Tesla Teases Model Y Ahead Of Reveal


Enough with the teasing. Show it already.

Telsa has just released a new teaser video of the Model Y ahead of the big reveal set for tonight. You can see the entire thing in the tweet embedded below (we’ve added the Instagram version as well). The image up below is what happens when you lighten and enlarge it for a better view.

It appears to be the actual vehicle, albeit it tightly wrapped in a covering cloth. Despite the obfuscation, the lines are clearly visible and we think they look pretty good. This time around, it seems head designer Franz von Holzhausen has avoided some of the “egginess” found behind the B-pillar in the Model X. We’ll see what that means for head space for third-row passengers — if, indeed, there is one — during the reveal livestream tonight.

While looks are, of course, subjective, this latest teaser has buoyed hopes here at InsideEVs that the all-electric crossover will have some appeal. Whether that will lead to a flood of orders remains to be seen, but considering the size, shape, and approximate price of the Model Y, we would be surprised if demand were not higher than that for the Model 3.

With more competitors to face than the automaker’s mid-size sedan, however, it remains to be seen whether the latest addition to the Tesla lineup will be its ace in the hole.

View this post on Instagram

Model Y – Thurs 8pm PDT Livestream.Tesla.com

A post shared by Tesla (@teslamotors) on


Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

149 Comments on "Tesla Teases Model Y Ahead Of Reveal"

newest oldest most voted

Almost has the side profile of a Honda Crosstour, not quite a sedan, not quite a crossover.

Similar to the BMW X6. Not looking good for rear storage. But not surprising due to the claimed sharing of 75% Model 3 components. So basically a lifted Model 3.

Yeah, and part of the fundamental limiter “75%” shared suggests is to rule out a 3rd row. Frankly, I’d be hopeful it has a full hatch, but think driver-friendly things like a HUD, or anything else helping keep eyes on the road would be a long shot.

I’m sure it will be a 5 seat 5 door tall car/crossover. I’m sure it will hold a great deal with at least part of the rear seat folded.

Have you actually driven the 3 without the hud? I have only once a week and after 3 times driving it, it is so not an issue.

What i was afraid of.. Same rear end as the model x…

I think it looks so much better than the Model X. Not a fan of the Model X shape, but this looks stylish, as far as we can tell from what’s hidden.

The proportions are better than the X, but it really doesn’t remind me of a SUV/CUV profile. It looks more like the Model 3 and the Honda Crosstour had a baby.

Let me say this as well, I hated the look of the Crosstour when I first saw it, but it has grown on me.

My problem is the shape of the rear end. The model x has a very similar rear end and to me it makes the car look not as imposing as other suvs like the range rover for example. SUVs to me have to look tall, this kind of design makes it to be in between car categories. Same reason i dont like the bmw x6 as well. It might be just me.

I see what you’re saying. Most of these smaller SUVs today are just raised hatchbacks and marketed as crossovers. Part of me agrees with your opinion on that note for sure.

“Most of these smaller SUVs today are just raised hatchbacks and marketed as crossovers.”

Yup. Or even marketed as “SUVs”. The terms CUV, SUV, and crossover are well on their way to becoming meaningless synonyms for “cars”.

All SUVs, CUVs etc. are of course cars.

I agree, and in fact I notice a pretty common tendency for people to call their daily driver a “car”, even if it’s (for example) a pickup.

But you’ll get a lot of arguments from those claiming that real SUVs, pickups, minivans, etc. etc. are “trucks” and therefore not “cars”. In the same vein, Ford says it will no longer make any “cars”. 🙄

Trucks aren’t “sport”.

And cars lack utility.
If it can’t make it down the cottage road in the spring , it’s a car 😉

Not at all saying you’re wrong, and I’m horrified at how easily auto maker marketing departments have been able to get people to call their cars “SUVs” or “trucks” even when they are obviously just hatchback cars.

However, I’ll point out that Honda calls the Ridgeline an “SUT”, meaning “Sport Utility Truck”… which is why I call Rivian’s R1T an SUT rather than a “pickup”.

The X6 was the other vehicle that I was thinking of with a similar shape for some reason I thought the Crosstour had come out first, but it looks like the X6 went to production first with both being released the same year.


Honda copied BMW.

I should have looked it up before posting, I think I want to put the Honda first as I saw them on the road before I had seen the BMW.

Was this a case coincidental design similarity, they were released so close together they had to be in development at the same time. Did BMW do a concept with Honda aped?

I think that what people do not consider is that it is not just the production of a product, but how you execute. If you saw a model in the same black dress as your fat Neighbour, which one would ware it best and make it unforgettable…..in a good way.

Yes MB definitely copied the X6.

The funny part is the6 charge more for less space inside.

I love the looks of the X6. I suspect I am going to like this Model Y, can’t wait.

It’s not always easy to see a shape under a loose car cover.

I hope you are right.

@ Viking79


The Mercedes Benz GLC Coupe is another good example of such a design.

“Elevated Sedan”

That’s what I am seeing as well.

But as long as it’s a hatch it’s golden.

I liked the higher rear than the Model X, but then I looked at what the Model X looks like with a cover on and it looks like the higher rear is just the spoiler. Therefore, it’ll probably look VERY similar to the Model X. Here’s hoping with a few little tweaks that it looks better than the X (and it will need to since it won’t have the “cool” falcon wing doors to offset some of the visuals).

The shape is required for aerodynamics. Would you accept less range for a boxier shape?

They draw the line at wheel skirts at least.

I would accept less range for higher roof, more storage space, and headroom for two seats in the rear.

I would like to see a comparison of the exact same vehicle but with a more horizontal roof, to this production shape. Let me know exactly how much range I would need to give up. I would certainly give a few miles for more utility.

Agreed – I would be very interested in the extent of the difference, myself. I have an older-model Ford Escape (technically, a 2010 Mercury Mariner hybrid). The interior shape and volume is extremely handy and versatile, and the turning radius is superb. Because of that, however, it is tall and boxy compared to the X and the Y. I really just want an electric version of my Mariner, but the efficiency bug seems to be infecting all of the EV offerings except Rivian’s R1S, and the R1S is a mid- to full-size SUV, not a small- to mid-size like mine.

Efficiency *is* important. You’re gonna want those extra miles when the weather is cold.

Utility *is* important. You’re gonna want that extra space when you need it.

…and this is why we have so many different models of cars in the market. Looks like Rivian will be happy to sell you an SUV BEV with a boxy rear end, sacrificing range for more cargo capacity, if that’s what you want.

I think there is probably a middle ground between Rivian and Tesla that would be a better compromise for me (and others who want more space but not to entirely kill range).

If it gets more than 200miles range, who cares? Whether it’s 220 or 260?

Efficiency wise, Tesla beats Rivian, and we’re talking about an old cell architecture on the Model X versus an upcoming model that will arrive in 2021. The Model X 100D delivers 2.95 miles/KW while Rivian R1S does between 2.27 and 2.29 miles/KW (depending on battery size), and lower for the R1T. The M3 does 4.33 miles/KW, but then again it’s not an SUV and is significantly lighter.

“I would accept less range for higher roof, more storage space, and headroom for two seats in the rear.”

There are many auto makers who are happy to offer that. I’m glad Tesla prefers to emphasize energy efficiency (including a curved roof) to more cargo space. The shape of the rear of a car actually has more effect on drag than the front, so don’t expect Tesla to offer a car with a boxy rear anytime soon. (Can’t wait to see what they’ll do with their pickup!)

That’s what every other EV is there for, less range with a boxier shape. You either like the Tesla look or you get something else.
Seriously, every car has been trending towards a similar look for decades. Aerodynamics dictates the shape to a large degree. Functionality dictates a lot of the rest.

That is true – it’s hard to tell the difference from one vehicle to another these days, and it comes back to similar design tradeoffs to highway efficiency (aerodynamics, as well as other things, like 8- and 10- speed automatic transmissions in ICEVs, etc.).

Are you serious? The whole point of an SUV’s shape (and a CUV is just a SUV-lookalive on a cheaper, smaller, platform) is utility, that means good carrying ability and the expense of aerodynamic efficiency.
The original Landrover or Jeep Wagoneers are it.
That said, all the Citroën “Break” variants (of the DS, CX, XM, BX, Xantia, Xsara) had excellent aerodynamics without compromising cargo space.

SUVs/CUVs are just labels, they don’t really mean anything.

The reason I like CUVs is not the utility as much as it is elevated driving position, lots of headroom, and good visibility. They don’t offer more utility than a hatchback or station wagon (most classic SUVs are station wagons, as are minivans).

For some people, the SUV is nice for added ground clearance, but usually people think they need these more than they actually need them. I drove my RWD i3 with Snow tires down streets where 4WD SUVs were getting stuck because they had inadequate tires (old worn out all seasons)


SAV works for me.

Sports Activity Vehicle

I’m amazed that anybody would be trying to argue that Tesla “has to” give their hatchbacks and/or CUVs a boxy rear end just because they call them “crossovers”. The lines between sedan, hatchback, and station wagon were pretty clear back in the 1970’s. They have become quite blurred since then; European auto makers, in particular, don’t seem to know what a “station wagon” is at all anymore!

I suppose Tesla could come up with an arbitrary new label for a “mid-sized or larger hatchback with a curved roof” to describe the Model X and the Model Y, as perhaps Honda invented the name “Sports Utility Truck” for the Ridgeline. But I think one thing the automobile market definitely does not need is yet another term for a car!

“Would you accept less range for a boxier shape?”

As long as it gets over 200miles, yes.

Yeah I agree with you. I wont be surprised at all if it basically looks like a raised model 3 with a hatch. If they want to keep as much range as possible then it will be similar to the model X and S and 3. At least is has more flared fenders and a wider stance. I’m keeping my fingers crossed it will look at least a little more muscular.

Hmmm, the TMY profile looks an awful lot like the Model X profile to me. I’d need to see a side-by-side comparison to see the differences.

But then, I’m not one of those who complain about the MX looking like a “pregnant whale”. People want a higher roofline and more cargo space than they get in a liftback sedan like the Model S, then they complain that it’s not as low and sleek as the MS!

The human species is not a rational animal. 😉

Just to point this out, many of us that have complained of it looking like a pregnant whale, have done so not because we want it low and sleek, but we want it with a more utilitarian shape so that utility can be maximized.

Yes there would be a range hit, but how much, for some of us if the number isn’t too high we would gladly trade a bit of range for more utility.

That’s fair. Thanks for engaging with a meaningful response, Paul! 🙂

But perhaps the range hit would be bigger than you think. The shape of the rear end of a car has more effect on drag than the shape of the front end.

I don’t disagree, which is why I would like to see essentially multiple versions of the same vehicle with the different shapes along with the various range hits they would take. (would be great to even see computer modeling of this just to get an idea).

A 30% hit would be a lot to take, at 10% might be acceptable (at current battery sizes, as sizes increase this will become less of an issue, I’m a proponent of over-sizing the battery as costs allow in order to help with fast charging as well).

(Original James) Clyde and others have to come to grips with aerodynamics. Sure, we think of SUVs as tall station wagons with an upward-swinging hatch rear door. In this, we expect a squarish tall rear end. Problem is, that shape causes a vaccuum of turbulent air to form behind the moving vehicle which worsens as speed increases. This suction and resulting vortex of wind actually pulls at the car and greatly reduces efficiency. I prefer a sleek, sloping rear glass. Aesthetics aside, we expect utility from a Sport Utility. Anyone who’se ever owned a Prius knows this tradeoff. Prii hold a lot in back (by length) , just not as many tall items. SUVs tend to haul taller items but have less room in length behind the seats. Model X sought to split tge difference. Its pretty hard to get aero, have height for utility and simultaneously please the eye. There will be compromises. Those that expect a supermodel in looks will find a bit more junk in the trunk. Those who expect a Honda Pilot or Jeep Grand Cherokee also don’t want Jeep MPG or Pilot pollution. As in marraige, compromise is key. Can you live with the Y’s… Read more »

(Original James) I have to remind of the difficulty Hans Von Holshausen faced while designing this uber important vehicle for Tesla.

As mentioned above, Prius owners loved the MPG allowed from owning a slant-backed hatchback with steeply sloped rear window. The compromise is reduced rear visibility and less function to carry tall cargo.

So, along comes the taller, longer Prius V in 2011. Was it a station wagon? Was it a tall Prius? It never had an SUV vibe. Prius V never sold well, and like it’s equally confusing stablemate, the Venza, it never resonated with consumers.

SUVs seem to need a “tougher” vaneer, if just a facade. The “Sport” in SUV sells units. Makers love to put “tough looking” plastic cladding on them. Toyota replaced the Prius V with the Hybrid RAV4 which is selling like hotcakes at iHop.

I have to agree with you. Eminently reasonable analysis. I’m sure it will sell well, and the notion of the 3rd row being rear-facing would be lots of fun, like the S, and like the old station wagons like my parents had when I was little – I loved facing backwards in the fold-down, rear-facing bench seat (though back then, they were death traps).

Yeah. I was surprised some years ago when I read that an auto maker’s focus group discovered that (obviously this is a glittering generality) women feel that driving on public roads is dangerous, so they want a big, “tough” looking car to “protect” them. And in the U.S. if not elsewhere, women more often make the buying decision for a family car than men do.

Anyway, at least I understand why American-made SUVs and CUVs tend to have a “tough” or “mean” looking “face”, even though the reason for that is isn’t a rational one. Even the Model X has a “meaner” looking face than a Model S.

It certainly couldn’t look worse than than the X, because Pontiac has a patent on the Aztec.

Yeah Model X is ugly.

My first impression as well, but I think this rear end is a bit taller. It’s not a SUV shape, though, and doesn’t look like it even pretends to be as is typical with CUVs.

Kind of looks like they took a Model 3 and lifted everything above the belt line 4 inches. We’ll see.

Tesla designers are subpar. I don’t expect too much, just not to be ugly like model X

Hahahahahahahahahaha …ha

My mileage varies, a lot! I think the original design of the Model S — nosecone and all — is by far the most beautiful car design of the modern era.

I won’t claim the Model X is as beautiful or sexy… but then, in my opinion, neither is any other SUV or CUV. Kinda hard to be low, sleek and sexy if the car has to be high and boxy!

“What i was afraid of.. Same rear end as the model x…”

Same here. If It were designed so that I could easily remove the hatch and replace it with a shell that might work but I doubt they have done that.

It isn’t the Pickup reveal so it’s not important to this Tesla lover.

I might be getting one of these.

Very optimistic.

ugly like model X…please NO…..

What do you have against cars that have the shape of a loaf of bread?!

Yes model X is like a bloated Model S and the Y I’m afraid will be following the same style. Tesla please hire someone from Aston, Mazda, Land Rover……….

Ha, Franz von Holzhausen worked at Mazda before joining Tesla.

And that is why Mazda has awesome designs right now, because he’s gone, exactly my point

hmmm, I disagree with you on that point. The new mazdas cars look wonky to me. kind of a mish mash, but each to their own I guess.
I actually like the recent Nissan rogue. looks good, large enough but not too large. I was hoping Model Y would be something similar.


Volvo. The XC40 is great.

The aerodynamicist won the day. C’est la vie.

Yes, it will look fine and the most important factor of a compelling EV is that it have good range.

Well practicality is just as important. The issue with the shape is not just the “look”, but what it represents.

One of the reasons CUV/SUV’s have become so popular is because of the additional bootspace and headroom. Both of which are usually severely compromised in this sort of design.

It’s a catch 22. Do you compromise practicality for range, or range for practicality. The loss of a couple of mpg in ICE vehicles isn’t a major issue for most, but the loss of 30% range in an EV may well be.

You will be surprised that looks also sell cars.

They sell cars more than anything else, or noone would ever buy a sedan or CUV over an equivalent hatchback. The latter always have more space & utility.


So, not really a crossover or small SUV, but a hatchback version of the 3.

If it’s just a hatchback version of the 3, I can see where the base might be under $40k.

It’s exactly a crossover…an elevated sedan with a hatch.

No, the Model Y is an elevated hatchback (or a crossover, which is the same thing). A sedan is a distinctly different body shape.


That’s not really what the original crossovers were though.

They looked like SUVs but with unibody construction instead of body on frame, like trucks.

It would have been much simpler if they had just referred to them as unibody SUV’s instead of crossovers. The marketing department now calls anything that’s not a traditional sedan or coupe a cross over (anything that isn’t a light truck or BOF SUV that is).

Please explain to me the difference between an “elevated hatchback” and a CUV, because I don’t see any difference at all between those two categories.

Given the reason that Tesla chose to shape the Model X the way they did, sloping rear roof and all, the shape of the Model Y — which is strongly based on the Model 3 — is precisely what I expected.

Looks like a Model 3 that was stretched up vertically. Which makes sense since it’s built on the same platform as the 3.

Yep, I don’t think this car will be earth shattering. However, Elon likes to surprise and a refresh of Model S and X is long overdue.

Hmmmm, that is probably the big suprise. Refresh of the model S.

Soooo that red hack job we saw on 3/7 appears to be fairly spot on after all!


haha – not really, I think most likely not. There was a teaser from the side released by Tesla a while back, and it showed a taller front bumper/anti-grille than the red hack job.

So much effort for something that’s just going to cannabilize model 3 sales. No sought after high riding position and relatively little cargo space, this is not going to bring any archetypal SUV shoppers to Tesla. I understand the battery is the most expensive part, and focusing on aerodynamics and not practicality makes sense from that prospective, but this model 3 variant adds little to the brand.

I think we should wait for the actual specs… For many people the lack of a hatch on the 3 was a dealbreaker. If the cargo capacity here is decent, this may suit those people.

“…this model 3 variant adds little to the brand.”


This major variation on the Model 3 will add a great deal to Tesla’s market. Elon thinks the market for the TMY will be 1.5-2x the market for the TM3, and I would guess he’s probably right.

Elon thinks a lot of things. Some which are grounded in reality.

Let’s hope Elon understands there are a lot of these not-even-a-SUV SUVs on the market because that way regular ICE manufacturers can circumvent the more stringent fuel economy regulations for sedans while still utilizing the same production lines, and not necessarily because of customer demand.

ModeY looks like ModelX and maybe Model3. So should ModelY be considered a Suv or Cuv, got used to latest.Suvs having imposing front huge flashy headlights, shiny fittings all around a definition of Suv of sort.

The Model Y is an elevated hatchback which will be (mis-)labeled a “CUV” or possibly even “SUV” for marketing purposes.

At least nobody* is trying to claim the Model 3 is anything other than the sedan it is!

*…well, no doubt there are one or two doofuses somewhere…

“Elevated hatchback”

Hmm, the usual wind tunnel styling……Not really the practical vehicle I was hoping for. Oh well, maybe Tesla will still do that Model 3 wagon some day…..Probably not. I wonder how much this really adds to Model 3 and whether they might have dispensed with Model 3 altogether and do this instead if people simply want taller cars without much concern for actual practicality.

A vehicle in the hottest form factor from the hottest manufacturer at what looks to be a competitive price. Build it and they will come. In massive herds.

When did the form factor “bloated” get hot?

When Tesla started making the Model X. Did you not get the memo? 😉

Love ’em or hate ’em, customers are voting with their wallets and buying CUVs in massive numbers. I am a sedan guy myself but recognize Tesla has to offer a competitive CUV to remain viable long term.

very true

I was afraid of that, another sloped rear roof. Sorry but when it comes to CUVs, Musk doesn’t get it. And not like they can’t get good aero with a regular CUV rear door set up.
This is barely a station wagon, much less a SUV.
What we need is a real rear door CUV, a pickup and a van on the 3 or stretched 3 chassis. Come on Musk, give us what we want.
And the question is how much will it tow?

I’m terrified of what they’ve done about the trunk opening. If the hinge is anywhere the rear lip then this thing will be pretty disappointing. At least in that regard. Just give me a TM3 wagon already! It’s be soooo easy: Almost all of the body panels would carry over and the mechanicals would be identical!

Ummm… the Model Y has a rear hatch, not a “trunk”.

Side profile looks like Pontiac Aztec, hope they did something different with the front.

That’s not nice 🙂

Now days the Aztec which was a bit odd is now a collectible with increasing values, they were just ahead of their time,
just shows how things tend to repeat themselves, I wonder if it will have the camping option, that be cool!

My neighbor has two of them in red.

Still as ugly then as they were then

It was such an oddity that, Walter White drove one!

But it seems accurate.

looks like Tesla gets a similar style of BMW X4 and Mercedes GLC Coupe. Same size and the same shape.
both are around 50K+, if the Model Y price is $38500, will be bad for BMW and Mercedes

Unlikely to be that low.

looks like a Prius/Leaf kind of squared off hatchback.. guess Aero trumps everything . This might not go over if it’s viewed as a hatchback 3 and not much else (i.e., not worthy of a new model designation)

Prius with a longer nose

Just a thought:

I think that Tesla will upgrade the battery pack of the “Long Range version” of both the Tesla Model 3 and the Tesla Model Y. Because they both share the same platform.

And as a direct result of that battery pack upgrade, the range of both EV models will increase substantially.

Perhaps in 2022?

“I think that Tesla will upgrade the battery pack of the “Long Range version” of both the Tesla Model 3 and the Tesla Model Y…”

Yes, because (from what Elon said) the architecture for the Standard Range Model 3 is more efficiently build and less expensive. So we can expect all the Tesla battery packs to be changed to that architecture, sooner or later. I’m guessing “sooner” for the Model S and Model X, but as Steven Loveday has pointed out, Elon has recently indicated no change is coming soon.

We’ll see what happens!

Regarding that photo of the Tesla Model Y:

It’s a smaller Tesla Model X.

But will it have something special (to distinguish it from all the other Tesla EV models)?

After all, the Tesla Model Y is the latest design of all the other Tesla EV models.

The question is: “Which new design element have they implemented in the Tesla Model Y?”

Differences between the Model X and the Model Y:

– The Model Y will not have the Falcon Wing Doors.
– The Model Y will be smaller than the Model X (length, width, hight).
– The Model Y (Long Range) will have less range than the Model X.
– The Model Y will be cheaper than the Model X.
– The Model Y will have a more sportier design than the Model X.

Who can list more differences between the Model X and the Model Y?

I’m not expecting anything other than a Model 3 with some elements of the Model X grafted on. That’s certainly what the overall shape of the exterior looks like, and we know the Model Y shares 70% of the parts with the Model 3, so the interior should look a great deal like the Model 3.

I don’t know why anyone would find a lifted hatchback version of the Model 3 (with a tow rating) to be a disappointment. What were they expecting? What a lot of people wanted in the Model 3 was a hatchback and more headroom in the rear; the Model Y will have just that.

I honestly can’t understand why anyone was expecting anything different.

Please don’t give us the same ugly but smaller version of Model X.

Oh, so many freelancing design experts here … LOL

Yup, so many armchair aeronautical engineers to assure us that a BEV can have a boxy rear end without significantly sacrificing energy efficiency and range. 😉

I don’t think it is “boxy”. You can see the aero if you zoom in. Tesla does not make a car that is not amongst the best aero drag in the car world.

Will it have the sliding roof over the cargo area to carry taller things, this could give it an edge that other crossovers did not have.
I don’t think this design will have that feature.
GMC Envoy XUV had this feature earlier.

How well did that sell? Are they still making it? Did it even make it to the second gen? Ok, thanks.

That’s not necessarily fair, this is GM we are talking about, they can take any great idea and poorly market it and then discard it.

Great deals on electric, plugin and hybrid vehicles. Seems Chevy is offering upto 14% off MSRP on Bolt.
In another 17 days the $7,500 fed rebate falls to $3,750. Will GM use this reason to sell as many Bolts/Volts. Since Model-3 SR at $35,000 is going on sale from tomorrow, will GM respond by making a price cut.

Maybe a price cut on MSRP for the 2020 model year. Or they may include more options as standard in the base config.

But they already admitted they are losing money on EVERY EV they make……

They are trying to save face, not sell cars. They do not want to sell their EV’s. Period.

I hope this isn’t it. I want more an SUV (useful storage / liftgate). This looks a lot like the BMS X4. Yuck.

You do know that Tesla’s are performance vehicles that have the best aerodynamics out there, right? Just admit, you can’t afford them and you are salty. Period.

I drive the most ugly car on the road. Anything is cooler than 1st gen Leaf

The side by side, in person comparison of the Gen one Leaf, against the Model Y, will be a tough pill to swallow.

Looks like Bulbasaur

The Tesla Model Y will take away marketshare from ICE vehicles like the Mercedes Benz GLC Coupe and other models with a similar design that compete in the this segment. And this is a very hot and lucrative segment because the number of models in this segment is increasing rapidly, and also because the prices in this segment are substantially higher than €50,000.-

Well done Tesla.

The demand for the Tesla Model Y is going to be very high.

Tesla will have to decide soon all the details regarding the production capacity that they will have to create for the production of the Tesla Model Y.

That means that the final decision regarding the location of the Gigafactory in Europe will have to be made very soon.

American’s buy $50-$70k ICE SUVs all day long. Why can’t Tesla make a real SUV, jam enough batteries in it to give it a 300 mile range despite poor aerodynamics, and charge $60k base for it? That’s what Americans want. Not these humpback cars, claiming to be SUVs.



Because battery chemistry hasn’t improved that much yet.

But it will in the not too distant future (a few years from now).

It was more of a rhetorical question. It’s already possible for them to do it at that price point. They just choose not to.

But they beat every car they go up against so far. Stick with what works.

Is it 8:00 PM PT yet? lol

The light units in the back are the same as those of the Tesla Model 3.

It’s highly likely that the light units in the front will be same as well.

It really don’t matter what it looks like. It’s the functionality that the people want!

The design of the car is an important part of the total package.

It does matter a lot.

Don’t forget, they are completing “S3XY”, so this is going to be sweeping like a BMW X4/X6 that it is competing with…and will destroy them in sales figures. Bye bye bmw.

@ Boston

And other ICE models as well.