Car & Driver Predicts First Model 3 Deliveries Will Begin In Late 2019


Car & Driver via Ferdie Mason

Car & Driver via Ferdie Mazon

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

In the latest print edition of Car & Driver, there’s a brief write up on the Tesla Model 3.

The article mainly focuses on the projected release date of the Model 3, which Car & Driver puts at September or October of 2019. Yes…2019, or a full two years later than Tesla’s “late 2017” projected release for the Model 3.

Car & Driver’s projected release date goes off the assumption that, on average, Tesla is some 535 days late on its launches of previous models. There’s more to the equation though (see image).

If accurate, and Tesla really does fall two years behind on the Model 3 launch, the automaker will likely not survive. This is one launch where Tesla needs to deliver on time and we do believe it will be close to doing so, or at least within a few months on a technical level.

As for actual volume production of the Model 3, we tend to believe that will occur sometime between “late 2017” and “September or October of 2019.” Let’s say early 2018, or so. What’s your guess for volume production of the Model 3?

Source: Car & Driver print edition via Ferdie Mazon on Facebook

Categories: Tesla


Leave a Reply

130 Comments on "Car & Driver Predicts First Model 3 Deliveries Will Begin In Late 2019"

newest oldest most voted

Too late

An MDF of only 1.02? I thought Tesla tested at 1.5 in the wind tunnel?

They only got the second number after they took the 19″ wheels off and put 15″ wheels on it.


Kdawg, you forgot to factor in 1.15 IGL (Musk’s Incredible Good Luck).

Funny, I thought that Sophisticated Formula was proof that VW makes “Clean Diesels”.

Volume deliveries will start early 2018 to rise from 5,000 a month to 35,000 in mid 2018.

It will start slow, but it will be a T35-like tank rush, demolishing the puny “30,000 Bolts a year” GM EV target.

T-34 of course… damn little smartphone buttons 😉

If they were going to use the Titanic as their example, they should’ve used Apollo 13 instead of 11.

Production Start Aug 2017
2500 per week by October 2017
5000 per week by March 2018
10000 per week by December 2018

Can Tesla have a production line up and running in less than a year? Their is a problem in getting it done in less than a year. The automated production line will use specialize led robots. These take time to build by the suppliers. These may take a year or more to build. Once in place they need to be programmed.
The inside scoop is that a few pieces of equipment is already in place. The question is has Tesla ordered all the equipment for the production line, and how long ago?
It could be done if all the equipment is in place during the first quarter of 2017.

Production start December 2017
50,000 produced by December 2018
100,000 produced in 2019
200,000 in 2020

This is what happens when you are used to reason by analogy instead of first principles. Basing the possible delay of M3 on past delays is so stupid, like if Tesla will always behave the same way they did when they had no assembly lines and no experience in building cars,(and also no rush to push on Model X when Model S sold so well).

Until Tesla stops their pattern you have to assume the pattern. Just think about where the Model 3 is right now – pencils down. They have a couple of hand built prototypes. Yet somehow we are to believe they will have time to get designs to suppliers, integrate all those pieces together , update the factory, crash test, debug, QC and ramp up production by this time next year? Designing ordering, manufacturing, setup of some of the assembly line equipment could take that long.

I’d assume:
1) Experience should be in the formula.
2) The simplicity of this car vs. the Model S, should also be a variable.
3) As Tesla gets large suppliers motivation to deliver grows.

So, I expect 90 days max. delay.


The fact that they are trying to get this to market so fast shows they are following there old pattern. To put this on perspective GM’s line for the Bolt was put in last year. Cars have been bolt off that line since March 2016. That gives them 7 months to work out defects, training procedures and assembly issues. As October comes around the only thing that will change is the rate at which they build them. But they will ramp up to that rate over the coming weeks.

Tesla on the other hand currently has no line to build the Model 3 yet. That isn’t something you do in a weekend. Just ordering the equipment can take months. Then weeks to install, program robots, train workers, etc. So 90 days late seems questionable since they say they need $1.2 billion for model 3 factory upgrades.

The MIII is not simpler than the (release day) MS. The MS was available in RWD only, had a relatively standard console (but with a tablet-sized touchscreen) and instrumentation, and had normal-sized panes of glass with a standard roof. It also had no autonomous driving features beyond (adaptive?) cruise control. In short, the MS was not too far from an electrified Jaguar XF.

Elon is still promising exciting new features for the MIII at the same time he is trying to complete the Gigafactory and ramp up the old NUMMI plant.

What is their pattern 1 yr out from projected production?

I don’t think they need massive Model 3 deliveries to survive. They need to reach profitability so they aren’t at the mercy of the equity markets to fund ongoing operations.

Focus on high-margin premium/luxury segment, owner-driver vehicles.

From the Q2 results, and what’s supporting the stock price. Tesla would be profitable today, without CAPEX spending.

If Tesla had no ambition, it’d be the next Jaguar, today with fatter profit margins.

CapEx doesn’t affect profitability. Initially, your capital asset is valued at what you paid for it. In subequent quarters it’s depreciated. The depreciation can affect profitability.

I think they can be much bigger than Jaguar.

They report CAPEX spending Quarterly, they have additional CAPEX spending each quarter. Erase that spending and they’re profitable.

“A capital expenditure is recorded as an asset, rather than charging it immediately to expense. The fixed asset is then charged to expense over the useful life of the asset, using depreciation.”

So, you’re using this definition. True. But, Musk, on the conference call was using the Quarterly CAPEX spending as if it were fully depreciated in the quarter. And that’s what most people who aren’t worried about Tesla are doing.

And the winner of the “I post replies without reading the post I replied to” award goes to…..

Capex is not part of the profit/loss calculation.

Tesla manufacture cost is 80% of MSRP. Jaguar is about 50%. Tesla’s only hope to reach profitability is to be vastly more efficient than conventional carmakers in R&D and sales, marketing, distribution, warranty, etc. They have some interesting ideas but the model is far from proven.

In a particularly strong fourth quarter, retail sales reached 158,813 vehicles, up by 28% when compared to the previous quarter last year. EBITDA before the £166 million of one-time reserves and charges was £1.07 billion (£903 million as reported) with a strong margin of 16.2% (13.7% as reported), compared to EBITDA of £1.02 billion (17.4% margin) a year ago. Profit before Tax was £577 million, up £181 million compared with the same quarter in the same quarter in 2014/15.


Apples and oranges. 16% is operating margin. I’m talking about manufacturing cost as a percent of MSRP. Although Tesla is the only carmaker I know who discloses the latter (they call it gross margin), there are a bunch of papers which break down costs as a percent of MSRP for mainline carmakers. It varies a little based on vehicle type, but is always within a few points of 50%.

The difference between 16% and 50% consists of SG&A, R&D, transport, warranty, dealer profit, incentives, etc.

2 things on the plus side perhaps that can address a portion (not all) of that gap.
1. They spend nil on marketing. I think I saw a number awhile back that they spend something ridiculous like $5/vehicle vs a couple grand per vehicle for normal manufacturers.
2. Some of the 50% margin is dealer margin so call that up to 10%.

Tesla doesn’t market, but the do have to pay for their sales centers and staff which is their marketing given they normally sit in expensive high traffic mall locations. That’s an expensive other makes don’t have.

Indeed, Tom, Tesla is trying to take sales and distribution costs from 23-25% of MSRP to 10% or less. They also hope to shave a few points off warranty and corporate overhead, each about 5% of MRSP for typical carmakers. Then, if economies of scale move manufacturing cost from almost 80% of MSRP to ~70% they have a path to profitability. There’s a lot of hard work and luck between here and there, though.

Good point Breezy.
“Focus on high-margin premium/luxury segment, owner-driver vehicles.”

This pretty much covers the Q4 2015 guidance, until, like, 4 months later 😉 Musk has put Tesla in a position where the capital raises are much more “make or break”.

I wonder how much having volume production in 2018 was aimed at the associated ZEV credits that might sell to OEMs who do not succeed in getting to their 2% ZEV sales mandate (in CARB states)? That would be one of the few reasons I’d see why he accelerated production, putting the company at “the mercy of the equity markets”.

Note to self – “great ideas can go insolvent”. I’m nearly out. Even if I had to pay ~$250/share, I’d rather do that after this phase, than take the venture cap risk Tesla has become.

I’m never buying a Tesla as long as they maintain a proprietary charging infrastructure but I hope they to achieve a miracle and survive. We need the competition in EV world. I just wish Tesla would learn how to play nice with others.

I wonder which manufacturer will be first to make supercharger compatable vehicles.

It’s unlikely anyone will adopt Superchargers. Unfortunately, Tesla hasn’t been able to forge partnerships with other automakers.

The standard with the broadest support will eventually dominate, and today that’s CCS.

The “broadest support” concept is not defined in your statement, however some simple facts are self evident:

1) The highest volume production electric vehicle in the world (and in history) uses exactly one DC standard

2) Only one standard leads with the highest number of installed infrastructure

3) Only one standard uses the exact same plug worldwide

Sure, all that can change! but I am not describing CCS above.

I think your example (referring to CHAdeMO) is not unlike comparing microUSB proliferation to the old iPhone connector before all non-Apple smartphone makers had standardized on the former.

It’s misleading to simply look at the installed base without considering what’s being built going forward.

Sounds like a Tesla will be your next car, then. That infrastructure is available for any auto manufacturer to use, they merely need to pay a reasonable per-vehicle one-time cost to use the network, and Tesla made their patents and designs available to everyone to license. The reason no manufacturer will ever sign up for this is a matter of pride.

I don’t see any other manufacturer bothering to build an international charging infrastructure. Do you?

A matter of Pride?? or is it F00LISH PRIDE?? BTW…Either the Texan has been sucking too many gas fumes Or He’s got a Texas Long Horn Stuck Up his *SS …His Behavior is totally IDIOTIC !

IDIOTIC? Do explain. Texas FFE seems to be one of the more level headed and rational posters on this forum to me…

If so, then your criteria needs some serious reexamination, then.

When facts are not taken at value & ignored wholesale (ex., Fact: ANY AND ALL automakers can join the Tesla SuperCharger Network. It was never meant to be proprietary, just available early when other standards were still waiting years just for certification), and gut feeling and personal bias replace reason, you can’t expect valid output from someone like Texas FFE.

He repeats the same debunked FUD religiously, true. But repeating (what are essentially) lies over and over, does not count as “Level-headed” nor “Reasonable”.

Proprietary means that Tesla owns and controls the standard. It does NOT mean that noone else can use it. So by the proper definition of the word, Texas FFE is 100% correct – the supercharging network is a Proprietary charging infrastructure.

Everyone talks about the arrogance of other automakers for not joining Tesla’s network. What about Tesla’s arrogance in creating their own – yes proprietary – network and then insisting that others conform to their standards in order to use it?

What makes him/her appear rational is that he/she does not put Tesla up on a golden pedestal and bow down. Instead, Tesla is what it is – an enterprise run by a human being. One who admits he has a lot of “hubris”.

I’m not sure that it (the building out of their own charging standard) should be considered “arrogance”. Anyone else “could” have done so at any time. When you go first, you get to set the bar.

Brian — Arrogance? Try necessity.

No other standard existed anywhere in the world that could charge at 90 kw when Tesla went into Production Validation testing of the Model S.

Did you expect Tesla to delay the Model S while everybody else dithered over charging standards that had yet to be finalized?

Your lack of knowledge has led you to write a quite arrogant post yourself.

Quick question. Who do you think owns the CHAdeMo charging standard? It is a proprietary charging standard that is owned by a private company that is a joint effort of Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Subaru. It is not an open standard. Companies have to pay Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Subaru’s joint spin-off corporation to license its use.

Funny how I never see people like you complain about CHAdeMo being a proprietary standard of Toyota/Mitsubishi/Subaru, and not an open standard.


My lack of knowledge? Hardly. I apologize if my post comes off as arrogant. I’m well aware of why Tesla did what they did. But to then hold out their hand and claim that other automakers are arrogant because they won’t pay in would be absolute hubris. Of course, Tesla doesn’t make these claims – commenters on the sidelines do. What Tesla DOES do is claim that they want to support the transition to EVs. They want ALL automakers to compete. They want the BEV market as a whole to be successful. They also don’t plan on a cheaper model than the Model III, which implies that they support the idea of “appliance” commuter cars like the Leaf, so long as they are cheap. That’s all well and good. But putting in place a charging network that does not support any car but their own does not support those goals. It supports them as a company. It allows them to sell more cars. But if they were seriously to put their money where their mouths are, we would see paid access to CCS and/or CHAdeMO charging ports at every Supercharging station. So what do I expect Tesla to do? Pretty… Read more »

Oh hey Brian….. I had no idea this clown was attacking you too… Ok so now I feel in good company.

Brian is the most pleasant, unassuming engineer I know.

Not like many who are conceited and because they know one thing think they know everything.

For someone to call Brian arrogant simply isn’t paying attention.

Quote: “”””””Quick question. Who do you think owns the CHAdeMo charging standard? It is a proprietary charging standard that is owned by a private company that is a joint effort of Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Subaru. It is not an open standard. Companies have to pay Toyota, Mitsubishi, and Subaru’s joint spin-off corporation to license its use”

I’m sorry, but this is some seriously bad info, none of which is even remotely true.

CHAdeMO is, in fact, an open protocol since 2012. It is also an official DC charging protocol in Japan and in the European Union.

There are no royalties paid to any auto manufacturer.

Our company designs, builds, and sells CHAdeMO compliant equipment.

signed in to just +1 this!!

Texas FFE is a broken record of his own twisted misinterpretation. You’ll find his posting on almost every Tesla article.

Yes, Texas FFE is brain-numbingly predictable to post the same FUD over and over.

The worst part is that when given a long list of primary evidence proving him wrong, he simply ignores it and posts the same BS claim again in the next Tesla story.

It would be a funny joke, if it weren’t so sad and predictable.

Brian said:

“Texas FFE seems to be one of the more level headed and rational posters on this forum to me…”

Regarding most subjects, I agree. I dunno what his major malfunction is regarding the Tesla Supercharger system, but it seems to be a case of extreme jealousy. At any rate, whatever it is, it’s got him completely ignoring the facts and posting like a conspiracy theorist on this subject.

The supercharger system was well ahead of the competition in 2014. I’m not sure that’s the case anymore in 2016 and it certainly will be the other way around by the time the model 3 hits the stores.

Look at the CCS coverage from Florida to Maine or San Diego to Seattle. CCS has far denser coverage. Tesla still has more chargers per location, but anywhere on the east coast, you’re likely to find a closer CCS DCFC location than a supercharger. These two corridors account for more than 2/3 of American driving. If they fix the situation in Texas the only populated state outside these corridors, you’re only left with barren, unpopulated states where supercharger coverage beats CCS coverage.

There is more to it than coverage in which Tesla is still way ahead when it comes to interstate travel.

CCS 50 kW. Supercharger 120 kWh.

Again, this is like arguing for the superiority of FireWire or Lightning vs. USB. The fact that one is an open standard and one is not is a major difference.

Not EV relted, but I need to correct you: The term “open standard” is pretty vague. You are confusing “proprietary” with “free to design for” and “free to build products that use it”, which are all separate issues.

FireWire, like USB but unlike Lightning, isn’t proprietary; both of the former are published industry standards, available from the relevant industry organizations, but not for free (that is, the design docs cost money for non-members of the relevant orgs).

FireWire, at a certain point in time, had a per-port royalty charge, but this doesn’t make it a “non-open” standard.

Lightning is proprietary to Apple.

however the documentation

If you mean “free to use as in doesn’t cost royalties”

Then why are there exactly zero third-party charging manufacturers (e.g. ClipperCreek) making home versions of Tesla Connector chargers?

It is bad business to embrace a proprietary standard that is owned by your competitor. No matter how much “better” the Lightning connector is than microUSB, no sane smartphone manufacturer would ever hand Apple the keys to their business by switching to it (which is why they all waited for USB-C instead).

They will probably switch to CCS very soon. And at the time they started their supercharger network there was no CCS, and only 50kW CHAdeMO.
Maybe Tesla isn’t the one that does not want to play with others?


I’m not sure why this concept that Tesla will somehow want to switch to somebody else’s charge standard keeps being repeated.

1) Tesla isn’t going to switch, thankfully (although they did announce they would support Chinese charging)

2) Tesla will likely make a regional CCS adaptor, much like the existing CHAdeMO adapter

3) There was a time not very long ago that when German government and German auto manufacturers could not persuade the rest of the European Union to adopt the German CCS standard as the sole standard throughout EU. So they concentrated their effort on the law and Germany to require CCS chargers, but that effort failed also.

For better or for worse, we are going to have the five major fast charging standards throughout the world for sometime:

1) CHAdeMO (worldwide same plug)

2) Tesla Supercharger (worldwide, regional plugs)

3) CCS Combo 1 & 2 (regional plugs, North America and Europe only)

4) Chameleon (exclusively Europe)

5) GB/T (China only)

The Chemealeon charger is a basic ACC plug that can use up to 43kW or 22kW depending on MY. The ACC plug in europe is also a standard and is very wide spread.

LOL. You’re not buying them BECAUSE they have the Best and ONLY fast charging stations. What “Logic”.

You can use J1772 and chaDEmo (with an adaptator) with Tesla. Supercharger and HPWC are just giving you more options…
It seems really ridiculous to boycott Tesla for this given reason since they are probably the most compatible cars with different networks…

Other cars using Tesla destination chargers will soon be a reality.

When you make something NOBODY ELSE MAKES it is by definition proprietary.

Further, Tesla has made every effort to get other makers onboard their supercharger system.

This is, in fact and practice, useless twaddle.

You do know that you can charge a Tesla at ANY charger with the correct adapter? And that Tesla has offered other manufacturers the use of their Superchargers as long as they pay their fair share of the costs?

It seems like there is always someone fishing for info or trying to short Tesla, almost on a weekly basis !

Why is your default explanation for anyone saying anything that could be negative for Tesla that they must be motivated by a desire to hurt Tesla? By analogy, do you automatically assume, whenever positive speculations about Tesla surface, that the only motive behind is share price manipulation? And incredibly ineffective manipulation btw!

“Default explanation”

You must have me mixed up with someone else ? It’s the first time iv’e ever mentioned it !

Unlike you of course who seems to have a one track mind !

Tesla is the most heavily shorted stock on the market.
Sometimes they are following you.

So while every one is waiting, they can go buy or lease a Volt or an i3 or something.

Or Bolt.

Or lease a Bolt. Every Tesla 3 delay means more prospects for Bolt. Interestingly, Bolt is looking better by the day, and it’ll look whole lot better when many off-lease Bolt come to used market when Tesla 3 ships in numbers. I might get a (used) Bolt instead of 3 if Bolt can tow.

You think Model 3 will be able to tow? That’d be awesome. Obviously you can’t go very far that way, but for me the short-haul towing is the kind I’d be able to use!

Question of Tesla 3 towing pops up again and again. Musk tweeted that it will have optional tow hitch. It may not tow much, but all I need is about 1000 lb to tow a trailer to make home depot runs for plywood. Anything more, I’d need to rent a truck or, heaven forbid, get my F350 running again and pay 7 miles per gallon!

Not sure about towing on Bolt, though. Being FWD and small frame, it may not be able to tow, though Chevy said nothing about it so far.

Tow what? Despite the warnings in the owners manuals, any car on the road today can tow a light trailer. There are type-I hitches available if you search for them. And that can tow up to 1500 lbs.

Brian said:

“Despite the warnings in the owners manuals, any car on the road today can tow a light trailer.”

Quite true, altho with a BEV you need to consider what the effect on driving range will be.

Of course any car can tow. Even 1968 VW with 50 HP air cooled engine was used to tow stuff (dam I’m old…). But if it’s not officially sanctioned, you risk voiding the warranty. They could say towing anything put undue stress on drive components, including the battery, and cause to deny coverage. Even if that’s not legit reason, no sense in risking wasting time fighting it. It’s just easier if the car is rated to tow.

I personally wouldn’t bat an eye at towing 1000 lbs with a Bolt. Granted, I would stay off the highway and keep my speeds down below 45MPH if possible. Most people are forgiving of slow-moving cars towing trailers. Towing a trailer at 45MPH is not much more wear-and-tear than traveling with a fully loaded car on the highway at 80MPH. Of course, if you live in a hilly area that changes things.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t tow my 2500lb boat/trailer with anything short of a large SUV or Truck which is rated for a class-II hitch.

Again, towing anything could cause hassles for warranty claims. Even having a hitch to carry bicycles could cause nervous jitters at service time. That hassle is not worth even having a hitch.

If there’s no concern for warranty, of course, no problem towing about 1000 lb (or more; I’ll need to do the math), which is max I was planning using harbor freight $250 trailer. But that’s not going to happen if towing is not allowed. We’ll see what Chevy’s official position will be.

The auto manufacturer’s official position on towing will be in the owner’s manual.

I can assure you that they didn’t test for towing on a car intended for CARB-ZEV compliance (there’s no ZEV credit for towing), so, like the compliance 2012-2014 Toyota RAV4 EV (which even has the mounting holes ready for a tow hitch), towing will be prohibited.

I have a 2″ receiver on my RAV4 EV, and have never been questioned for a warranty repair (including motor swap).

It’s not just about CARB. I noticed some (many?) cars that used to tow 1500 lb or more are scaled back to half or less. Many (most? all?) subcompacts are not allowed to tow at all, not even the Prius. Going by old VW experience, all cars should easily tow ~1000 lb. Reason may have more to do with drive train wear, warranty, liability.

But it is very annoying. At the very least, I’d like to put a hitch for bicycle rack, but I don’t want warranty / lease turn in hassles. My next car must have towing ability.

The Bolt isn’t in the same league of the Tesla, Tesla has a real suspension.

However, yes, it would be great to start running on electrons sooner then later, and to put a used lease on the market in 2 to 3 years, for the Planet.

“The Bolt isn’t in the same league of the Tesla, Tesla has a real suspension.”

Real suspensions don’t use air.

The Model S is fast, but no one calls it nimble because it is so large. The Model 3 might be more fun to drive than the S. And as far as the Bolt all the reviews so far say it’s a blast to drive.

Funny 🙂

That’s probably an overestimate but I do think they will be late. The first cars will probably be delivered mid-2018 but then the ramp up will be a lot slower than claimed. There is no way they are delivering 500k cars in 2018, it’s a huge stretch if they manage it in 2020 even.

+1 I understand a lot of people want that car ASAP. But to those who put up some crazy number for the first year production.

You based on what? If Tesla is able to spit out 500K cars/year in 2020 (all models) he would have pull one the best ramp up production ever. What that means is by now, they should have already shown that delivery excellence, but it is not the case, deliveries are currently missing targets and some people believe adding a new model in the mix will suddenly increase the capacity and delivery excellence?

Sorry, brace youself, it won’t happen, it’s not happening now.

My guess is that Elon is putting out crazy, impossible numbers for goals just to motivate his employees and suppliers to work as hard as they can, to enable a ramp up as fast as possible.

I certainly agree that 500,000 cars in 2018 is a completely impossible goal, and even the original goal of 500k cars (not all Model ≡’s) in 2020 was a pretty difficult target. If Tesla can reach that production by 2019, that will be a very impressive ramp up; one that I’m guessing hasn’t been seen in heavy industry since WW II, when restrictive government regulations and environmental restrictions were not a concern.

Yeah, a few years ago on this site, I predicted, along with a couple others, that first deliveries of the 3 would be summer of 2018 (Q2 or Q3). After all that has happened, and where things appear to stand…I’m sticking with it.

First deliveries: Summer 2018.

As I recall, that was my prediction too, before the 400k reservations and before Elon started talking about an accelerated schedule.

I’m willing to believe we’ll see the first few Model ≡’s delivered to owners by the very end of 2017, but it won’t actually surprise me if it doesn’t happen until, as you say, 2nd or 3rd quarter 2018.

I will be very surprised to see more than a few hundred Model ≡’s produced in 2017, and my guess is that it will be less than 200. (Not a prediction… just a guess.)

Has Tesla denied any car manufacturer from using their charging technology and Supercharging Network for a reasonable licensing fee?

If they have it would be big news.


We should not conflate access to Tesla’s superchargers with use of patents.

For example, a company could use the patents and build their own supercharger or network of superchargers without establishing any license to use Tesla’s. They may not be able to name them “superchargers” if Tesla has that name trademarked.

Tesla is encouraging other auto makers to join their network — by which Tesla means they should help pay for it. As a “carrot”, Tesla has offered a free license to use its patents. Seems to me that an objective view of the situation would be that: (a) Tesla can’t reasonably do anything more than it’s already doing to encourage the spread of nationwide (in the USA) or continent-wide (in Europe) fast charging. (b) Other auto makers have no incentive to join Tesla’s system. In the first place, nobody else builds PEVs with such a large battery pack, so non-Tesla cars can’t charge as fast as Telsa cars, and don’t need Supercharger-rate charging. In the second place, other auto makers would be pretty stupid to put themselves at the mercy of Tesla, regarding long-distance travel in PEVs. There’s nothing to prevent Tesla from suddenly starting to charge a stiff fee for any non-Tesla cars accessing the Supercharger system, or even cutting them off altogether. Now, of course, Tesla fans are going to argue that Tesla wouldn’t do that. But from a business perspective, it’s pretty naive to make your business depend on the good will of a competitor. Much as… Read more »

That nationwide new protocol charging sounds awesome.

Thankfully, Tesla already did that. Unless you have a financier for the competing new standard, I’m going to guess your idea will stay just that.

It will be a bit difficult for any competing charge standard to compete with:

1) Free forever (or prepaid package with car sale)

2) Existing nationwide / worldwide infrastructure

3) Fastest charging (120kW today) versus the “competition” at 20kW to 50kW typical today

Good luck with your venture.

300 miles in 10 minutes is at least 0,5 MW or 500 kW. That will not happen pre 2030.

The target was mid 2015. So taking this Tesla formula into account then if it were 1 year and 10 months late it would be second quarter 2017.

That’s a tad optimistic, how about Q3? 😉

The better question is – when will the $35k Model III arrive? The first production cars will be highly optioned and probably pushing $50k. Remember that the $35k Model III does not have any options, including supercharger access. Just the hardware on board that can be enabled at any time for some unknown cost. Will anyone ever buy such a car and leave the largest differentiating feature unused? Maybe. Maybe not.

SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

Realistic for full production estimates. GM puts out realistic #s. Tesla has created its own monster by taking reservations and will only fail miserably in ramp up;

No matter what they do cause they have no infrastructure to manage to problem cars coming off the line so fast.

Of course, they’d have to actually start even initial production.

some res holders will back out because of this article.


Has anyone received a base, 5 seat Model X yet? I imagine people that pre-ordered a base Model 3 might have to wait till 2020 for their delivery…

“Has anyone received a base, 5 seat Model X yet?”
No base 5-seat ModelX delivered yet. Good point. Tesla says the first 5-seat ModelX will be delivered the end of 2016. That’s 15 months after the Sep. ’15 launch. So maybe the first base M☰ will be delivered 15 months after the launch. Ouch!

That seems realistic, given the large number of reservations.

First deliveries of fully optioned 3’s to current Tesla owners in CA in March of 2018.
Average 4,000 a month through July, 2018, first east coast delivery in June.
Average 6,000 a month from August to December,2018. First base 3’s sold.
75,000 in 2019.
120,000 in 2020.

Start your propaganda piece with examples of some of Humanities most well known tragedies and failures, then try to associate your target with them… Guilt by association.


So why is InsideEV’s reposting this trash here? Repeating ‘Clueless Driver’ magazine, does not do your readership justice. We expect better quality journalism than having to read their recycled regurgitation.


Tesla does not pay one cent in advertising to Car And Driver. Whereas, all the other manufacturers do. And for whatever reason… Tesla are in bed with Motor Trend. So it isn’t surprising C&D would publish such sour grapes garbage.

To an audience of Tesla fans, when Elon Musk announced the timeline of the Model 3, he said it sarcastically and the whole audience laughed. Your allegation of some kind of automaker-auto press conspiracy is ridiculous and unfounded. Not even Tesla thinks they will deliver Model 3 on time. On multiple earnings conference calls, Musk has detailed his approach of setting a date they know they cannot meet in order to get suppliers to move as quickly as possible. I don’t know if that is a good or a bad approach but that is his stated approach.

Zim — Yes, Tesla has set a summer of 2017 production date for the suppliers, and nobody really believes that date.

But Tesla already has that delay already accounted for in their late 2017/early 2018 production plans they are talking about for buyers.

So that expected delay is already baked into to final date.

When Model 3 sales have filled all existing preorders, and the Chevy Bolt has been surpassed in total sales numbers of DELIVERED model 3 Teslas,(given Chevy Bolts has a 1-2 year head start), the year will be probably be 2020. The head to head competion really starts when the base model stock EV vehicles are in inventory and ready for delivery to new customers making payment.

The calculation is flawed because the 535-day average of past launches already includes all the variables they subsequently added.

Some variables they didn’t include are:
1. The Model 3 is a simpler design than the S or X.
2. Tesla has learned a lot about mass production since the launch of the S.
3. There seems to be greater transparency on the development process of the 3. The design is allegedly ‘done’, with tooling, pre-production, qualification, and certification are next. A lot of work, but at least we know where things stand.

So, I’m still hoping for a late Q1-2018 launch. Other things could sway me to cancel my pre-order, however, such as learning that *my* car isn’t $35-40k, but $50k, or availability of other interesting cars like the Kia Niro.

Yeah, there is no math there. It’s all hogwash.

The article is pretty obviously satire bordering on the ridiculous. But it is amusing in much the same way as the Irish guy reporting on the “Olympics” sailing regatta was amusing.

A. BMW is losing sales to the promise of the Model 3.

B. BMW spends a lot of money on Hearst Corp publications (C&D included). … Tesla spends $0.

therefore, ..

C. This is a Hearst Magazine textbook hit piece.

I’m gonna guess C&D had Titanic AND Apollo 1 in the original draft.. but decided they had to water it down just a bit and instead utilized Apollo 11 for their “Space X allusion”

I don’t see how you can be sure about A. The X3 and X1 are on fire right now and BMW is clearly seeing a shift from sedans to SUV’s. Their US sales are off last years numbers but luxury automakers may also be the canary in the coal mine — the auto market as a whole is flattening out. Also, the new Mercedes C and Audi A4, both of which compete with BMW 3-series are brand new redesigns. That always makes an impact.

Not that I trust any of these magazines, but…..

BMW Declares War on Tesla and Its Waiting List

I thought it was pretty obviously tongue-in-cheek, rather than a hit piece.

They put the Model S on the 10Best list. Must have been part of the conspiracy, just to throw us off the trail.

Look, I enjoy a good joke as much as the next guy. But this C&D article’s primary goal is not to entertain, any more than the Mercedes AA+ SNL “skit” ad was. These are ads with a purpose and that purpose is to FUD Tesla.

Usually they draw you in with sex in order to sell you their product.

This is a little different in that they draw you in with humor and then proceed to scare you off the competition.

Subliminal advertising is alive and well and active — just about every time you pick up a magazine or start looking at a screen.

I agree with Breezy, it was pretty obviously satire, and it was kind of funny. I don’t see this as a hit piece at all.
The reason a lot of the Tesla supporters are a bit miffed is due to the fact that some of the jokes strike a bit close to the truth.
The 3 will arrive eventually and it will be a very good car. I just wish it would arrive sooner rather than later.

But hey thanks for all the $1k loans suckers.

*What Elon really wants to tweet but intelligently won’t*

Seriously though I actually think they will begin the “first” delivery before 2019. Best of luck Tesla.

The biggest suckers are humans that are addicted to fossil fuels for transportation. Just like the humans that are addicted to sugar and become dependent on medications to treat high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney failure etc… Are you one of the above suckers?

We are 1/2 way through August. When is reveal part 2?

“much closer to production” – I would say maybe Q1 or Q2 of 2017…

When AutoPilot 2.0 is ready to go on Model S/X.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the magazine, CD tests out another 200 mile BEV which will be in dealer showrooms in a matter of months, and they love it.

“What’s your guess for volume production of the Model 3?” 2nd or 3rd quarter 2018. Car & Driver says “late 2019”? The author of that article is being unduly pessimistic, and frankly that’s rather uninformed reporting. There were reasons for Tesla delaying the Model X, beyond just the reported development problems with the falcon wing doors and the 2nd row seats. With battery supply limited, it made sense for Tesla to keep ramping up production of the Model S, for which they had many or most of the production problems worked out and costs amortized, rather than put the new Model X into production, with all the expenses associated with tooling up for a new model. But Tesla is betting quite a lot of money on the Gigafactory, and that bet will only pay off when the Model ≡ is being produced in significant numbers. Frankly, it’s absurd to compare the delays in Model X production with the push to start production on the M≡ ASAP. Either somebody at Car & Driver didn’t do his homework on this article, or else — more likely — this is just sensationalized reporting intended to get attention to the magazine… and that succeeded,… Read more »

On second thought, Ziv and Breezy are right. I hadn’t read the article carefully enough. The “calculations” include factors which are obviously jokes (“Act of God (AG)”), so the date of Sep/Oct 2019 isn’t meant to be taken seriously.

Car and Driver is half right and half wrong.

They are right about the delays, but they are wrong about the starting point is for calculating the delays.

C&D’s mistake was failing to account for the fact that the Model E (strike that, now Model 3) is basically already 2 years behind schedule:

So they are right in the delays they predicted, but they are applying their math on top of the delays having already happened.

I repeated their math, but using the original Model E timeframe, and it came up with a mid 2017 delivery date. Based on their own math, when applied correctly, their math predicts that Tesla will actually meet the summer of 2017 target date that Elon has talked about publicly.

Well, I don’t think we will see them hit the Summer 2017 target. But limited numbers in late 2017, and production ramp-up in 2018 certainly seems possible.

Excellent point!

If Tesla can’t even ramp up the Model S production to their own (relatively modest) goals–a car which has been in production for four years–I fail to see how they will do it for the 3. Toyota-level manufacturing prowess is just not in Tesla’s DNA.

How many cars per week do you think Tesla made in 2012, and how many cars per week do you think they make now?

This is easy information to find; your statement as preposterous.

2018,2019,2020 I don’t care how long it takes as long as it is a reliable BEV and not a gas guzzler. I’m not cancelling my reservation.