Model 3 production ramping up

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

One thing is clear, Tesla needs to offer lease option when non owners start to configure.

Perhaps Tesla should make an arrangement with some nationwide bank to arrange leases, as it did at one time (perhaps still does?) with Wells Fargo for Model S leases.

But with demand so much higher than supply, Tesla absolutely should not be offering in-house leases. There's no reason why Tesla shouldn't get the full retail value of every TM3 it sells, at least until supply begins to approach demand. That won't happen for at least a few years.

So long as Tesla is a much smaller auto maker than the legacy auto makers, it must compensate for its lack of buying clout to maximize income where it can. One of the places it can is by never, ever doing in-house financing of car leases or loans.
-

 

[JyChevyVolt]

Sorry folks, date moved back for non owners.

Mar-May LR+PUP
Late 2018 SR
Late 2018 AWD

 

[Domenick]

Sorry folks, date moved back for non owners.

Mar-May LR+PUP
Late 2018 SR
Late 2018 AWD

Been so busy writing, didn't see that until just now. Details can be found >here<.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

There are at least two Model 3's here in eastern Massachusetts - a red one and a black one. I have not seen them in person, but my son saw the black one a few days ago, and the red one is owned by Zac of the Now You Know podcast.

 

[WadeTyhon]

Sorry folks, date moved back for non owners.

Mar-May LR+PUP
Late 2018 SR
Late 2018 AWD

You heard it here first! Lol: http://www.insideevsforum.com/commu...s/my-first-model-3-sighting-in-dallas-tx.282/

"I asked about the base Model 3 and when they expected it to be for sale. They hesitated to give me an exact time frame. But ‘off the record’ so take it with a grain of salt. One of the employees I spoke to said he personally expects it in Q4 this year or Q1 next year. "

I appreciate that the Tesla gallery attendants were honest with me about this. They probably already knew the exact delay that was coming.

I just hope it is available at least in time for Q1 next year... if we don't feel confident in a Q1 delivery by November or December then we'll probably just go for the Volt.

 

[JyChevyVolt]

You heard it here first! Lol: http://www.insideevsforum.com/commu...s/my-first-model-3-sighting-in-dallas-tx.282/

"I asked about the base Model 3 and when they expected it to be for sale. They hesitated to give me an exact time frame. But ‘off the record’ so take it with a grain of salt. One of the employees I spoke to said he personally expects it in Q4 this year or Q1 next year. "

I appreciate that the Tesla gallery attendants were honest with me about this. They probably already knew the exact delay that was coming.

I just hope it is available at least in time for Q1 next year... if we don't feel confident in a Q1 delivery by November or December then we'll probably just go for the Volt.

I'm sure SR+PUP+autopilot will be available next year. No way the base will be available. The cost to manufacture the 3 is over $40,000.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

No way the base will be available. The cost to manufacture the 3 is over $40,000.

Your assertion says far more about your own bias than it does about Tesla Inc.'.s ability to deliver on its promises. Ditto for your intellectually dishonest implication that the per-unit cost for a TM3 is "over $40,000".

Auto makers price their cars on the average costs and prices. I would expect that many if not most models of cars will make little if any profit for their maker if someone buys a "stripper" unit with no options at all.

It's really weird seeing serial Tesla bashers spending so much time and effort writing about Tesla doing things that are perfectly normal for the automotive industry, as if they are "bad" or "wrong" just because Tesla is doing them. I guess they think people reading their FUD are either gullible or very clueless or both, because nobody who knows much about the auto industry would believe such obvious bull pucky.

Go Tesla!

 

[WadeTyhon]

I'm sure SR+PUP+autopilot will be available next year. No way the base will be available. The cost to manufacture the 3 is over $40,000.

The base will be available. And we don't know the exact amount it costs to manufacture a 3. But I do know that Tesla will want to sell as many high optioned versions as they can. A Premier Bolt is far more profitable than an LT. A LR Model 3 will be far more profitable than a SR one.

Almost everyone I know wants the short range Model 3. But most of these people will add at least one option to them. Such as paint, "pleather" seats, autopilot etc.

Since those are all options on the short range Model 3 that add to price, there has to be a base model.

If there is no 35k model then you're essentially saying either they cancel the SR model, or they make all the optional equipment they announced standard and raise the price. It's certainly possible they do one of these things but very unlikely. Either one of these would be PR disasters that I know Tesla doesn't want to deal with.

Your assertion says far more about your own bias than it does about Tesla Inc.'.s ability to deliver on its promises. Ditto for your intellectually dishonest implication that the per-unit cost for a TM3 is "over $40,000".

He also thinks:
the Volt will sell less than 10,000 units this year.
That the Clarity PHEV outsold the Volt last month (it didn't)
That Inside EVs is going downhill.
And seems to think that Hyundai/Kia actually wants to sell electrics to Americans.

He's just an opinionated guy who is wrong regularly. Or at the very least that I disagree with on a regular basis. It's not like he is plotting Tesla's demise the way zzzzzzz or Six Electrics surely is lol!

 

[JyChevyVolt]

The base will be available. And we don't know the exact amount it costs to manufacture a 3. But I do know that Tesla will want to sell as many high optioned versions as they can. A Premier Bolt is far more profitable than an LT. A LR Model 3 will be far more profitable than a SR one.

Almost everyone I know wants the short range Model 3. But most of these people will add at least one option to them. Such as paint, "pleather" seats, autopilot etc.

Since those are all options on the short range Model 3 that add to price, there has to be a base model.

If there is no 35k model then you're essentially saying either they cancel the SR model, or they make all the optional equipment they announced standard and raise the price. It's certainly possible they do one of these things but very unlikely. Either one of these would be PR disasters that I know Tesla doesn't want to deal with.



He also thinks:
the Volt will sell less than 10,000 units this year.
That the Clarity PHEV outsold the Volt last month (it didn't)
That Inside EVs is going downhill.
And seems to think that Hyundai/Kia actually wants to sell electrics to Americans.

He's just an opinionated guy who is wrong regularly. Or at the very least that I disagree with on a regular basis. It's not like he is plotting Tesla's demise the way zzzzzzz or Six Electrics surely is lol!

You got the opposite. Hyundai does not want to sell in America. I've been saying this for years. Hyundai doesn't think highly of the US market.

1. Korea
2. Europe
3. Canada
4. California (token #)
5. US (1,2)

We will see the true cost when Monroe finishes the teardown of the 3.

The Volt will not sell over 10,000.

 

[WadeTyhon]

You got the opposite. Hyundai does not want to sell in America. I've been saying this for years. Hyundai doesn't think highly of the US market.

1. Korea
2. Europe
3. Canada
4. California (token #)
5. US (1,2)

We will see the true cost when Monroe finishes the teardown of the 3.

The Volt will not sell over 10,000.

Ah okay I misunderstood your opinion of Kia since I’d heard you talk so positively about several of them as possible replacements for your Volt.

“4. California (token #)
5. US (1,2)”

You summed up the Kia/Hyundai plug-in distribution plan perfectly. LOL

Also be sure to have that $1 bill ready for delivery when the Volt hits 10,000+ sales sometime this fall!

 

[God]

If AWD is coming before the SR, we need to know which AWD configs will be offered, P and/or non-P, LR only or SR too? Then if they're doing AWD before RWD SR, will they offer AWD to the entire 400K+ queue before delivering a single RWD SR?

IMO Tesla should release all Model 3 offerings along with pricing and allow customers to make their Model 3 configurations to get a good gasp on demand...But my best guess is that Tesla is intentional keeping this info a secret as part of their anti-selling strategy and hopes that if you wanted a SR RWD, if you receive an invitation to configure your Model 3 you'll "upgrade" to the configurations they're offering...

 

[Domenick]

If AWD is coming before the SR, we need to know which AWD configs will be offered, P and/or non-P, LR only or SR too? Then if they're doing AWD before RWD SR, will they offer AWD to the entire 400K+ queue before delivering a single RWD SR?

IMO Tesla should release all Model 3 offerings along with pricing and allow customers to make their Model 3 configurations to get a good gasp on demand...But my best guess is that Tesla is intentional keeping this info a secret as part of their anti-selling strategy and hopes that if you wanted a SR RWD, if you receive an invitation to configure your Model 3 you'll "upgrade" to the configurations they're offering...

While it may be part of its "anti-sell" strategy (which I'm not convinced is a totally real thing), I believe the decision to produce variations of the car with the highest profit margins first is a financial one. It would cost a lot more money up front to begin delivering all possible configurations first, so it's keep its production and supply lines as simple as possible for now, while leveraging the higher margins of the LR variants to help boost revenue.

Actually kind of surprised they didn't start with long range, dual motor, performance cars, but I assume they considered that but it didn't pencil out as favorably as the track they've taken.

No doubt it's frustrating for customers, but it's already going through tons of cash. Some fiscal prudence is necessary.

 

[God]

While it may be part of its "anti-sell" strategy (which I'm not convinced is a totally real thing), I believe the decision to produce variations of the car with the highest profit margins first is a financial one. It would cost a lot more money up front to begin delivering all possible configurations first, so it's keep its production and supply lines as simple as possible for now, while leveraging the higher margins of the LR variants to help boost revenue.

Actually kind of surprised they didn't start with long range, dual motor, performance cars, but I assume they considered that but it didn't pencil out as favorably as the track they've taken.

No doubt it's frustrating for customers, but it's already going through tons of cash. Some fiscal prudence is necessary.

Basically agree...To your point, Tesla is currently selling their mid level trim as it's not the base nor does it have AWD and/or ludicrous mode which you'd imagine it would be the most profitable...Because Telsa now gives the timeline for AWD and SR it sounds like a P RWD is never happening...Perhaps Tesla could have made a lot more profit had they offered a P RWD...

 

[Domenick]

Basically agree...To your point, Tesla is currently selling their mid level trim as it's not the base nor does it have AWD and/or ludicrous mode which you'd imagine it would be the most profitable...Because Telsa now gives the timeline for AWD and SR it sounds like a P RWD is never happening...Perhaps Tesla could have made a lot more profit had they offered a P RWD...

Yeah, i suspect they'll forgo a Performance RWD variant. They may be postponing Performance because of additional engineering cost that they'd rather delay, but, of course, that's conjecture on my part.

 

[WadeTyhon]

It would cost a lot more money up front to begin delivering all possible configurations first, so it's keep its production and supply lines as simple as possible for now, while leveraging the higher margins of the LR variants to help boost revenue.

No doubt it's frustrating for customers, but it's already going through tons of cash. Some fiscal prudence is necessary.

https://insideevs.com/tesla-pushes-back-standard-model-3-deliveries-late-2018-early-2019/

I agree, this is a purely financial decision.

Right now a lot of reservation holders on other sites and forums are trying to convince themselves that the push up of Canadian Model 3 sales and the delay of SR version until Q4 is to keep from hitting 200,000 sales before July. This is supposedly going to allow more people to get the full or 50% reduced tax credit.

I really hope so. But unfortunately I don't think Tesla is going to be doing this.

At the moment, Tesla and GM are both at ~170,000 Plug-Ins sold. If S and X sales are static for the year, then in order to hold off the 200,000th sale into the 3rd quarter, Tesla would need to keep Model 3 US sales under 2,000 a month through June. That would mean only about 14,000 Model 3's would have been sold for it's first year in production. (July 2017 through June 2018). That would be a pretty bad first year for the Model 3.

Most likely, the reason they have pushed up Canada sales is because there aren't as many takers for the fully decked-out first production LR model in the US as they'd like there to be. The push up for AWD deliveries is for the same reason - lots of folks are waiting for the AWD option. So Tesla is going to move as many high priced units as they can as quickly as they can.

If they ramp up production in any significant way this quarter, they will likely hit 200,000 units next quarter. Tesla probably isn't actually concerned with any of us SR buyers getting the tax credit. They need to maximize their profits on this vehicle. It's what they probably should be doing.

Unfortunately this means that most of the people looking for the SR battery (without AWD) will be lucky to get the 50% reduced tax credit.

 

[God]

Yeah, i suspect they'll forgo a Performance RWD variant. They may be postponing Performance because of additional engineering cost that they'd rather delay, but, of course, that's conjecture on my part.

I believe a P RWD could have helped with the profitability and the engineering cost would be less than doing a P AWD but Tesla thought they'd have AWD by the end of 2017...

https://insideevs.com/tesla-pushes-back-standard-model-3-deliveries-late-2018-early-2019/

I agree, this is a purely financial decision.

Right now a lot of reservation holders on other sites and forums are trying to convince themselves that the push up of Canadian Model 3 sales and the delay of SR version until Q4 is to keep from hitting 200,000 sales before July. This is supposedly going to allow more people to get the full or 50% reduced tax credit.

I really hope so. But unfortunately I don't think Tesla is going to be doing this.

At the moment, Tesla and GM are both at ~170,000 Plug-Ins sold. If S and X sales are static for the year, then in order to hold off the 200,000th sale into the 3rd quarter, Tesla would need to keep Model 3 US sales under 2,000 a month through June. That would mean only about 14,000 Model 3's would have been sold for it's first year in production. (July 2017 through June 2018). That would be a pretty bad first year for the Model 3.

Most likely, the reason they have pushed up Canada sales is because there aren't as many takers for the fully decked-out first production LR model in the US as they'd like there to be. The push up for AWD deliveries is for the same reason - lots of folks are waiting for the AWD option. So Tesla is going to move as many high priced units as they can as quickly as they can.

If they ramp up production in any significant way this quarter, they will likely hit 200,000 units next quarter. Tesla probably isn't actually concerned with any of us SR buyers getting the tax credit. They need to maximize their profits on this vehicle. It's what they probably should be doing.

Unfortunately this means that most of the people looking for the SR battery (without AWD) will be lucky to get the 50% reduced tax credit.

Agree with this...As I have stated above, Tesla wants to continue to push people to purchase a non performance, RWD, LR with PUP which is sort of their upper level mid trim...My best guess, echoed by others in Tesla forums, is they haven't found a way to make the SR battery, leasing them or a non-PUP interior cost effective enough to green light them yet...I don't know how gov't EV incentives in Canada work, but wouldn't be surprised if 2018 laws are more favorable than 2019 laws so perhaps that's why Tesla decided to open up Canada sales...

 

[JyChevyVolt]

New batch of invites hit today. When Tesla hits 5000/week, it's game over for GM and other ICE manufacturers.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

While it may be part of its "anti-sell" strategy (which I'm not convinced is a totally real thing)...

Well, Tesla's "anti-sell" strategy for the TM3 -- which means promoting the Models S & X in favor of the Model 3 -- certainly was a real thing. That's going to slowly change as production of TM3 ramps up, and in fact Tesla now has some floor display models at some Tesla showrooms. But certainly at the moment, Tesla would much rather sell you a MS or MX in 2-3 weeks than add you to a TM3 reservation list which, according to some claims, is already up to more than 550,000.

A direct quote from Elon: "We anti-sell the 3."

(source here)

Tesla's comparison charge for the MS vs TM3 also seems pretty clearly intended to "anti-sell" the TM3 in favor of the MS:

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

At the moment, Tesla and GM are both at ~170,000 Plug-Ins sold. If S and X sales are static for the year, then in order to hold off the 200,000th sale into the 3rd quarter, Tesla would need to keep Model 3 US sales under 2,000 a month through June. That would mean only about 14,000 Model 3's would have been sold for it's first year in production. (July 2017 through June 2018). That would be a pretty bad first year for the Model 3.

WadeTyhon, you appear to have your head screwed on straight, so I hesitate to disagree with you, especially when you've obviously looked deeply into the issue and can quote some figures, which I can't.

However, I think it's possible -- again, not saying you're wrong, but an alternative possibility -- that Tesla will reduce the U.S. sales of the MS and MX in order to delay passing the 200,000 milestone. Tesla could simply choose to send more of its MS and MX production to Canada and overseas, while continuing to push out as many TM3 units to U.S. buyers as it possibly can. Tesla already voluntarily (at least according to what the company claims) reduced MS/MX production by 10% in the latter half of last year, in order to reassign some engineers and workers to maximize the effort to ramp up TM3 production. Would it be that big a surprise if they chose to reduce domestic MS/MX sales even more this year, by sending a lopsided number to Canada, and to overseas markets?

Tesla could even, in theory, send some TM3 units to Canada and overseas. However, I don't think they'll do that before passing the 200,000 milestone, as it would violate the priority they have advertised for who on the reservation list gets served first. They have pretty clearly said that U.S. customers get served first. Of course, there's no law that says they can't change their minds, but that would generate some pretty strong negative publicity for them, so I don't think they will.
-

 

[JyChevyVolt]

Ok, Tesla is done with owners. Owners who reserve last week got invites to configure.

It's time Tesla open up invites to people who stood in line on 3/31. If they skip non-owners for AWD, all hell will break loose.