70% Of Recent Tesla Model 3 VIN Registrations Are AWD

AUG 6 2018 BY MARK KANE 13

Most of the current Tesla Model 3 production is all-wheel drive, dual motor versions

It seems that Tesla has a two-prong approach to making the Model 3 profitable.

The first is to increase production, while the second is to sell more expensive and profitable versions of the car.

According to Model 3 VINs, since the all-wheel drive version VIN registrations began on June 28 (excluding test batches), some 24,545 were registered. That is almost 70% of the total of 35,317 for the period.

Total VIN registrations reached 89,320, while production already exceeds 60,000. It means that the Dual Motor Model 3 takes 27.5% of registered VINs to date, despite entering production only just recently.

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

13 Comments on "70% Of Recent Tesla Model 3 VIN Registrations Are AWD"

newest oldest most voted
John

Why not? For a little bit more AWD is an awesome bang for the buck, adding speed and performance for only $5k. And you never have to worry about inclement weather as a show-stopper any more. I know I’ll get a ton of push-back, but in my opinion Tesla is doing it right in releasing the more expensive Model 3 right now. The company’s existence is tied to the Model 3 success or failure, and right now they need all the margin(s) they can get. And the higher margins come with the more expensive cars. Does it piss off those who’ve been waiting for the $35k car? Of course. Once Tesla finally starts delivering the $35k car all will be forgiven and forgotten- just watch. And once the $35k car delivers watch what happens to the stock price. Tesla has a problem filling orders right now?? Good Lord, wait until the $35k car.

Viking79

Yes, and the price bump on AWD is probably a good indicator of high demand. Personally, I want the longer range and higher efficiency of RWD, as I wouldn’t use the AWD anyway, but the AWD would be nice and I understand why it is so popular.

antrik

Actually, a $5,000 price bump for slightly better performance and whether-proofing (but at the cost of some range), sounds fairly steep to me… But then again, at an average going rate that’s probably close to $55,000 already, I guess many people are fine with that.

James

I opted out of Autopilot and prioritized AWD non Performance instead. I can add Autopilot anytime at a later date and perhaps it’s not a stretch to believe it will be less expensive 1 to 2 years down the road as well as much improved.

Full self driving doesn’t interest me, especially since to date it doesn’t exist and may never. I do not live in an area with harsh, snowy winters, but we do get tons of rain. In that, it is likely I will be moving my family and business south, to Texas or California. Those places still present weather challenges from time to time.

My further thinking is that I prefer dual wheel control. I also am not range anxious with plentiful Superchargers abounding in all areas of interest to me and that nice ability to use any charger with adapters. I ordered the 19″ wheels using the same rationale. My car will have better quickness than rear drive as well as hopefully the ability to drive home or to service with one axle if one motor is having issues.

Better performance and confidence always was worth the swap of Autopilot, for me.

Sean

Given Tesla said it has accomplished a -slim- margin for M3s in Q2 and quit selling them at a loss and in q3 they are hoping to get 15% margin. It appears the only way they can get the 15% gross margin is selling the higher optioned versions. They have a long way to go to get to anything close to profitable for a 35k base m3.

They aren’t making any EV automaker sound like a profitable enterprise. Even though I am pretty sure GM isn’t selling base Bolts at a loss.

Viking79

They need to produce more of them. Margins are naturally slim as they get production rolling. As they automate more, etc it will bring costs down. During this period it only makes sense to produce models that have more margin.

Looking at the Munro teardown analysis for the 3 and it should be about $18,000 parts + $10,000 labor to manufacture the Model 3 Long Range Premium, so plenty of room for profit as they get their costs under control, even on Standard battery model.

antrik

The $28,000 figure was from another teardown. Munro only gave margins AFAIK. (Some mentioned that he also gave a separate margin for the entry version later; which was much lower, but still clearly positive.)

TM3x2 Chris

When do you get your margin figures? Cite the source.

antrik

They are projecting 25% average margin for Q1 or Q2 next year, *including* the base version. That’s not exactly “a long way to go” I’d say.

nix

That is exactly opposite of the guidance provided in the latest conference call. The vast majority of their margin improvement is due to process, supply chain, and volume improvements and efficiencies. It is all covered in detail in the call, and the call is available right here in the insideevs archives. (easy to find)

Instead of making things up, the other option is to actually get your information from primary sources.

Tech01x

As Tesla ramps, the depreciation cost of PP&E is spread amongst more vehicles. That alone will drive a lot of the gross margin gains. They do have quite a bit of operational efficiency to gain still.

The Bolt is definitely selling at a loss. The Opel suit and commentary tells us that GM is losing money on each Bolt. But that probably doesn’t matter due to the incentives.

The main point is that Tesla is well on its way to production scale and efficiency that allows them to ship the broad range of Model 3 variants and achieve overall profitability. That’s a great thing for EV adoption.

antrik

PP&E is a fixed cost (CapEx, more specifically), i.e. *not* part of the margin.

Ron M

The Trump administration to get things moving at the EPA, at least when it comes to filing its proposal to leave 2025 fleet emission standards of 54.5 mpg.

Well apparently it happened today. Starting in 2020 fleet emission standards will be set to 29 mpg until 2025. Also California can not have there own standards. I can’t believe the Trump administration and doesn’t can make a change like this. Doesn’t this have to go to congress. This not only harms the environment but it hurts the pocket books for everyone.

Unfortunately those who support Trump won’t care they’ll still support him.