Tesla Reconfirms March Unveiling For Model 3

9 months ago by Mark Kane 172

Tesla Model 3 Coming In 2017 According To CEO Musk

Tesla Model 3 Coming In 2017 According To CEO Musk

Tesla Delivers 17,400 EVs in Q4 - Hitting Fully Year Guidance In So Doing

3 months to Tesla Model 3 unveiling

A recent Reuters article on the Chevrolet Bolt EV alludes to Tesla Motors’ Model 3.

There is a race to grab the long-range, but affordable electric car segment and the Chevrolet Bolt EV will likely be the first one with 200 miles of range (see full details, pics, specs and launch video of the plug-in Chevy from Las Vegas here).

For sure we should expect other serious entries from companies like Nissan, Daimler, Hyundai, VW Group or BMW (maybe an i5?).

And then there is Tesla Motors, which up to date didn’t have competition due to its focus on the high-end part of the market. The more Tesla turns to mass market, and established carmakers go for long-range, the more fierce the competition will be.

Reuters states:

“The Bolt’s estimated range and price matches what Tesla, the Palo Alto electric car maker, has been promising for years – a practical rechargeable car for the masses. Tesla’s repeated delays in delivering its second luxury vehicle – the Model X crossover – raise doubts about whether Tesla can quickly match the fresh competition from GM.”

The Tesla Model X was based on Model S with the same battery supplier and the same production line (expanded for Model X specific operations), and it took over 3.5 years to begin production after presenting the car.

The Model 3 is an all-new car, and as such probably will need an all-new production line and new battery manufacturing at the Gigafactory. It would be a shock to us if Tesla is ready for production Model 3 deliveries in 2017 (even late 2017), perhaps it is more reasonable to expect a token “Founders Edition” cars to arrive in order to technically fulfill past promises – as we saw with the first 6 key hand-offs with the Model X in September.

This week however, Tesla Motors re-confirms again that we will see the Model 3 in March and production will start in 2017.  We hope they are right:

“Tesla said on Wednesday it plans to unveil the design for the Model 3 in March and start selling the car in 2017. “Model 3 is on schedule,” Tesla spokeswoman Khobi Brooklyn wrote in an email Wednesday.”

Source: Reuters

Tags: , , , ,

172 responses to "Tesla Reconfirms March Unveiling For Model 3"

  1. tftf says:

    I think few people doubt(ed) this reveal date – but it’s just an unveiling, similar to the first Model X event back in February of 2012.

    We all know how many delays Tesla enountered after that, laye 2013, then 2014, then late 2014, then spring 2015 and now the production version of the X is finally trickling out in early 2016.

    I don’t think the Model3 will be released in volume before 2018-2020.

    Making a cheaper car in larger volumes is actually harder because cost savings are crucial and margins are tight; every process and input material has to be penny-pinched.

    1. RexxSee says:

      I agree with the larger volumes issues, but I have difficulty to understand why everyone table on the past history of delays, they were all for different reasons, in very different situations.

      1. ffbj says:

        Yeah, that is the way I think too. The Model III is certainly not going to be the engineering nightmare the Model X was. So extrapolating that delays based on the delays in the production of the Model X, will occur with the III, does not make sense, to me to be a stretch.

        I think it the M-III might come out even sooner than expected. I am thinking that Tesla was stung by all delay diatribes and snarky comments from the onmniweb, that they just thought, well we’ll, put the Model III way out in advance, to avoid this problem, then come in early and surprise everyone.
        Now that last part may be a stretch too.

      2. PVH says:

        I agree with that, they could try for once the KISS principle and with their brand value still make a big success. Now I don’t know if KISS is part of their corporate DNA.

        1. RexxSee says:

          SpaceX rockets follow this principle. Musk know’s what he’s doing.
          Luxury vs affordable : perfect KISS

          1. RexxSee says:

            …with the experience of two models they know very well the basics.

          2. Alonso Perez says:

            But SpaceX is usually late too, by years. Look at the Falcon Heavy. Musk announced it years ago. It was going to launch originally 2013.

            The only difference I see here is that the Chevy Bolt. Musk is a perfectionist, and this causes delays, but he is also competitive. I don’t think he will stand for having the Bolt be around for years while we wait for the Model III.

            Things at Tesla are going to be stressful though. Working for a perfectionist who’s in a hurry won’t be pretty.

            1. RexxSee says:

              “Late” is relative. Tesla and SpaceX are well ahead of competition by now.
              When Model 3 will appear, it will too.

              1. tom911 says:

                Ahead of the competition? We are talking about the race to build a cheap electric car that will sell in volume because it’s an appliance.

                The only thing that matters to most buyers when you talk large volume electric cars are price, tech features and range. Tesla won’t win on price, it doesn’t yet support carplay or Android and the range will be no batter than the Bolt.

                1. RexxSee says:

                  Please tell us more of what you saw in your crystal ball 😉

                  1. tom911 says:

                    Please tell me how the Model 3 will be ‘ahead of the competition’.

                    – Interior space?
                    – Price?
                    – Range?
                    – Dealer service locations?
                    – exterior design?
                    – Tech?
                    – Falcon doors?
                    – SC access?
                    – interior design?

                    1. RexxSee says:

                      – Interior space of course
                      – Price 35k :250 miles, 30k base 200 miles
                      – Range 200-250-300 miles options
                      – exterior design You bet!
                      – Tech so much!
                      – SC access optional
                      – interior design and quality

                      The Bolt is very pricey for a small econobox.

                    2. Steven says:

                      Judging by anecdotal evidence, at very least, by Customer Service.

                    3. kdawg says:

                      Rexsee says “The Bolt is very pricey for a small econobox.”
                      ——-
                      Do you realize the passenger volume in the “small” Bolt is larger than the Model S?

                  2. tom911 says:

                    I guess you are the one with the crystal ball after all 😉

                  3. Joe says:

                    Bolt: 94.4 cubic feet.
                    Model S: 94 cubic ft.
                    Nissan Leaf: 92.4 cubic ft.

                    1. rik says:

                      Chevy Bolt: rear cargo volume 16.9 cubic ft With rear seat folded down 56.6 cu ft
                      Tesla Model S: Rear cargo volume 26.3 cu ft, With rear seats folded down 58.1 cu ft
                      Front trunk cargo volume 5.3 cu ft

                2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  “The only thing that matters to most buyers when you talk large volume electric cars are price, tech features and range. Tesla won’t win on price…”

                  What matters is not merely price, but how much value you get for the price. Tesla’s cars score very highly on that scale, which is why the Model S outsold all other EVs in North America last year, despite being 2x to 2.5x the price of the others.

                  “…the range will be no batter than the Bolt.”

                  Well, we’ll have to wait and see, won’t we? My guess is that the Model ≡ will indeed have a greater EPA rated range than the Bolt, as befits a Tesla car which will be more expensive than the Bolt.

                  1. Warren says:

                    I think you are right. He has been building cars for the top 1% and doing great. Building cars for the next 10% makes sense. Trying to compete with GM to build cars for the next 50%, where price starts to dominate, is a losing proposition.

              2. Alonso Perez says:

                Late relative to what Musk promises. Of course SpaceX is ahead, far ahead, of other launch providers. But it is years behind many dates given by Musk for various milestones. I don’t think he’s met a single one.

                Look, I write software and I am not being negative, just looking at the history. His notion of a deadline is like that of most programmers I know. Delay is so routine that people give dates they know they won’t meet to people who also know they won’t meet them. In this world, deadlines are statements of intent, not hard and fast. Regular people should read them as NET (No Earlier Than). It drives non-software people crazy, then managers make things worse by adding all kinds of progress reporting overhead to the development teams.

                Perhaps the Model III will be the one to break the pattern, but I would not hold my breath. He won’t do Falcon doors, but he’s going to do something to make the car stand out, and that will take time.

                1. TomArt says:

                  Agreed – I’ve been predicting 2018, Q2 to Q3 Model III production, and that is starting to look ambitious at this point.

                  And, yes, he said it would be like no other, so there will be new ground broken, and therefore delays comparable to prior models.

                  Although, it is possible that they have been working on it such that the reveal is not so early on in the development process as it apparently was for the S and X…

        2. EVcarNut says:

          The “KISS” Principle is the Best Approach To Many things in life. keep it Simple (Don’t Get) Stupid! Simplicity has always out Performed Complexities …It’s always worked out & has always worked Better.. Give us what we need & keep the Price $$$$in check!….Keeping In Mind that EV’s Eliminate many Systems that Save $$$$ Money..SO s you should…. KEEP THE PRICE DOWN!!!

          1. Delta says:

            I agree with the KISS principLe, so why did GM have to lard up the price and complexity of the Bolt with a stupid wiz bang rear view camera and costly run flat super tires that add at least 1k to the price. Or have they not indicated that these, and the fancy touch screen are high end options costing thousands more.

            1. theflew says:

              I think a lot the cameras, infotainment,etc… come as benefits of the GM/LG relationship. GM’s battery pack cost is lower because it was part of a package deal with LG.
              Run flat tires I’m sure will be optional.

    2. JakeY says:

      The time line promised in 2012 was production start late 2013 and first deliveries early 2014.
      http://ir.teslamotors.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=648629

      We ended up with production start early to mid 2015 and deliveries mid to late 2015. So 1.5-2 years. I think the 3 year suggestion (by putting 2013 to 2016) is exaggerated.

      As others put it, I don’t think the 3 is comparable to the X. The X was not a mission critical car and on the same order as Model S in importance (so they delay when they need attention on Model S). The 3 is “all hands on deck” however.

      1. Puff Ramsey says:

        My serious concern is whether or not model 3 owners will have free access to the supercharger network without having to pay a premium. To me as a future tesla owner, that would be a serious deal breaker.

        1. Riff Maggelan says:

          Yeah man I feel the same way!!!
          That would be so so so UNCOOL of Mr Musk to perpetrate such and iniquity and try to create a class system within the planet loving population.

          1. RexxSee says:

            Pe-troll?

        2. Mister G says:

          How old are you? Nothing is free…I think your parents failed you if you think there are freebies in life.

          1. Kumar Plocher says:

            Supercharging is undisputably free for all current Tesla owners.

            1. Brian says:

              I dispute that. $2k is not free.

            2. Nix says:

              There are still some Model S 60’s that are not Supercharger enabled. And no Roadsters are supercharger enabled.

              1. dhanson865 says:

                every time a S40 gets turned in they CPO it by turning it into a S60 with supercharging enabled.

                every time a S60 without supercharging comes in they CPO it by turning on supercharging.

                They don’t bother for cars not worth CPOing (wrecked or otherwise abused) but they do it with the majority of the trade ins the receive.

            3. shrink says:

              Um, no. Tesla Roadsters can’t supercharge.

        3. Robb Stark says:

          An Econobox Bolt for $37.5 with no access to a fast charging network is a Tesla killer.

          A Model 3 for $35k + $2k for free long distance charging for the life of the car is a deal breaker!!!!!

          BTW I would be overjoyed if Tesla delivers one Founder Series Model 3 on Dec 31, 2017.

          1. KUD says:

            +1

            Yes, 1 founder M3 in 2017 would satisfy me too.

        4. Brian says:

          Seriously? Because I think their best option is to give Model III owners paid access to the superchargers. And not pre-paid “buffet-style” that Model S/X owners get, but pay-per-use access. Tesla wants to sell hundreds of thousands of Model IIIs per year. If they want to have any hope of avoiding constant congestion issues, they will have to go to some sort of pay-per-use model, at least for the higher volume cars.

          I’d rather have reliable QC access than free, potentially unavailable access.

          1. Alonso Perez says:

            I agree. You could get limited free access though, and have to pay extra if you use more than that. So a Model III owner who does just a couple of road trips per year would not need to pay anything. This would cover maybe 75% of owners.

            1. MDEV says:

              I had use the Supercharger twice in 2 years and I paid 2K. Why it has to be free? some owners may decide to save the money if they know they won’t ever used. Another option is pay as you go for people who doesn’t want to pay the unlimited access.

            2. Priusmaniac says:

              Pay per use can’t be free because even if you use it only twice a year, for example, Tesla still had to install the supercharging related systems in the car. That cost, it doesn’t come free. So the only viable alternative is pay for the installation only plus pay per use for charging.

          2. wavelet says:

            They won’t be able to provide all-you-can eat charging for a fixed price for the Model 3.

            That simply isn’t scalable; make 15% mistake in your estimates of how much people charge, and suddenly the company could be hundreds of $M in debt.

            Frankly, I’ll be surprised if they keep that option in the Model S/X for more than another year. It’s not technically difficult to introduce pretty much any business model for charging money for charging (pun fully intended) that you can conceive of.
            All the cars are online, and have charging-aware Nav; they can intro reservation system for crowded periods / locations, whatever.
            Every model where you allow people free unlimited access to a nontrivial resource causes issues eventually (ISP data, cellular minutes). It can’t really be done without something breaking.

          3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Brian said:

            “Tesla wants to sell hundreds of thousands of Model IIIs per year. If they want to have any hope of avoiding constant congestion issues, they will have to go to some sort of pay-per-use model, at least for the higher volume cars.”

            Yes, a fee-per-use for the Model ≡ would benefit everyone, as it would stop those who don’t really need to use a Supercharger from clogging up the system.

            Unfortunately, Elon Musk has already said that Supercharger use will be “free” for Model ≡ owners just as it is for Model S owners.

            But from a marketing standpoint, that’s not surprising. After all, the primary purpose of the Supercharger network, from the viewpoint of Tesla, is promoting sales of its cars. The promise of “unlimited use, free (after paying the access fee), forever” is a pretty powerful attraction for PEV buyers, regardless of how realistic it is… or isn’t.

            1. Ambulator says:

              I expect Tesla will implement some kind of restriction on frequent local charging. If they are smart, they will let you buy into a local plan for apartment dwellers, perhaps with a yearly fee.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                If you’re talking about apartment dwellers using Superchargers for daily charging, then I completely disagree. Superchargers should not be used for daily charging; Tesla cars aren’t designed for that.

                Tesla used to require that a potential buyer had to install an EV charge point at their home before Tesla would sell them a car. I guess Tesla has abandoned that restriction, but they should have stuck to it.

                At worst, apartment dwellers who can’t persuade the landlord to install a charger in the apartment’s parking lot should use a destination charger.

                Clogging up the Supercharger network with people routinely using it for daily charging will lessen the value of the network for every Tesla customer.

                1. Priusmaniac says:

                  There are people that would not have a destination charging either. A typical example is a pensioned apartment dweller. He can charge at home and he doesn’t work anymore so can’t enjoy a destination charger at work either. In such a case he could go to a destination charger at a shopping center bug that is going to take availability and more time. If such a person propose to pay somehow to access a local supercharger on a routine basis Tesla can plan for that expected increased use accordingly, so there wouldn’t be any supercharger clogging. Tesla simply use the extra money for more superchargers both at a same location and on more locations. Actually when thinking about it, if this is done openly, it would result in more superchargers locations and more availability not less.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    Priusmaniac said:

                    “There are people that would not have a destination charging either. A typical example is a pensioned apartment dweller. He can charge at home…”

                    Not sure what your point is. If he can charge at home, then there shouldn’t be any problem. Was this perhaps a typo for “He can’t charge at home…”?

                    If he can’t, then he certainly shouldn’t be buying a PEV. Nobody should ever claim that in this early stage of the EV revolution, everyone should buy a PEV.

                    The time will come when nearly all parking places, everywhere, will have Level 2 EV chargers within reach. Right now, we’re at the same point that early “horseless carriage” owners had, when all towns had hitching posts for horses, but there were few if any parking lots for cars.

                    As PEVs become more commonplace, public demand for EV chargers in parking lots and beside on-the-street parking places will grow and grow. Right now, it’s unlikely that that pensioner can persuade his apartment landlord to install an EV charger for him, unless he offers the landlord a “bribe” too big for the poor pensioner to afford. But as time passes, more and more landlords will install them. Those who refuse to do so will find fewer and fewer people wanting to rent apartments from them.

                    1. Priusmaniac says:

                      It was can’t indeed.

                      I think that every driver should be able to drive electric right now without further delays. If so he should be able to find a solution to an abscence of charger or an unwilling landlord. Special local supercharger access could be accepted at a specific offer condition.

          4. Northcroft says:

            Good thinking

        5. notting says:

          The IMHO more import question will be: Are the SCs close enough to each other (on most routes) for die Model 3? Because it will have less range than a Model S obviously.

          notting

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Tesla will likely engineer the Model ≡ to have very close to the same range as the Model S60: 208 miles of EPA rated range.

            So long trips will hopefully be just as easy with a Model ≡ as with a Model S60.

        6. tom911 says:

          With lines already forming at SC stations in CA with only Model S cars you can bet there will not be free SC access for Model 3 owners.

          1. RexxSee says:

            It was on the return of holidays, and the alternative road was closed. There are usually no line up.

          2. Priusmaniac says:

            At a constant taken ratio of supercharger implantation per sold car, more cars does not give more superchargers congestion. It may mean 100 stalls at some supercharger locations but if they stick to the taken ratio it should be ok. But what you can have is the same as with gas stations, occasional congestion due to a sudden flow of vacation departures or a big event taking place somewhere. Although superchargers should have the possibility to indicate that so that you know it in advance. Of course you also need to have the ratio right in the first place which can be tricking if some do more local supercharging than expected.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Priusmaniac said:

              “At a constant taken ratio of supercharger implantation per sold car, more cars does not give more superchargers congestion.”

              That would only be true if Tesla was careful to add new Supercharger stalls in the same regions where they’re selling new cars. But that’s not what’s happening. Tesla is spending its money on spreading coverage to more areas which have no superchargers at all, rather than increasing the number of charge points where they already have Supercharger stations.

              We shouldn’t ignore the way reports of waiting lines at Supercharger stations are increasing over time. In fact, anyone who really thought about it should have been able to predict that exactly this would happen. -I- certainly did! It was inevitable that the number of Tesla cars on the road in certain regions — most notably Southern California — would grow at a faster rate than installation of Supercharger stalls in that region.

              Unless Tesla radically changes how fast it’s installing new charging stalls in regions where it’s selling the most cars, then the situation with clogging is going to rapidly become much, much worse once Tesla Model ≡ drivers start using them. Keep in mind that Tesla wants to sell nearly ten times as many Model ≡’s per year as it now sells Model S’s.

              Bottom line: Tesla has a strong motive to expand its Supercharger network to reach more regions. That helps it sell cars. It has a much, much weaker motive to increase the number of Supercharger stalls in areas where it already has some. As a consequence, it’s very nearly inevitable that Supercharger clogging, in regions which already have lots of Model S owners, will only get worse over time.

              What’s the solution? Independent super-fast-charge stations run for profit. The business model where a company (like Tesla) installs and maintains a network at its own expense, only for the benefit of its customers, is not viable long-term.

              Or, to put it another way: Tesla won’t be able to continue forever its offer of “Free*, unlimited Supercharger use forever” for Tesla car owners. This was a rational business plan when there were relatively few Tesla cars on the roads, but it will become increasingly unworkable as the number of Tesla car grows exponentially.

              I think that Tesla will have to either move to a per-use fee, so it can pay for all the new Supercharger stalls it will need to install every year, or else it will have to watch as the Supercharger network becomes increasingly unusable, and eventually starts generating more negative press for Tesla than positive press.

              *After paying the access fee, whether it’s a separate $2000 (or more) fee, or the $2000 fee is included in the price of the car.

              1. Priusmaniac says:

                If the ratio is correct there can still be times when there is congestion. I mentioned vacation or local event but indeed you pointed to a third possible cause which is initial deployment to first have the dots connected. But the dots between superchargers are getting connected at a fast pace and that is only an initial start effect. Once there are superchargers at least every 200 miles, the network will start to densify the high use centers by either multiplying superchargers around a same area or by increasing stall number at a specific location. Likely it will be both. Meanwhile the dots must first be connected, that is likely the priority and since Tesla’s means are not infinite, it may be at the temporary expense of densification. I guess they try to do both and as fast a they can.
                Now on the future, there is no reason why Tesla would not be able to keep its superchargers. They don’t want to sell their infrastructure to a third party, they want to invite other car manufacturers to become customers of their superchargers by paying a fair entry price per car for access. That is actually a good thing because Tesla keeps the control on what is a main asset for ev and they can directly improve it without having to wait on a good willing external company. They also make sure ev are charged with as much green electricity as possible either directly or through green electricity contracts. Beside in the long run superchargers are going to be a lucrative activity so why shouldn’t they keep it, especially after paying so much to get it all in place initially. Of course the model of prepay for life will perhaps need to be adapted and I mention that some people should be giving a specific contract for specific no home charger accessibility situations, but otherwise it is also possible to offer that to others. For instance Tesla could sell access to Chrysler for Chrysler car that would have the appropriate internal system and those cars would pay a per charger price to Tesla. The system installed in the Chrysler car would be paid by Chrysler (that would bill it to the buyer); which would build his own compatible system or would buy a Tesla supplied system. Everybody wins, Tesla get money to further maintain and expend its superchargers and Chrysler (or any other willing car company) benefit instantly from the infrastructure which helps attracting customers.

      2. Teslafan1 says:

        Um, check your math dude. Feb 9th 2012 revela, production supposed to begin 2013 and delive, deliver early 2014. Deliveries started in Dec 2015, i.e. less than 250 cars delivered. They are only now hitting 250 cars being produced per week which at this rate means we’re a year away from catching up on pre-orders. This is close enough to 4 years from reveal to getting a vehicle. Not good. They don’t even have a production line set up for the 3’s nor enough batteries to put in them. It’s 2018 before we see a car in the hand of a Sig buyer. 2019 before the average Joe can buy one on the website and get it delivered to them.

        1. Anon says:

          4 years is the normal industry gestation period of taking a concept car, and making a full production worthy version out of it.

          Given that the X was not a normal, cookie-cutter car, Tesla did an AMAZING amount of R&D and Dev work on X.

          The Tesla CEO JB, is quoted as saying Model III has a unique battery pack, battery form factor, platform and drivetrain. He emphatically said it is not a simple issue of making everything 20% smaller. I wouldn’t expect a reliable model, reliable and fit for production, in less than 3 years, if they KISS every part of it. And based on Elon’s prior history, I would not count on it.

          1. Northcroft says:

            They’ve done 95% of the necessary research in building the S and X models. The batteries. The battery cooling system. The hugely complicated AC drive motor and control system. They have come up with brilliant and very simple elegant solutions that are SERIOUSLY effective. They have got robots making more of their cars than other manufacturers. That must have taken a colossal amount of effort of every kind.
            The Model 3 is MEANT to be cheap. I have heard that they are going to make it out of steel, unlike the S and X. I can imagine that old Elon will want to go back to first principles … I can imagine that reinventing metal car manufacturing techniques could get them into trouble and cause delays – but if they pull it off … Tesla will be in a really formidable position.
            The world biggest and likely most effective battery factory is nearly built. New battery technology is in the pipeline.
            I haven’t got the money, but I’ll put my name down for one as soon as I am allowed! The model 3 really will be the first real mass market step that is going to allow us to turn off the oil wells, and start saving the planet.
            90% of all cars are likely to be made in the same way in 25 years time.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Anon said:

            “…Model III has a unique battery pack, battery form factor, platform and drivetrain… it is not a simple issue of making everything 20% smaller. I wouldn’t expect a reliable model… in less than 3 years, if they KISS every part of it.”

            I agree with every part of that (including what I edited out to make it shorter). In fact, InsideEVs editor Jay Cole recently said that four years is the minimum development time for a new model, with something like six years being the norm.

            But how long has Tesla been working on the Model ≡? It’s not like they only turned to that once they finally got the Model X into production. Tesla has been looking ahead to what was originally code-named “BlueStar” since the company was founded. Since then, it was renamed the Model E, and now has become the Model 3 (or Model ≡).

            Don’t make the mistake of thinking that Tesla hasn’t already been working on the Model ≡ for some time, just because they have not yet shown a concept car.

            Also, keep in mind that the Gigafactory 1 project is one element of getting the Model ≡ into production. So Tesla has been working on developing the ≡ for longer than it has been working toward making the Gigafactory a reality. Reports on the Gigafactory project go back at least as far as November 2013, so it’s safe to say Tesla has been working on the Model ≡ for more than two years now.

        2. JakeY says:

          The delay is 2 years even by your own math. I don’t see how I got it wrong. “deliver early 2014” to “Deliveries started in Dec 2015” is 2 years of delay. If you count the mid-2015 deliveries as delivery start, that is 1.5 years. I’m just saying tftf’s suggestion of 3 years of delay for the Model X (by him using 2013 to 2016) is an exaggeration.

          I’m not suggesting the order to delivery timeline is 1.5-2 years, if that is what you are saying.

    3. s says:

      You can make a much better point about Model X delays without adding extra spin.

      You could have left it at “now finally trickling in late 2015”. That’s plenty bad delay, no need to claim that they finally made it in 2016, when they, in fact, finally made it in late 2015.

      I know you said ‘production version’, but that’s irrelevant. They never claimed production series will come at the same time as Signature series.

    4. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      Of course, there won’t be volume production of anything else before then, either, so it’s not like they’ll have a competitive disadvantage.

      1. theflew says:

        I don’t think you understand how big car companies work. When GM says they are going to start sales in December 2016 it means they are going to start production in September. By December they will have 1000’s built.

    5. Jeff D says:

      I think that they will actually have the Model 3 done close to when they say this time because they have probably been working on it the entire time they were working on the X. I would not be surprised if focus on Model 3 contributed to some of the Model X delays.

  2. goaterguy says:

    Thanks Chevrolet!

    1. Matt says:

      +1

      Hopefully the Bolt will force Tesla to move mountains even moreso than they already have.

      1. EVcarNut says:

        L M A 0 ..GM The BOLT! (a cartoon car) l o l will force/make Tesla move Mountains …Ha Ha Ha & so On…. Ha Ha …GM is No Where Near Tesla, They Cannot & Will Not Ever Compete with Tesla , the GM cars Are 0nly “Built FOR CARB CREDITS”….It’s the other way Around !

        1. EVcarNut says:

          PS…Don’t Get Me Wrong…I think any Competition Is Great ,To keep everyone on their toes & working Harder to be Better & succeed …

        2. Aaron says:

          Why do you call the Bolt a cartoon car? It looks very similar to the Toyota Matrix.

          1. MDEV says:

            Bolt is way prettier than the ugly i3

            1. Anon says:

              I agree.

      2. Nix says:

        It is funny, because Bob Lutz has said many times that it was Tesla that pushed GM to green-light the Volt and get it to market. So it is ironic that now GM is the one putting the pressure on Tesla.

        1. wavelet says:

          Not quite. Lutz said he was “inspired” by the Tesla’s working on the Roadster, but Chevy publicly demonstrated a working concept Volt in Jan 2007, just 2 months after the Roadster was shown. The 2 cars certainly did not compete in any way, shape or form.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            What Lutz said was that Tesla putting the Roadster into production inspired GM (or gave it a kick in the pants) to take the EV tech they already had, and put it into production.

            GM had been working on modern electric cars since the Sunraycer prototype in 1987, and let’s not forget that Alan Cocconi invented the modern integrated AC motor controller in 1990, when working for GM.

            Did Tesla inspire GM to produce the Bolt? Well, indirectly. Tesla inspired Nissan to produce the Leaf, which inspired BMW to produce the i3, and the Bolt is aimed at the same market segment.

      3. RexxSee says:

        Tesla forced GM to build the Bolt, no the other way around.

    2. Speculawyer says:

      +100

      Competition from GM will get those Tesla engineers working hard.

      1. Joshua Burstyn says:

        Yep. I like Tesla as much as the next guy, but not only was this the Tesla master plan, but furthermore this is what real competition looks like. True capitalism.

  3. RexxSee says:

    You will be shocked because Model 3 will not be late.
    Model 3 is the main goal frome the beginning of Tesla, entering the market with high profit luxury car in order to make enough money to massively build more and more affordable ones. The Model S was their first attempt. No delays would have beeen very unlikely. For the Model X, they wanted to perfect it more, but a big chunk of the delay was because of the ongoing tremendous success of Model S. Why the rush to market Modle X, split their only assembly line that never kept up to the demand with Model S, to roll out Model X which would have cannibalized the sales of the S ?!?
    A wise business decision, but a marketing truth that never, any company would admit publicly.

    Besides, the sooner the Model 3 will sell, the more money they will make. It is not in competition with Model S or X.

    The GF1 will be ready on time.

    1. Ambulator says:

      Wow, RexxSee retconned Tesla!

      1. RexxSee says:

        You don’t read me often..

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Actually, for once, most of what RexxSee said in a post was true. (Altho his first sentence probably isn’t.)

        Tesla’s original business plan did have, as its ultimate goal, what has become the Model ≡. And it seems likely that production constraints probably contributed to the delay of the Model X; quite possibly most of the delay was by choice, not because of engineering difficulties. Since Tesla wasn’t getting enough batteries for both the Models S and X, continuing to produce only the more profitable S made sense.

        The Model X will be ramping up production just as volume production starts at Gigafactory 1. Coincidence? Very probably not!

        1. RexxSee says:

          If I had to point out whenever I disagree with your beliefs and claims, I would spend the day! You are sometimes so full of your own person…

          1. RexxSee says:

            You state your opinions as absolute truths. They are only the part you perceive and the result of your analysis, they are YOUR truth, not THE truth.
            Half of the time you are right though 😉

            1. RexxSee says:

              … and I appreciate your contribution. BTW (We are the same age)

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              RexxSee said:

              “You state your opinions as absolute truths.”

              I do try, in my posts, to indicate what is mere opinion, as opposed to what is actual fact. I don’t always succeed, and of course, like everyone else, I do occasionally get my facts wrong. But unlike some, I do make an effort to seek the Truth and stamp out bad memes whenever I can.

              “They are only the part you perceive and the result of your analysis, they are YOUR truth, not THE truth.”

              I can certainly understand that a “Truther” like you, someone who actually believes the entire world is controlled by multiple hidden conspiracies, refuses to believe there is any such thing as absolute truth; you think there is no such thing as a verifiable fact.

              Fortunately for everyone, the world doesn’t require your belief to function as it does.

    2. Josh says:

      I agree Tesla put Model X on the back burner because of Model S demand.

      The problem is, once they finally hit the “Go” button, production and release still hit snags.

      Model 3 is probably in better shape right now, as far as final specs and design, than Model X in late 2013. But will Tesla still hit snags in the next phase of supply chain, tooling up, and final validation.

      I hope they have either learned more from the Model X experience or have just been sand bagging their timeline to prevent the Osborn effect Nissan is dealing with.

      1. floydboy says:

        Agree Josh. Although mitigation of the Osborne effect may have played some role in Model X delays, I’m thinking that supply constraints and complexity in manufacturing the X conspired to be the real ‘delay’ culprits.

        I believe Tesla’s plan to offset the effects of that delay turned out to be sound strategy. By using a known quantity, Model S, Tesla was able to drive up demand considerably through its referral program. Thus, offsetting possible Model S sale reductions, bringing in solid cash flows and making production guidance.

        I’m sure Tesla will not likely want to have to do this ‘fire sale’ approach again though, so will likely be(in spite of what naysayers think)ahead of the curve on Model III.

      2. Nix says:

        Josh — It may shock you, but production delays are pretty much standard in the automotive industry.

        You just don’t see it with your own eyes, because of the way the whole dealership model works compared to the Tesla direct sales model.

        With the typical gas car sold to the mass market, they ramp up production and build up significant amounts of inventory before selling a single car. This inventory of cars is sent around the country to dealerships where these cars are put under sales embargo. They are either in a back lot, or in off-site storage away from customers, and the dealers aren’t allowed to sell them.

        Then on a specific day the parent company tell their dealers everywhere to start sales, and it magically appears like all these cars appear from nowhere all at the same time.

        But in reality, the car makers have already hidden production delays throughout the entire process of pre-stocking lots. They already padded their timeline for production delays, and if they don’t hit their production targets in time for the release date, there as just fewer vehicles available on release day. But it still appears like there were no production delays or minor production delays to outsiders.

        They also hide production delays by producing endless “Prototypes”. That way they pretend that they have something coming, without actually committing to actual dates. Only when a substantial amount of the work is done, and they are certain of a release date do they typically announce a production version of one of their endless line of prototypes.

        1. wavelet says:

          The model you’re describing is how it works in the US, but not everywhere. Over here there are basically no dealers. You buy the car from the importer directly (usually at a local showroom), and there’s virtually no inventory waiting for buyers. If you don’t want one of the 3-4 common option/color combos, you order and have to wait 3-6 months for what you want. This is the same for all cars and brands, not just popular ones.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          @nix:

          Sorry to say, that post was pretty bad info from start to finish.

          Generally speaking, auto makers release a new year’s model year like clockwork every Autumn, in September. They may be able to hide a few weeks’ of delay, or possibly as much as a month or two, but certainly not the two years of delays that Tesla has had for its Model S and X, or even the six month delay of the Roadster.

          And auto makers make no attempt to put most of their concept cars into production, despite the hype the spout at auto shows. The public often can’t tell the difference between what the auto maker actually plans to produce, and what is merely an attention getting but wholly impractical concept car… but those actually making decisions about what goes into production don’t “green light” development of a production car unless they’re serious about it.

          1. Northcroft says:

            Everything that you write about conventional petrol or diesel fuelled cars relates to manufacturers who have been making the same product for 75+ years !!!!
            In that sense the comparisons are rather meaningless. Tesla are producing something completely new. They have reinvented the battery system. The motor. The control system. The entire car electrics. The remote control system. The permanent internet connection that feeds back all sorts of data all the time. They even reinvented the computer accounting and control systems for manufacturing.
            All this reinvention has now been largely done. Against all the odds Elon did it – with the help of Silicon Valley, and a lot enthusiastic car engineers that he pulled in from all over the planet.
            As far as I can gather, all this was done in order to make the Model 3 possible.
            The other manufacturers – with the Leaf and the Bolt – have not yet gone 25% of the way along this road. Their batteries do not have effective cooling. They are wired up in series. Not good for fast charging. Not good for really fast acceleration. Not good for reliability. Not good for crashes. Not that good a use of space.
            Mercedes and Toyota both invested in Tesla. I wonder which major world car manufacturer will be the first to copy all those important Tesla innovations, and put them into their version of a really fast charging powerful Tesla Model 3, at a similar price.

        3. Josh says:

          It doesn’t shock me at all. I am familiar with it.

          The issue is more related to the second half of the post, Tesla (Musk mostly) does a poor job of managing expectations.

    3. Rick Danger says:

      It’s also possible that part of the delay in getting Model X ready is because certain resources were diverted to start work on the Model ≡. As you say, the runaway success of the Model S meant Model X wasn’t the priority Tesla originally anticipated.
      I think Tesla is going to move heaven and earth to get Model ≡ into production on schedule, or close to it.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        There is no question that Tesla has a strong motivation to get the Model ≡ into production as soon as Gigafactory 1 is producing battery packs in quantity.

        The only real question is just how well Elon Musk will be able to resist his tendency to micromanage and meddle with the development of Tesla’s cars, with complete disregard for how many delays that causes. So far at least, he hasn’t shown any self-restraint in that regard.

        1. Priusmaniac says:

          That is basically saying that Elon is the problem that result in such good products. It is contradictory because you can’t have the excellent product without what is precisely the origin of that excellence.

  4. Roger says:

    “””“Tesla said on Wednesday it plans to unveil the design for the Model 3 in March and start selling the car in 2017. “”””

    start selling in 2017, but for a delivery in late 2018…

    1. Tesla does’t sell cars until they deliver them. Reservation deposits are just place holders, not sales!

    2. Josh says:

      Tesla will start selling (taking reservations) in two months.

      And this might be critically important to hold people (like me) from jumping for Bolt or Leaf 2.0 ahead of Model 3 availability (in 2018?).

      1. Speculawyer says:

        This. They said they would start taking reservations at the March reveal.

    3. Leaf Owner says:

      I’ll be shocked — yet quite happy — if they do indeed begin deliveries in 2017. My bet is you will not see decent numbers of them until mid-late 2018. My leaf lease ends 12/16 — I hope to do another 2-year with something……before I can finally get my Tesla!

      1. Brian says:

        Get a 2-year lease on a Bolt. I’ll be looking to potentially pick up an off-lease Bolt when they are available. I can wait it out with my (owned) Leaf until late 2018. Who knows – maybe I’ll buy your lease turn-in!

  5. PVH says:

    If they lock him in a room to avoid having the car loaded with useless gadgets, then yes, it good go out on time and be a success.

  6. Lad says:

    The loser in this space is Nissan who failed to solve their Leaf range problem; choosing instead to use PR money to tell us we didn’t need the range…wrong! Then, they follow this mistake with a bad policy decision not to offer battery range upgrades for their older Leafs…directly opposite to what BMW and Tesla do. The effect of all this bad policy is a Leaf with the worse resale value on the market and dissatisfied customers who are soured on the idea of buying another Nissan.

    1. PVH says:

      Nissan came too early on the EV market. Made losses. Do not have Wall Street billions to cover them. This is why right timing for EV’s is of importance. Perhaps GM has the right timing, not too early, not too late.

      1. Someone out there says:

        “The right timing” is usually slightly after the pioneers. The pioneers make the initial mistakes that the followers learn from and builds on.

        1. Brian says:

          I.e. the “fast follower”

      2. Speculawyer says:

        They were not too early . . . they just neglected their product line while others sprinted ahead of them.

        They came out with an interesting car. But then it stagnated. Other than a battery chemistry change that was forced upon them due to heat problems, the car remained largely unchanged for 5 years.

        1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

          Uh, cars usually remain unchanged for 5 years.
          Although Nissan did:
          – improve the heating system
          – increased the charger to 6.6kW.
          – Maybe added heated steering wheel(?)
          – Made some more things standard on the SV trim.

          1. Speculawyer says:

            Ah . . . well business-as-usual doesn’t work for a brand new fast-moving market.

            GM worked hard on the VOlt 1 and did cost-reducing that allowed them to slash the price. Tesla continually adds new features.

            Perhaps Nissan’s problem was that the battery issue forced them to push aside any improvements and instead just work to fix the battery problem.

            And yeah, they did do a few tweaks. Upgrading the charger was good. But those others were pretty minor.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            ItsNotAboutTheMoney

            “Uh, cars usually remain unchanged for 5 years.”

            No, car models very nearly without exception have meaningless style changes every year to “refresh” them, and at least in the U.S., tend to get larger every new model year. (The evolution of car models, like the evolution of animals, includes a tendency to increase in size to extinction. 🙂 )

            “Although Nissan did:
            – improve the heating system
            – increased the charger to 6.6kW.
            – Maybe added heated steering wheel(?)
            – Made some more things standard on the SV trim.”

            …while not increasing the battery pack size at all, and doing absolutely nothing about the Leaf’s biggest problem, which was a complete lack of a battery cooling system.

            The GM Volt came out the same year, in fact the same month, as the Leaf. Nissan could have put in a proper battery temperature management system, just as GM did. But Nissan chose to cheap out on that, and has continued refusing to correct that situation ever since. As I understand it, even the Leaf 2.0 won’t have a battery cooling system.

            Move over Blackberry, the iPhone has arrived.

    2. pk says:

      One of the reasons I chose to lease my 2015 Leaf was the expectation of much better things to come after 3 years. So far it looks like Nissan is going to play catch up which is surprising since they were at the forefront 5 years ago.

      1. MikeM says:

        Same here with my 2014 Leaf.

        Looks like I may need another EV stand-in for a year or two when this one ends in April 2017.

        Should get an improved EV range by then!

    3. Alex says:

      The 30 kWh battery will be only in production for 1 year until 48 and 60 kWh arrive, why should they offer a battery upgrade and after a year all Leaf drivers cry again for battery upgrade. Only important is Nissan offer a battery upgrade when they switch to LG.

    4. Samwise says:

      The resale value statement is a total con, it’s simply a function of it being the cheapest mass produced EV on the market and the fact rebates etc… aren’t included in the calculation for resale value.
      Also I think US people get so caught up in US things I don’t appear to have noticed the LEAF wasn’t actually designed specifically for them and sells very well overseas, the new model probably will to. Japan has comfortable fast affordable public transport EVERYWHERE, you simply don’t need 200 miles of range very often, there are a number of other countries where this is also true. The only thing really relevant to the LEAF’s success will be what the new model is like, the current model certainly did well enough 200k sales and I am sure plenty of feedback for the new one.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        It’s amazing how many EV advocates are in such denial about the market value of a longer range for EVs.

        Higher capacity battery packs have many advantages:

        1. Longer range

        2. Fewer stops for recharging en route

        3. Longer stretches between recharging stops on long trips

        4. Slower battery pack degradation over time

        5. Potential for faster charging at public fast-charge points

        6. Higher resale value

        7. Greater flexibility in taking a second trip on the same day, before recharging.

        8. Greater potential for being able to recharge late at night, when electricity rates may be lower (since a partially depleted battery pack still leaves plenty of range for the next trip)

        The argument that most Japanese drivers won’t prefer BEVs with longer ranges… is simply ignoring reality, and ignoring it pretty firmly.

  7. Get Real says:

    Most people are missing the main point here from a logistics POV.

    It is really only Tesla that is going to be able to deliver EVs in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS because only Tesla has invested the resources necessary to build enough batteries to support that level of sales.

    As great as the Bolt is, their simply will not be a battery supply for it sufficient to build them in the same numbers the the Model 3 can be built in.

    1. Stimpy says:

      Why do you think LG is production constrained? Citation needed.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        Because people have previously described their current spare capacities and it isn’t big enough to support large numbers of long-range BEVs.

        1. Paul Stoller says:

          Are you privy to their expansion plans, do you know how long it takes them to setup a new production line? LG is much better capitalized than tesla and already has multiple productions sites worldwide at which they can expand, I would not expect they will have problems ramping up as they need to.

          In fact they have said they can do as much.

          http://www.autonews.com/article/20151214/OEM06/312149992/lg-chem-quietly-surges-in-battery-race

          1. Tech01x says:

            why would you think that LG Chem is better capitalized? They have been producing at less than 1 GWh even though they have theoretical nameplate capacity in excess of 5 GWh (not fully built out). LG might expand another 1-2 GWh between expansions in the U.S., China, and Europe. Tesla is looking to go from about 5-6 GWh today to about 12-14 GWh at the same time. Tesla is expecting to add another 7 GWh each year or so. In no way is LG’s announced expansion plans anywhere even close.

            1. Paul Stoller says:

              I did use the wrong term I should not have said capitalization but rather free cash flow. LG has free cash flow in the billions per year and Tesla is cash flow negative. LG has the cash to expand production to meet demand. If the demand is there I am confident they will meet it.

              1. Joshua Burstyn says:

                Tesla is not *really* the battery provider… let’s not forget Panasonic’s role in the gigafactory.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Stimpy said:

        “Why do you think LG is production constrained? Citation needed.”

        That’s not the right question. The right question is: Why do we think GM will be production constrained on the Bolt when relying on LG Chem for its batteries?

        1. Because LG Chem is currently only making about 12% of the kWh of batteries for the EV market, as compared to 38% for Panasonic (source 1)

        2. Because contracts for deliveries of battery cells on this scale are negotiated years in advance, so GM probably won’t be able to increase its order for a couple of years, at least

        3. Because the list of LG’s customers is growing much faster than their capacity is growing, which means GM will have great difficulty negotiating a bigger supply in the future

        4. Because history has shown, with Nissan (Leaf) and with Tesla (Models S and X), that a BEV manufacturer which relies on a third party battery supplier won’t be able rapidly ramp up BEV production.

        Battery suppliers are naturally conservative about ramping up production. If a big customer cancels his contract, it can put the battery supplier out of business. That’s why Tesla has not been able to get Panasonic to ramp up production as fast as Tesla wanted. It’s why Tesla is building Gigafactory 1, and it’s why Nissan built its own battery factories in both Tennessee and the UK (source 2).

        source 1:
        http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/2015/11/batteries-september-2015.html

        source 2:
        http://www.autonews.com/article/20140917/BLOG06/140919855/scrap-nissans-leaf-battery-plant?-hardly

    2. Leaf Owner says:

      good point — however other battery companies are building new capacity….

    3. Speculawyer says:

      Well . . . I wonder if they will have demand for hundreds of thousands. If they actually hit the 200+ mile range with a $35K (before tax-credit) price then it may be possible.

      But if it costs $40K to $50K, it won’t sell those kind of numbers.

  8. Someone out there says:

    It Tesla’s history is anything to go by we won’t be seeing the model 3 until 2019 I believe. Most definitely it won’t be available late 2017 as claimed, at best 2H 2018.

    1. Leaf Owner says:

      They have been working on this model for several years already — plus they now have an experiences and battle worn staff and production facility. I believe they will have a better chance of delivering this baby on-time.

  9. JakeY says:

    The timeline Tesla has always released was a trickle of cars by the end of 2017 and then a full production year in 2018. Not sure why there is expectation of something different.

    If they are on schedule, this would be exactly 1 year after the Bolt (GM is planning a trickle of cars by end of 2016 and full production in 2017).

  10. shane says:

    In many businesses where delivery timing is critical, the sales contract will have contractually obligated penalty payments if the deliver is late. Boeing and Airbus have both paid 100s of millions of dollars due to being late on the A380 and 787. Is Tesla willing to put their money where their mouth is?

    1. ffbj says:

      Invalid comparison.

      1. shane says:

        Why invalid? Please explain. Airlines need to choose between competing products, and hold manufacturers to their commitments. Car buyers also make choices between products based, in part, on what they were told about upcoming products.

        1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

          People making reservations don’t sign a contract with Tesla. They can get their money back at any time.

          1. Viktor Uneus says:

            Tesla have a Reservation agreement on the site where you reserv your Model X

        2. Viktor Uneus says:

          Thats depends on what it’s written in the contract between the seller and the buyer. If Tesla from the beginning have write in the agreement that they reserv for that the car can be late then you have to agree on that to buy it. If you have agree on that you can’t said that they lie to you

  11. shane says:

    GM and Nissan ought to consider leasing the Bolt and Leaf2 with a conditional lease that lets the leasee out of the lease when the Model 3 deliveries hit 100 units/month. Customer wins either way.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Auto dealers are not interested in making deals where the customer wins either way. They’re interested in making money off negotiating deals and servicing cars.

  12. tom911 says:

    How (in 2016) is Tesla going to deliver the 30K Model X cars preordered _and_ have the Model 3 ready for delivery in 2017?

    Model X people have been waiting 3+ years for their cars and suddenly Tesla is going to add a new assembly line and pump out what will be even more, and different cars??

    They are severely resource limited and are trying to hire 1000’s of people. They currently are producing about 1000 Model S cars per week and 238 Model X cars per week. I’d expect the Model X to ramp up later this year but best case scenario IMO is a couple deliveries of the Model 3 by end of 2017 and ramping to capacity in late 2018.

    I have a screen shot from Feb 2012 of the Model X website-
    “Production begins late 2013, significant deliveries begin early 2014”

    1. shane says:

      The key challenge on the Model 3 will be to get the design done, the validation testing, and spin up all the supply streams. As I think others have said, it normally takes at least 4 years to get a new car from inception to delivery. In GM’s (Bolt) case, it appears GM was working on it for quite a while before they told anyone. If Tesla has done the same thing, and are 2 years into there full scale development effort, then having it in production by Dec 31, 2017 (almost 2 years from now) would be about right. But if that were the case, I think they would have shown the concept design last year. Time will tell – but as they say — fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    2. SJC says:

      Companies should be held accountable for what they say. Tesla has made optimistic projections before and not delivered.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I agree in principle, but if every auto maker was “held accountable” for not producing cars as soon as originally planned, or for promising to put many or most concept cars into production, without ever having even the slightest intention of doing so (a sin which Tesla has not yet committed), then there wouldn’t be many auto makers in business today!

        Sadly, we live in a world in which most businesses with more than a handful of employees — and not just auto makers — routinely lie to the public, to their customers, and even to their own employees. I’ve seen that from the inside at far too many businesses.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      tom911 said:

      “Model X people have been waiting 3+ years for their cars and suddenly Tesla is going to add a new assembly line and pump out what will be even more, and different cars??

      “They are severely resource limited and are trying to hire 1000’s of people.”

      There are some pretty serious misconceptions here.

      Tesla is “resource limited” in that it has an ongoing problem with limited battery supply. That’s why it’s building Gigafactory 1, which is said to be ahead of schedule, and according to reports will be delivering batteries in industrial quantities later this year.

      If you think Tesla is “resource limited” by not having enough money to continue growing, then you’re simply wrong. Tesla’s very high stock prices make it easy to borrow money at low interest rates, and Tesla’s last stock issuance was quickly oversubscribed.

      Tesla has had no problem hiring thousands of new employees every year since 2011, and there’s no reason to think that will change.

      The reasons for the two-year delay on production of the Model X have little or nothing to do with any problem Tesla might have in building a new production line. Now, it’s true that last year, when Tesla doubled its production line, it did take four weeks instead of the planned two. Tesla is having growing pains, but that is perfectly understandable. No other auto maker of any noticeable size is increasing its production by 45% every year, and Tesla has done that every year since 2012!

      It’s certainly prudent to think Tesla might, probably will, miss its own plan for production of the Model ≡ in 2017. Despite what stock investment advisers say, past performance is a reasonably good indication of future results.

      But to suggest Tesla won’t ever be able to build and sell the Model ≡ is not a very realistic scenario.

  13. But will it a fully working, public street drivable car, or just a mock-up, maybe on the Model S drive train.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      What difference does it make?

      If the Model X is any indication, it doesn’t matter much what the Model ≡ concept car will look like, inside or out, because the production car will be quite different.

      Personally, I’d be happy to see nothing more than a clay model or a mockup in March. If nothing else, that will mean InsideEVs will no longer subject us to amateurish, misbegotten concepts of what random wannabe artists have deluded themselves into thinking the Model ≡ might look like! 😉

  14. Koenigsegg says:

    The Bolt is neither compelling nor desirable.

    Model 3 will be both + more.

    1. Joshua Burstyn says:

      To my eye (and I’d expect many others) the Leaf isn’t “compelling” or “desirable” and yet it’s the best selling EV of all time. I think it’s a matter of the car being practical and matching consumers’ pricing expectations/minimal feature set. Thus I infer that the Bolt will be highly successful provided the EPA rating and cost stay the same.

      1. Kumar Plocher says:

        As a daily driver of both the Leaf and the Kia Soul EVs, I have to say I’m severely disappointed in the Leaf. The Soul is superior in many categories, including far superior in important ones like range estimating, and seems more polished overall. I would not have expected that to be the case, seeing as the Leaf has been around much longer.

    2. tom911 says:

      .. and have rainbows and unicorns too!

    3. Speculawyer says:

      Now that is what I call blind faith.

  15. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    Sorry, Musk fans, but Tesla has just lost – hopelessly. It was obvious when Bolt was scheduled for production. Tesla plan was to scale up and start mass-market car, but GM (and possibly) others will be producing mass-market car for couple of years minimum when Tesla will reach mass-market stage. It is just much easier to do mass market car when you are already mass-market producer and don’t need to scale up everything from zero and can get bottom price from suppliers. Tesla will remain premium car producer in the US, but will have hard time competing when BMW/MB/Audi will enter competition. R&D and sale/service/proprietary charging network expansion is killing their potential profit and it is not going away, it will be required expense for very long time unless they change business model. They have little chance in Europe where people pay more attention to interior quality that is too Cheapo in Tesla cars.

    1. Get Real says:

      Sorry serial Tesla/Musk haters like zzzzzzz, but even if your fact-free anti-Tesla FUD was true, Tesla has already successfully executed its plan to FORCE the laggard OEMs to produce compelling BEVs or face losing market share to a new upstart.

      Not only has this pressure from Tesla forced GM to make the Bolt, it is also forcing the laggard OEMs to make real improvements like to match what Tesla is rolling out like very large touchscreen controls, real autopilot, OTOH connectivity/upgrade capability, vastly improved customer care, hopefully fast-charging networks that are useful for long-range travel, etc, etc, etc.

      And as far as Europe is concerned, Tesla has already greatly eroded the German luxury OEM’s market share as a upstart:
      http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-sales-just-behind-mercedes-benz-s-class-in-europe/

      Furthermore, Tesla selling ONE model at the top of the price spectrum is the best-selling EV in the US. Truly remarkable for a new upstart.

      So hate all you want but the facts completely contradict your anti-Tesla FUD.

    2. MDEV says:

      Tesla brand = Jaguar, Mercedes, BMW.
      GM brand is for mass market. people will pay 5K for Tesla brand than GM even with the same specifications.

    3. Speculawyer says:

      Oh it is not over by any means. It is still up in the air.

      One of the biggest problems is that there is no good DC-fast-charging system for the Bolt. The pictures show SAE-CCS. Well there are very few SAE-CCS chargers, they are poorly placed, and they only go 50KW at best. The Supercharger network has several well-placed chargers that power at 125KW.

      Plus Tesla has better brand name in the EV sector . . . and their car may look better. But that is still to be determined. But with the looks of the Bolt . . . meh . . . the Bolt left plenty of room for much better looking cars.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      zzzzzzzzzz said:

      “Sorry, Musk fans, but Tesla has just lost – hopelessly.”

      The way Tesla “lost — hopelessly” by not getting the Model S into production until two years after the Volt and the Leaf?

      Remind me, now — which EV sold the most in the North American market last year? hmmm?

      Oh, yeah — it was the Tesla Model S. At between 2x-2.5x the price of its supposed (but not really) nearest competitors, the Leaf and the Volt.

      “Tesla will remain premium car producer in the US, but will have hard time competing when BMW/MB/Audi will enter competition.”

      Tesla has no intention of competing with BEVs from BMW/MB/Audi, nor the GM Bolt either. Tesla’s intent is to compete with, and steal customers from, the 99% of the auto market now owned by gasmobile makers… not the piffling 1% owned by EV makers!

      It doesn’t matter how many BEVs other auto makers get into production before the Model ≡ comes out, so long as Tesla can sell every single one as fast as they can make them.

      We will, of course, have to wait and see if Tesla is as successful at creating demand for the Model ≡ as it has been for the Models S and X. But there is no rational reason to listen to Tesla bashers predicting Tesla’s downfall.

      They’ve repeated that cabbage so often that by now, nobody in his right mind is paying any attention to them. Just a few annoying gnats buzzing around. Or is that buzzzzzzzzzzing?

  16. PVH says:

    My point of view as follows: if Tesla shows real commitment to make an affordable Model 3 (less than 40K) then I really wish them success and could even buy a tsla stock or two as support. Now if they continue making overengineerd first world inflated-ego mobile like Model X and hype us to death doing so, then Tesla might go bankrupt tomorrow and I will open a champagne bottle and sing songs of good riddance.

    1. super390 says:

      You’re being unfair. How the Hell else was a new company supposed to get its foot in the very heavy vault door of the auto industry? Tell me when the last time a new low-price American car company succeeded, and you will see how insanely high the barriers to entry are.

      (Chevrolet doesn’t qualify because it started as a mid-high end brand, got bought by GM and moved downmarket. The answer is Dodge, in 1914.)

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “…if Tesla shows real commitment to make an affordable Model 3… then I really wish them success… Now if they continue making overengineerd first world inflated-ego mobile like Model X and hype us to death doing so…”

      I guess it has not occurred to you that Tesla is using the Model X as a “halo car”, and using the hype surrounding that to help get the financing it needs to put the more affordable Model ≡ into production.

      Using halo cars to promote a car badge, then diverting potential buyers to down-market, more affordable models, is what every medium-sized and larger auto maker does.

      It’s quite gratifying to see signs that Tesla is maturing as an auto maker; that it’s in the process of growing from a small to a medium-sized auto maker.

      Too bad you can’t see that, PVH.

      1. PVH says:

        What I can see with Model X is the risk of reading the following sentences in 22nd century books: “in the early steps of car electrification there was a company called Tesla which CEO was an immensely talented engineer, it changed general public perception towards electric cars making them sexy and desirable. Sadly, execution difficulties soon arised mostly in relation with over ambitious and unecessary technical options. Those led to delays, big reliability issues and spiraling cost..blabla….bankruptcy….blabla”
        It would be a awful waste so what I am just saying is: Tesla please use KISS principle for Model 3…

  17. Bloggin says:

    The Model III or M3 is definitely the 200+ mile EV most are waiting for.

    – Especially if the price is below $40k.

    – Performance sedan like Model S, with hatch and ‘frunk’.

    – Limited access to Superchargers

    – 250+ mile range with 300+ mile option

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Bloggin said:
      January 8, 2016 at 6:24 pm

      “The Model III or M3 is definitely the 200+ mile EV most are waiting for… Performance sedan like Model S, with hatch and ‘frunk’.”

      Nobody has promised the Model ≡ will be a sedan, nor that it will have a frunk.

      It would make a lot more sense, for a smaller car, to do exactly what GM has done with the Bolt: Maximize cabin seating space, while minimizing exterior size.

      In fact, I’ll be surprised if the exterior of the Model ≡ does not look a lot like the GM Bolt or the BMW i3. And my guess is that if it does have a frunk, it will be a much smaller one.

  18. Grady says:

    To me, the supercharger network (or equivalent) is a deal maker/breaker. I won’t consider a Bolt if I have nowhere to fast charge it during long distance trips. MIII will always have that advantage over Bolt, Leaf 2.0, etc.

    1. jim stack says:

      Super Charger and Tesla design is also the key for me. They do remote updates, true 100% Support, Frunk, 1 pedal driving, autonomous driving and so much more I can’t imagine not have the Model ≡ .
      We now have a KIA SOUL EV and it’s good but nothing compared to a SC Tesla.

  19. Jonathan says:

    Tesla is probably going to try to get as many people as possibly to put up a deposit after unveiling. They typically take $5K for a Model S or X but my guess is that they will have to be at or about $2K for the model 3. They need to pick a number that is low enough to maximize reservations, while still generating revenue for them. If 50K people put down $2K each that’s $100M! This is a very good influx of cash and it will also serve to build a very long waiting list. The waiting list is key because people won’t want to lose their spot and miss out on tax credits and such. No doubt there will be a battle for clients between the Model 3 and the Bolt. I’m leaning toward the Tesla myself mainly because of the supercharger network, but I may put a deposit on both cars just in case. If come Bolt release, the Tesla superchargers are still so packed that they aren’t reliable for long distance travel, I may go with the Bolt. Furthermore, it looks like we have maybe a year left of the CA $2500 EV rebate, so I may make it with the Bolt, but won’t with the Tesla Model 3, so there’s that as well. At similar price points, this makes the Bolt $2500 less expensive.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      It certainly does look like than anyone who is considering buying a Model ≡ should get his order in early, if he wants to take advantage of the federal $7500 tax rebate. It does look like Tesla’s slice of that will run out fairly early in Model ≡ production.

      InsideEV’s Jay Cole is predicting lawmakers will revise the tax rebate so that there is a single pool for all, rather than individual ones for each auto maker. If he’s right, then the urgency for getting an order in early will be far less.

      Personally, I have no confidence at all that our congresscritters will show that much cooperation or sense.

  20. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Anyone who has read the tell-all article “Tesla’s Wild Ride” (see link below) knows how seriously Elon Musk’s perfectionism delayed getting Tesla’s first car, the Roadster, into production.

    I see similar signs with the Model X, which was originally touted as merely a CUV version of the Model S; yet what eventually emerged was a car with a wheelbase 2 inches longer than the “S”, sharing very few parts with it, and having questionable, unnecessary hi-tech geegaws, like the falcon wing doors, the motorized front doors, and 2nd row seats which can’t be moved out of the way to fill the back with cargo.

    It’s unclear how much these unnecessary hi-tech frills delayed production of the Model X, because it is entirely possible most of the overall delay was a strategic decision; that is, a choice rather than a necessity. With Tesla’s production constrained by availability of the
    battery cells which Panasonic custom makes for them, it made more sense for Tesla to continue selling the Model S rather than the Model X, because the “S” has been in production long enough to amortize away startup costs. In other words, Tesla gets a higher profit margin on the “S” than the “X”, and that will almost certainly continue to be the case for at least a couple of years.

    But at the very least, all those hi-tech geegaws on the “X” did not help get the car into production on time.

    Will Elon be able to restrain his compulsion for micromanaging and meddling with what Tesla’s designers and engineers come up with for the Model ≡? Will he be able to actually, for once, delegate authority to those who should actually be in charge of designing the car and pinching pennies?

    Time will tell. But my guess is that we won’t be seeing any Model ≡ production in 2017, and my prediction is that at the earliest we won’t see volume production before 3rd quarter 2018. A delay to 2019 would not surprise me.

    * * * * *

    However, that said: I continue to be disappointed that so many posting to InsideEVs seem to think that somehow the Bolt can kill the market for the Model ≡. Tesla is not aiming merely for the 1% of the new car market that is PEV sales by other auto makers. Tesla is aiming for the 99% of the new car market that currently belongs to gasmobiles!

    Tesla should be able to sell as many Model ≡’s as it can make… and then some. If sales of the Models S and X are any indication, Tesla will have no significant competition from the Bolt, or the Leaf 2.0, or whatever BMW comes up with as its next generation BEV.

    Truly compelling PEVs, such as the Bolt and, hopefully, the Model ≡, should be in much greater demand than GM and Tesla will produce. GM because it won’t want to ramp up production of a car which it makes little or not profit on, and Tesla because, hopefully, demand for the Model ≡ will increase much faster than it can grow its production to match.

    Bottom line: The “Bolt vs. Model ≡” scenario is based on a misconception. These cars will compete much more with gasmobile sales than they will compete with each other.

    * * * * *

    Interesting tell-all article about the early days of Tesla Motors, for those who haven’t read it yet: “Tesla’s Wild Ride”

    http://archive.fortune.com/2008/07/10/technology/copeland_tesla.fortune/index.htm

  21. Pete says:

    Tesla have the biggest problem not with delivering too late but with reliability, the tesla board is full from “little errors” and last year Tesla did it wrong. In last quarter they delivered much cars but many drivers complained about 10 bugs in their cars, in a 100.000 Dollar car! How many defects Tesla will create in a 37.000 Dollar car.
    To be sure Model 3 is reliable best date is buying one 2020, before i will look the Bolt or next Leaf.

    1. Rolf says:

      3.7 bugs on average

  22. Anthony says:

    Unveil car in March 2016, 18 months to first delivery (September 2017). Founders edition cars at 50K each, 100/wk for the first month, and then ramp up. Assuming sufficient demand (important assumption!) and no supply chain issues, 50k units delivered in 2018, 125k units in 2019, 250k in 2020, 500k in 2021.

    The GF scaling up will coincide with those numbers – at an average of 60kWh per car sold, you’re looking at 3GWh in 2018, 7.5GWh in 2019, and 15GWh in 2020 and 30GWh in 2021. Those numbers don’t include grid storage. At $100/kWh, thats $3B/yr in revenue at full tilt for the automotive part of the GF. It wouldn’t surprise me to see another 20-30GWh come out of the other side of the factory for grid storage (especially what will happen in sunny Republican-leaning states that will hurt solar power, and has already happened in Nevada).

  23. Mike C says:

    I’d sure like to get an upgrade for my 2012 Rav-4 EV..