Yesterday, we told you about the Big News about Tesla’s cheaper cars, which are de-contented versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, called the Model 3 and Model Y Standard. Tesla cheapness engineers took out a number of things from the entry-model cars, including power mirror controls, audio system speakers, front and rear light bars, used fabric seat upholstery instead of leather, and, in the case of the Model Y Standard, eliminated the panoramic glass roof. Well, that’s not exactly right; they eliminated the ability of the people in the car to use the glass roof, which is not exactly the same thing as replacing the glass panel with a lighter and cheaper material, like steel or plastic. It’s much, much worse.
Let me be clear about something here right off the bat: I think that Tesla knows exactly what they’re doing, and the solution they arrived at was the one that met the goals of saving as much money as possible on the building of these cars. As counterintuitive as their roof solution may sound, I have no doubt that it is in fact the cheapest way to do this. I’m not here to cast doubt on Tesla’s competence when it comes to finding the optimal way to save money.
What I am here to do is complain, loudly, about how much this particular solution sucks, and how it feels like a cruel punch to the crotch for people who maybe don’t have as much money to spend on a car. Economically, sure, I’ll buy that it makes sense. But ethically and culturally and conceptually, this is just a miserable symptom of how twisted life has become.
Let’s just recap what is going on here with the Tesla Model Y Standard’s roof; the other trim levels of the Model Y incorporate a nice panoramic glass roof. This is a fairly common option on cars today – and has been for a while now – and it’s something that I think genuinely makes interiors more airy and open and pleasant. A large chunk of glass in a roof is also a lot heavier than a steel roof and there’s potential for leaks, as well as less thermal and sound insulation when compared to a conventional steel roof and headliner, so it’s not like that pleasing airy feeling is completely free.
The Model Y standard has such a glass roof, but, as you can see from those screengrabs above, the glass is blocked in the interior of the car by an opaque headliner. The video those screenshots are from shows all this, and the host of the video spoke with Tesla representatives who confirmed that, thanks to vendor arrangements and manufacturing processes, it’s actually cheaper to just build these with a glass roof and then block it off.
I don’t doubt that this is true, though I can think of examples in the past where a version of a car replaced glass panels for cheaper and lighter steel panels, like this Volkswagen Type 3 Panel Van:
I guess the manufacturing process was more human-oriented back then, and simpler overall? Again, I have no doubt Tesla picked the cheapest path, it’s just hard to wrap my head around it.
Here’s that video so you can see:
In the video, it’s also noted that blocking the big window in the roof allows for the HVAC system to work less hard, so there is an estimated 5% efficiency gain, so that’s nice.
Also, I don’t care, because conceptually I dislike the idea of this roof so very much.
Just think about what is going on here: they wanted a cheaper version of their car, and in their research, one of the “premium” elements of the car – the panoramic roof – turned out to not be cheaper to remove. In fact, it would have cost more to remove it. So, instead of thinking that’s great, people will get an even better, more enjoyable car for their money, they decided to design and engineer a new part – the Model Y standard headliner – that covers the panoramic roof, so you can’t get the benefits of it.
You still get many of the downsides – the increased weight, potential for leaks, higher repair costs compared to a steel roof – but zero of the enjoyment. All because you were callow and debased enough to want to pay a bit less for your car, like some sort of filthy animal.
Seriously, I would have preferred it if they offered a canvas roof instead of this; that at least would have some novelty and charm about it.
It’s only a punitive measure – it’s like if you got a cheap hotel room that faced a lovely view, but because the hotel didn’t think you paid enough, they painted over the window. Because fuck you, you poor sack of crap.
I also hate the oxymoronic and euphemistic way they describe the roof on their website:
“Closed glass roof?” The hell does that even mean? I guess the marketing team thought “useless glass roof” or “glass roof you don’t deserve, you impoverished loser” didn’t hit the tone they were going for?
I understand the thinking here: I understand that they want to differentiate the different trim levels, and being able to enjoy the panoramic roof may be one of those things that convinces a customer to pay the extra $5,000 or so to go up to the next trim level. I understand why they did something so seemingly inane. I get that it makes sense.
I also get that it sucks. I’m sure mosquitoes fill some important niche in the ecosystem, but I think they suck, too. This really isn’t any different from how companies like BMW tried to make heated seats and other features subscription-only, and we all hated that shit. It’s the same basic idea: you’re hauling around hardware in your car that the company is blocking you from using, and that a shitty thing. Though at least in the case of subscriptions, you could at least get the option to use the feature, like heated seats or whatever. In the Model Y standard, you can’t just pay something and be able to see out of your roof.
I’m sure you could tear out the headliner if you were really determined, and I wouldn’t blame you if you were.
I’m glad Tesla has a cheaper car available, but I can’t say I think it’s cheap enough, or that it’s cheap in the right ways. They still have those overcomplicated electrically-operated door handles, for example. They couldn’t have replaced those with some entirely functional and trouble-free mechanical handles?
Fundamentally, though, I just hate the whole thought process behind preventing a car buyer from having access to a feature built into the car just because the company doesn’t think you deserve it. It’s all avarice and cruelty, and as far as I’m concerned, this entire way of thinking can fuck right off. I don’t care if it makes sense for Tesla’s bottom line; it’s disrespectful for people who just want a cheaper car, and I don’t have to like it.
So there.
This reminds me of when the US Postal Service bought Mercedes vans then had custom USPS eagle logos mounted in place of the Mercedes logos in the grills so people wouldn’t think they were “wasting taxpayer money” by buying “luxury vans.”
Common myth but that isn’t why USPS Metris vans don’t have a the Mercedes 3 point star on them.
USPS does not allow vehicle manufactures to put their branding on vehicles they buy. However, that 3 point star is also the front radar cover so they had to create a new version. If you look at USPS Ford eTransits you will see the same – a front radar cover with the USPS logo instead of the Ford Oval. I doubt anyone thinks a Ford van is a luxury vehicle.
Same with medium duty trucks. Their International trucks and tractors don’t have an International logo on the grill – it has just been left off because the radar is down in the bumper.
USPS eTransit:
https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/TWCNews/USPS%20e%20truck%20lede
USPS International:
https://www.21cpw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/trucks-trailers-fleet_FB.jpg
I stand corrected!
“cruel punch to the crotch for people who maybe don’t have as much money” is pretty much Musk’s guiding principle in life.
“Musk” is a weird way to spell IRS.
Actually I don’t hate this. Giant glass roofs make the car too hot in the summer and its been years since I opened the sunroof on any of my cars that had them.
My take as well. I hate glass roofs, sunroofs, and moonroofs with a passion.
My wife’s Acura wagon has a sunroof – we never open it while moving and keep the cover closed to keep the sun and glare off. I do periodically open it when parked to help vent a bit of heat AND because if you don’t open a sunroof long enough the seals will stick together and when you do open it you rip the seals and get to spend $$$ on repairs to the stupid hole in your roof.
(That happened to mine and a friend’s dieselgate Jetta Wagons but under the CPO warranty)
Business opportunity for window tint installers: $499 to safely and cleanly remove the headliner and hem the edges where you cut it out.
Tesla’s first car was based on a Lotus. They retained the ethos: remove weight, then add cheapness.
Ya know, Tesla missed a way of punishing you for being cheap. They should have made it with an UNTINTED glass roof. Cheap and undesirable.
The irony of the former head of DOGE having his cars DOGEd.
You can’t make this shtuff up.
I was a passenger in a Model 3 yesterday. It was maybe 5-6 years old, and has been babied. It didn’t rattle more than most other 5-6 year old cars, so I guess they managed to fix the worst of their quality control issues by then. The seats were pretty decent too, even in back.
It had a glass roof with a big lateral bar in the middle (on the inside, presumably for structural/crash safety reasons). I know people like these glass roofs (rooves? no, that doesn’t seem right) on everything, but TBH, I’m fine w/o them. Whenever I get a car with a sunroof I almost never use it, and some primitive part of my brainstem kind of likes the cozy/safe/enclosed feel of a car with an opaque roof.
But the ‘standard’ versions of both the Model 3 and Model Y aren’t nearly as cheap as they ought to be. Weird how Tesla didn’t just stick a steering wheel into the Cybercab thing and call it the Model 2 and sell it in the $25-29K range. That might have earned Musky Elon some positive press to help offset all his right-wing, white supremicist, pro-Trump, batshit-crazyness.
Barring being given one for free, I’d never own a Tesla product. And even then, I’d feel bad about it every time I drove it. But that’s just me.
The is because the “cybercab thing” Isn’t an actual thing yet… maybe ever…
Developing and tooling up the Cybercab thing would cost Tesla billions – money wasted when it flopped because nobody is buying 2 seat coupes.
Are the Cybercabs seen in Tesla promo videos where a bunch of them shuffle journos and influencers (still hate that word) around a pre-programmed course at night all prototypes? I’d assumed that they had the tooling for the body panels made for them, but perhaps not.
I’m still irked at the lack of a truly $25K decent EV in America. Something smallish, with a couple hundred miles of range (from LFP batteries preferably) and normal-car acceleration (0-60 MPH in 7-8ish seconds) so it can have smallish batteries. I know the rebooted Bolt EUV comes close at $29K base MSRP, but aside from the battery pack, it’s a several-year-old design already, and GM admits it’s just a short-run stopgap measure. The new Leaf (when it’s finally on the streets) might be nice, but it’s a few grand more than the Bolt.
I thought maybe the short two-door Tesla cab thing could be a Model 2 (finally) if they put a steering wheel in. I wouldn’t buy one myself (because Elon) but I’d still be glad to see a $25K EV finally. Instead of the $25K Model 2 he’s been talking about for at least five years, Tesla just gave us a stripped Model 3 which most folks seem to feel is overpriced compared to the regular version.
PS: I went to the Japanese Classic Car Show in Long Beach yesterday and it was lovely as usual, though getting pricier every year (parking alone was $30!!!). It’s outdoors, but they don’t allow dogs (I only saw one, and it was being carried). Fantastic cars though: plenty of Zs and Miatas, etc… of course, but a ton of JDM stuff, and truly vintage ones, and lots of trucks and vans too, also bikes/scooters including vintage ones. Maybe next year I’ll investigate public transport instead of parking/driving (but it’s unlikely). Me and the pal I go with drove there in his work-in-progress ’85 Toyota MR2 base and it handled freeway travel just fine… except for the noise at 70MPH I’d even describe it as comfortable. I forget what he’s got into it, but I think the car (w/over 200Kmiles on it) was about $6K, and he’s put at least another $5K into it refreshing things. It really drives well (IMO) …like first-gen MR2s I remember when I was a 20-something back east. 🙂
I really doubt the Cybercab is hard tooled. We have only seen 20 prototypes and Tesla’s Robotaxi vehicles have all been Model Ys. Then there are the lambo doors which I can’t imagine would make it to the final production version of a low cost car.
We will not have a $25K EV in the USA. The cheapest cars available for sale in the USA today are $20K and there are only a handful of models sold for $25K or less.
Sadly, you’re probably right on both points Jason.
Can’t so I’m sorry Tesla isn’t selling a 2 seat coupe. It simply makes no sense to me in the current market. It would have been nice if they spent the money wasted on the Cybertruck, Cybercab, Roadster, and Semi on filling out their model lineup in popular segments build on a shared platform.
As to car prices – inflation is steady year after year. I remember when you could buy a new car for less than $10,000. Now entry level is $20,000. Adjusted for inflation you are getting a lot more car for less in real inflation adjusted dollars comparing like to like.
A base 1995 Civic cost $26K in 2025 dollars. For a much smaller car, with 100 hp, 28 mpg, manual transmission, no cruise or even power windows. (2025 Civic is larger than a 1995 Accord)
Your points all make sense of course, based as they are on facts.
Still, when Camrys and Mavericks both start at almost $30K (not an inconsequential sum for many, and that’s before tax, title, registration, and financing costs if any) it’s hard to feel good about it.
A base 1995 Toyota Corolla cost $13,782 MSRP. That is $29,151 adjusted for inflation to 2025 dollars. Or to look at it another way in 1995 the median household made $34,080 a year. A base Corolla cost 21 weeks of income.
A base 2025 Toyota Corolla cost $22,175. Median household income is $80,610. A base 2025 Corolla costs the median household 14 weeks of income.
The average household is the USA is get one heck of a deal on a 2025 Corolla. Not only is it a luxury car compared to a Corolla from 30 years ago but it cost them 1/3 less.
(Same is true for a RAV4. 1996 RAV4 cost 27 weeks of income. Today it is 19 weeks.)
Yes, prices get sticky in our mind and personally I can’t see myself spending $30K for a car but logically what matters is the relation to household income.
As mentioned before, of course you’re right. Apples and apples and all that. Of course, it’s worth remembering that that same household also must spend it’s income on other things such as shelter, taxes, energy and utilities, food, etc… (plus all the things people pay for now that didn’t exist 20+ years ago for most: smartphones, internet connection, cable/sat/streaming tv and radio, various other subscription, etc…). Some of those things have outpaced the gradual rise in household income (i.e.: shelter, whether you rent or own) thus there’s less money left over for buying a car, making the purchase of even a $30K new car more of an effort than it was a couple decades ago.
Yes, a new Corolla is a great deal compared to one in the 1980s. I’ve watched too many Corolla reviews on Youtube to suggest otherwise. 😉
So you acknowledge that it’s cheaper to make it this way. And it improves efficiency. And the car is supposed to be the ‘cheapest’ version. So what’s the outrage about? They don’t deserve it? Just because getting rid of HALF a feature is cheaper than getting rid of the entire thing?
I thought you were going to say that they had all the hardware there, but it was locked in software so they had to pay more to use it. I could see that being an FU, but not this.
FWIW, I’m no Tesla driver. I’m crazy enough to drive a Titan and still like it.
It’s not cheaper than leaving the roof as is.
Yeah but they didn’t get rid of half a feature. They went through the trouble of adding a feature to block another. They could have left the roof as it was and it would be cheaper yet!
You’re paying extra for the cover used to take away a feature that’s already in the car and that you’re already paying for. It’s on par with BMW’s paywalling the heated seat hardware that’s already in the car you bought.
Beyond the economics, it’s also wasteful. For a car that’s partially supposed to be good for the planet, it’s dumb.
The person with the glass roof is paying $42,500. The person with the headline blocking it is paying $37,000. They are not paying extra – they are getting a $5,500 discount.
Tesla is paying a tiny bit extra to create the trim separation above and give a potential buyer the incentive to spend extra on the Premium trim. They could pay even more to put a steel roof on – which would mean the Standard Trim would cost more than $37,000. Lose / lose for both the manufacturer and the buyer.
They’d be paying $36k (made up number) instead of $37k if that liner wasn’t there.
Nope. They would be paying more like $39,995 because the entire point is to take away the glass roof on the base model so people buy the Premium.
Car trim prices are not based on part cost. I’ve seen options that literally cost $3 sell for $1,000.
YEAH! Fuck this bullshit
You’re probably right that this was the cheapest way for them to delete the sunroof. I don’t buy that it’s cheaper than keeping the sunroof. They’re spending EXTRA money just to make the car worse.
does the sunroof in the rich people’s model have electronic controls? Latches for displacement/replacement? these were most likely deleted.
No, it’s just a huge pane of glass with no shade or ability to open or close any portion of the glass. There are no controls or electronics associated with it to delete.
It’s not even electrochromic glass?
Nope, just a big piece of tinted glass ready to absolutely cook you when inside on a particularly hot and sunny day
For real? Wtf. I’ve still never been inside a Tesla so I didn’t realise how dumb that is.
You mean better. Glass roofs suck. Just one of the Standard Range “deletions” that make them better.
I had a Model 3 performance for a year. Great commuter. If I had the option to completely cover the glass roof like that I would have jumped on it. One of the worst things about that car was the roof. It was loud, and the heat from the sun made my bald head hot.
I could imagine people using a spray can and paint that red glass black.
It’s a base trim of a car. Much ado about nothing. I could potentially see some customers wanting to spend less and have less bells and whistles. It’s just like how there is a base trim if a Sienna and it’s severely decontented. This is just the same thing.
No, it’s like how the base trim of the original Ford Maverick (truck) had no cruise control, because they created an entirely different set of buttons and told the ECU “you don’t have cruise control”. It’s doing extra work (spending extra money) to punish people for buying a cheaper car, and it’s unacceptable.
They do the same on the F-150 with cruise control and the remote start. They go through the expense of making a separate set of steering wheel controls to keep cruise control off the lower trims and the expense of making a separate key to eliminate the remote start, even though the vehicles have the capability built in. I bought a $15 key on Amazon and a $40 steering wheel on marketplace to allow both features on my 2013 XL. But there’s no outrage there…
No outrage by who?
If by the broader public, probably because it’s “normal”.
That’s my point. People are freaking out when Tesla does something everyone else does too.
I think it’s because this one is more obvious — you can SEE the roof right there. It’s harder to get worked up about not having radar cruise control (or whatever), despite having all the equipment minus the switch. But yeah, it would be interesting for someone to do a deep dive on a random base level car and document how much “premium” equipment is included but not usable.
Well, I regularly reference the Maverick example as an unacceptable and insulting move by Ford, so “people” isn’t me.
Tesla can also be attracting more outrage here because of the context they introduced it (“we made our expensive cars cheaper!”) and their smaller overall lineup. They’re not special victims of bad PR (though having PR might help with that issue).
It’s not decontented! They *added* content to remove access to a feature that’s already there and paid for. You’re paying for the glass AND for the benefit of not being able to use it.
Lower-trim cars with blanks over switches for the AC or fog lights don’t have AC hardware or fog lights with the switches removed.
So would it be better if they spent even more to tool a new steel roof? The result is the same but the savings are less.
Not to mention plenty of people buying the base trim will be happy that it looks like a higher trim from the outside. People spend plenty of money adding higher trim cosmetic pieces to base trims to try to make it look like they bought the more expensive version.
The fact is you’re paying more for less. The cheapest option is to leave the roof as is.
So just kill off the base trims then? That is the other realistic option. (which is becoming more common today)
No, just leave the roof alone! Cheaper for everyone!
You seem to be missing the point that there has to be a distinctive feature offered in different trims to get people to pay the extra for the next level trim. Companies aren’t going to give base trim buyers a big discount and the key features from higher trims.
It isn’t cheaper for everyone because it is the profit margin from higher trims that make the base trim possible.