Tesla's California market share tumbles despite aggressive price cuts
reuters.com
reuters.com
It's almost as if Tesla is being managed by an executive who is distracted, only working the job part time, at a moment when competitors are deeply engaged and laser-focused.
If a junior officer of the company were found to be moonlighting at several other jobs while drawing a full-time salary, they'd be fired on the spot.
At this point, the Model 3 is competing against the Chevy Bolt which is at least $10,000 cheaper.
To buy a Tesla, you have to genuinely want a Tesla at this point rather than just an electric car.
There are so many more options now than Teslas out there which provide quality and affordability. And there are used EVs on the market now that are viable, when there weren't before, including used Teslas.
Yes, there are people (like me) who would never buy a Tesla because they don't trust the company or don't like Musk, but we're a severe minority. The reality is that Tesla is becoming less special simply because the rest of the industry is catching up - as Tesla should have known, and probably does know, that it would. The question is what they do about it.
Musk is a reason I wouldn’t get a Tesla. There’s more than one reason but he is one of them.
They finally have real competition and they’re having trouble due to weaknesses (even if only perceived) like lack of CarPlay/Android Auto, quality issues, service issues, simple brand loyalty, and being heavily associated with someone many consider toxic. They’re losing their big advantage of being “the” electric car. People are now aware of other options.
If Tesla was as unassailable as some fans claim, they wouldn’t need to cut prices. They could continue to charge the same amount and maintain market share, using the profits to improve things or produce more.
The price cuts signal they’re in real competition. Good. That will improve everyone.
A Model Y long range which is faster (by 1.4s to 60mph) and has better range is £2k cheaper.
That's base price, and doesn't even account for significantly lower cost of ownership.
Camry MSRP is $26,220 Model Y is $46,990
I would give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you're not using US prices and Camry's might be 76% more expensive where you live, but I doubt it.
TM3 base model for me came out to about 35K w/ tax credits.
If you include how much you save in gas it checks out.
Furthermore, while the model 3 has the same wheelbase length as a Camry, there are smaller cars that have the same passenger capacity. As an example, the model 3 has an internal passenger volume of 97 cubic feet, which is slightly less than the Civic's 99 cu ft. So if that is the metric which matters to you, well 23k is now the price to beat.
"Doing X is slightly harder than I want, so I will use that as a basis for justifying something more expensive while still feeling like I did something prudent" is a pretty transparent move and an indicator that you aren't price sensitive.
As for the gas vs electricity price costs offset, I only drive 5k a year, so cut that number in half. Lord forbid I live in an apt and park on the street, then I'm truly effed.
The model 3 is an expensive fast car. That is okay, better than okay, that is awesome and there is no question you get a lot of bang for your buck. I'd love to own one! That said, it isn't a Honda Civic, Toyota Camry, or $OTHER_PRICE_ECO_CAR, and trying to draw such a comparison is all kinds of odd.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-comparisons/?veh1=401884809&veh2...
People wanted electric cars for years, but no major manufacturers actually made any. Tesla demonstrated that you could make electric cars that were actually good. So people bought them, despite them being relatively premium vehicles, and for quite some time questionable construciton. So we finally get to today, the other big manufacturers have _finally_ got electric cars to market that don't have utterly pointless range (seriously until this last year or so your options were Tesla, or cars you could not commute in).
Now Tesla is having to compete with cars that have nearly the same range, but are cheaper, come from companies with less polarizing CEOs, and who have not inextricably tied their brand image to said CEO.
To me at this point the only thing that makes Tesla superior to the competition is that they don't have any of the BS with dealers.
That's just not true as of TSLA's most recent earnings, as reported by yahoo finance and discussed on HN in [0]:
"Though Tesla has ramped up production and deliveries of its electric vehicles over the last several quarters, leading to near record levels of revenue, production has outpaced demand. The company said it delivered 422,875 units in the first quarter while producing 440,808." [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35643537
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/tesla-stock-tumbles-over-9-to-near...
They also beat delivery estimates in the same quarter you mention. https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/02/tesla-q1-deliveries-beat-e...
Now that Elon has gone fully mask-off, it might as well be the Trumpmobile.
I don’t think most Tesla buyers also care much about Musk. The more likely answer is that Tesla went through a huge sales boom the last couple of years and that’s sort of done now, anyone who wanted a Tesla over that period has one now, and now people are watching their money more carefully.
When I see Prius, I think either ecological grandma or Uber driver. Again, just a sample from my local region, it might not hold for other parts of the country.
I know it's wrong.
Techies might (gross generalisation warning) tend to: a) Have higher than average disposable income b) Be early adopters of new tech c) Care less what other people think of them than an average person d) Judge things more objectively than an average person.
So it's hardly surprising a lot of them end up buying a Tesla Model 3. They are very well-packaged, fast, have good range, the Supercharger network, and are fairly mid-priced as cars these days go (similar to say a slower BMW 3 series diesel, at least in the UK).
The BMW i4 launched recently. The Tesla Model 3 is a six year old design. And yet the i4 has much worse range, is either slower or much more expensive, and according to all the critics seems to be less fun to drive.
Heaven forfend that anyone buy a car on its merits, as opposed to what other people think of the badge.
https://evcompare.io claims a real-world winter range in miles of:
192 for the BMW i4 M50
241 for the BMW i4 eDrive40
252 for the Tesla Model 3 Performance
282 for the Tesla Model 3 Long Range
So yes, the much slower i4 with the 18" wheels gets a similar range to the much faster Model 3 Performance with the 20" wheels. That's not really apples-for-apples though is it?
If you don't want the M50 / M3 Performance speed, then save the £6k and get a Model 3 Long Range. You'd have more performance and more range than the i4 eDrive40, and a car that weighs nearly half a tonne less.
(That's before options - it's about £9k to get all the things that are standard on the Tesla, like keyless entry, a heated steering wheel, electric seats, lumbar support adjustment, auto-dipping headlights, wireless phone charging, drive recorder, active cruise + lane keeping (autopilot), a glass roof, etc.)
Recall that Apple took 35% of the profit in the smart phone market with only 7% market share.
Also, Tesla's target market is not EVs. Their entire mission is to lose market share, by encouraging competition to transition to sustainable energy. Tesla's target market for their vehicle business is all vehicles.
On top of that, all the insane valuations assume both of the things (high market share of EVs and high penetration of EVs across car market).
Anyway you already knew that.
If you think it should be considered an auto company the valuation is even more ludicrous.
Bit of a gap, but not 3x anything. And Tesla plays a little fast and loose with how they capitalize things. Oh, and they make huge margins off a product they sell that doesn't exist (fsd).