls over, they have a little disconnect that blows up, [cutting] all the power to everything and that way you don’t have an electric nightmare,” he revealed. Also, the inner magnets of the Model 3 motor were found to be under a lot of stress, which is not something other manufacturers have learned to do in high volume production. “We’ve talked to lots of magnet manufacturers, but this might be another one of these made-in-Tesla kind of deals. They make a lot of stuff in-house,” Munro guessed.
Another innovation that impressed the teardown team was how advanced the inverter/convertor device was that provides power to the motor, particularly in the use of silicon carbide on the devices’ integrated circuits. “It creates a lot less heat and is a lot faster than the Chevy and BMW,” Ellis added to the discussion. “Silicon carbide is the latest and greatest and Tesla so far is the only vehicle out there with it.” Munro and Ellis further noted the high level of tech Tesla’s motor contained, all while being considerably smaller than the competition.
The study will be released in a few weeks and also includes detailed information about the motors inside the Chevy Bolt, BMW i3, and Jaguar I-Pace. Munro had very positive things to say about Tesla’s technology, but the electric vehicles produced by industry giants did not receive quite the same accolades. “It looks like the other guys just went around and glued together whatever they could find off the shelf,” Munro jabbed at Tesla’s competition.
The BMW i3 was hit particularly hard and cited as the heaviest, most expensive, and very inefficient overall. “It’s not designed for… I don’t know what it’s designed for, really,” Munro swiped in the interview. “While everything on Tesla is…very, very efficient engineering.” Munro still isn’t sold on the Model 3 body, though, and takes issue with the complexity of the process it takes to manufacture it thanks to the number of parts, materials, and fastenings involved.
Munro has a history of strong opinions on Tesla’s car intended for the mass market. After completing an initial teardown of a 2017 version of the vehicle, he infamously commented that the car’s panel gaps could be seen “from Mars” among other very critical remarks about the way the car was manufactured. Tesla eventually issued a statement in response to the criticisms, indicating that significant improvements had been made to its Model 3 manufacturing process which would render moot many of the issues identified.
Once the Model 3 teardown was complete, Munro later admitted to eating “a lot of crow” in response to the technology installed and implemented throughout the car. He praised the Model 3 battery pack and the way it handles on the road, in particular, and also estimated Tesla was turning a 30% profit on the vehicle. Munro ultimately concluded that everything from the car’s suspension and down was perfect, but everything about its bodywork was questionable.
While the study Sandy Munro and Mark Ellis have conducted has not yet been released, from the sounds of it, crow seems to have still been on the menu for Tesla’s inner workings while old criticisms still stand about its outer packaging.
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
