Cumulative Tesla Model 3 Production Estimate Exceeds 175,000

JAN 23 2019 BY MARK KANE 83

Roughly 20,000 were produced so far this year.

According to Bloomberg’s Tesla Model 3 Tracker, Tesla produced cumulatively more than 175,000 Tesla Model 3.

Today, the counter indicates 175,870 Model 3 produced, which means 20,208 units produced so far in January.

The most important news is that the average rate of production finally is at around 5,000 per week. The Tesla Model 3 Tracker shows 4,992 per week, which is one of the highest levels and gives hope for further increase in the near future.

The number consists of officially announced production results in previous quarters and estimated production rates in the current quarter.

Production and deliveries of Model 3 in previous quarters thus far:

  • 2017’Q3 – 260 produced, and 222 delivered
  • 2017’Q4 – 2,425 produced and 1,542 delivered
  • 2018’Q1 – 9,766 produced and 8,182 delivered
  • 2018’Q2 – 28,578 produced and 18,449 delivered
  • 2018’Q3 – 53,239 produced and 56,065 delivered
  • 2018’Q4 – 61,394 produced and 63,150 delivered
  • Total by the end of 2018’Q4 – 155,662 produced and 147,610 delivered
  • 2019’Q1 – already 20,208 produced (estimated)

Tesla registered 265,119 VIN numbers for the Model 3, out of which over 71,000 so far were in this month. Most of the latest registrations are for all-wheel-drive cars (over 58,000) and for international markets – outside of North America (over 44,000).

Source: Tesla Model 3 TrackerModel 3 VINs

Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

83 Comments on "Cumulative Tesla Model 3 Production Estimate Exceeds 175,000"

newest oldest most voted

[quote]So far this year, Tesla registered 265,119 VIN numbers[/quote]

Uh, no, that’s the overall total. The total for this year is the same as for this month, given that we’re in January.

Go Tesla! Now let’s start removing the bundled PUP option, release the $35K version and allow leasing…

Tesla will have to coordinate that with loss of incentives in USA or they risk a sales plummet after the incentives are lowered.

Tesla lowered their prices to compensate the incentive loss. Enough with your talk of plummets, you scoundrel!

By 1k….let’s not forget they upped the price by 1k just weeks earlier…i guess that was in anticipation of the 2k discount.

They are simply following the Amazon sale model.

I don’t think the remaining incentive loss will matter that much

I think that should be their next step. Release the mid-range without PUP at $40k as an intermediate step to standard range. Alternately release standard range + PUP at $39-$40k. I imagine there is a lot of profit built into PUP.

Once they get closer to 10K per week production rate, they may not need the PUP in order maintain high margins. So mid of 2019 seems about right time to bring the 35K short range and 40K Mid range.

Higher production rate doesn’t really help margins much at this point.

Building cars in Shanghai will help margins in China a lot via reduced tariffs and margins in elsewhere in APAC somewhat. As they increase local content in the China cars they’ll ship some parts back to the US and eventually Europe to improve margins there.

I expect a 39k SR+PUP in March/April.

Higher production helps because: parts discounts improve at volume; the volume is on the (almost) same equipment, and therefore its cost is spread over more cars; and other efficiencies improve the GM.

For the PUP to become optional, I believe believe the trickle down effect will happen…Perfect the non-PUP interior on the high margin Performance version first, trickle that down to non-performance LR AWD, etc…

What crazy person would buy a Performance Model 3 without PUP?

The 4,992 per week is the average for the last 3 months(13 week average) not what they are currently producing!! If you look at the light green bars that indicate the current rate which is around 6200 per week… That’s why the 3 month average is moving up..

This! From Bloomberg => “An update to the model on Oct. 2 adopted a 13-week trailing average for our weekly estimate.” Mark/Steven, this needs to be added to the article for accurate reporting.

They say Tesla produced 20,200 in January. They also say it produced 15,500 (4700/week for 3.3 weeks).

Whichever number you want, Bloomberg can deliver 🙂

Bloomberg also change historical numbers retrospectively. So apart from reporting vin number registration correctly I do not hold there Tesla production stat in high regard.

The weekly rate is 13 week average. Not the current rate.

Bloomberg’s website for what it laughable calls a “Model 3 Production Tracker” (it’s a pretty inaccurate estimator, not at all a tracker) is littered with notes about corrections which had to be made retroactively to their estimates. It amazes me that the Bloomberg estimator keeps getting so much attention, because it’s almost wildly inaccurate. I suppose some might say “It’s better than nothing”, but I don’t agree.

In Q4 Bloomberg underestimated production throughout the quarter and then in the last couple of days, before production numbers were announced, increased the total production for the quarter so they can say it’s accurate. Maybe they have a mole inside the factory.

If this follows for Q1 then they have produced more than 20,200 so far. If there were a demand problem they wouldn’t keep producing at this level. Tesla is pretty good at matching factory output to demand.

They are usually production constrained since demand>>production. Recent discontinuance of S/X75D means buyers will buy either S/X100D or high end 3 … all have better gross margins than the 75s. Recent layoffs are partly due to letting extra employees from 2018 year end push go as they improve delivery processes.

Yes, they changed their number on the last day of Q4. They also changed it dramatically a few days before Q3 ended. And Q2….

And the best part is that every single one of them — just like Bolts and Leafs and the 27,000 different EVs sold in China, etc. — will run for their entire service lives fueled by the tears of oil company execs.

Exactley!!

Are you seeing oil consumption going down?
It went up more from 2017 to 2018 than from 2006 to 2007.
Economic crises bring oil consumption down, EVs barely move the needle… at least for now
The same way cars are going electric, for now I think oil is just going to be used in different fields… But I trust the world will become cleaner.

There are only about 5 million EVs in the world. Out of some 1 billion vehicles. So no it won’t impact oil consumption significantly for a while yet

And then when we pull out the PHEVs that exaggerate the ‘ev’ numbers with a low electric range from the low teens to a high in the 50s for Volt, the number of actual BEVs that don’t use gasoline on a daily basis is still quite low globally. The oil industry is all for PHEVs because it keeps them in the game, knowing most will drive it as a hybrid, and burning gas to recharge the battery. But I think it is the big school busses that are switching to BEV that may have the biggest impact on gasoline usage globally. For example 1 school bus removes 36 cars from the road and there are 480,000 school busses on the road in the US. But since those cars are already removed with ICE busses, it’s just the fuel savings itself going BEV that has the biggest impact. http://www.americanschoolbuscouncil.org/issues/environmental-benefits While at the same time the US just spend $84 million to help replace diesel busses with electric in cities across the nation with an annual savings of $46k on average for diesel fuel PER BUS. Cities throughout the world are replacing their diesel busses as fast as they can with a… Read more »

The oil industry is not for PHEVs either as people will cut gas usage substantially. Me going from my ICE to PHEV cut my gas usage from about 1500 gallons a year to 300 gallons per year. That is not good news for oil companies.

I use 1,500 gallons of diesel a month in my 18 wheeler.

It all adds up.

YUP!!!

If folks really want to cut their fossil fuel use, they would quit ordering products to be delivered to their door step.

Now in my retirement years I drive a school bus about 25-30 hrs a week. I agree with most of what you say, except for one correction. Diesel school buses get about 8-9 mpg, not 3 mpg. This is urban/suburban with almost no highway driving.

School bus will be ideal for EV conversion. Low speed, RPM’s and start-stop type of driving is ideal for EV efficiency.

… and relatively few miles per day.

And the schedule is very favorable for returning power to the grid: 3 hr run in the morning, 4 hrs off, 3 hrs in the afternoon, idle at night, weekends, holidays.
There are of course exceptions, but this is a typical schedule.

“And then when we pull out the PHEVs that exaggerate the ‘ev’ numbers with a low electric range from the low teens to a high in the 50s for Volt, the number of actual BEVs that don’t use gasoline on a daily basis is still quite low globally.”

Given that Volts get about 2/3 of their miles on all-electric range, why in the world would you want to distort the true figure by pulling the fleet of Volts out of the total? I can see an argument for including only 2/3 of the number of Volts sold, but deleting them altogether is more of a distortion of the truth than including all of them.

I expect a similar ratio applies to the Clarity PHEV.

I agree that BEV buses will have a significant impact on oil consumption, but it would take 20-25 years to replace all of them.

In addition, oil is also used to power ships, trains, air planes, agricultural machines, industrial heaters, etc etc.

Hopefully, a big drop in oil usage will happen within 10-15 years.

But then again, California is just about at 10% EVs of new car sales. Keep it coming, baby!

In Michigan, BEVs run partly on coal and partly on natural gas.

Except for those who run on solar which believe it or not, some do even in Michigan. And not even counting those, you still have to do 50MPG in a gasoline car to pollute less than a median EV.

Easier to clean the grid than have emissions controls on rolling power plants, ask any engineer. Especially those working for Volkswagen Auto Group.

And as I keep pointing out, we desperately need to reduce our CO2 emissions from the three major sectors: electricity generation, transportation, and buildings. By putting lots of EVs on the road ASAP we get a nice kicker as we clean up electricity generation, and the drivers don’t have to do anything — heck, they likely won’t even know that their carbon footprint is going down.

My marginal carbon footprint is virtually 0. My EV is charged with 100% green electrons provided by a third-party supplier we signed up with. For literally about 1.5 cents/kWh more than standard electricity cost, that’s a huge bargain.

Exactly. Rolling power plants that only reach peak efficiency at certain times, under certain conditions. Assuming the CEL is not lit….

And partially on solar, wind, nuclear and hydro… Last time I checked coal did about a third of the electricity there.

Last time I checked EVs were less than 1% there, so if the people who own wind/solar and EVs are the same people it makes a big difference.

Salty!

Great news!
Can we hope for 7k/week before END of q1?
Elon, please offer the hitch option in the european/ northern countries. Sales will soar!

I don’t think options would change anything, They are producing as much as they can

It would change the number of orders… 😉

Last we knew, limiting factory was battery cell production. So for every 10 mid-range they build right now, they could build about 12 standard ranges instead… revenue of $450K for the mid-ranges vs $480K for the standard ranges… will certainly boost revenue.

Profit margin on MR is probably currently a positive number. Current projected Profit margin on the larger revenue for SR is probably negative, Thus, no SR at this time.

This may be true for a true base car at $35k. However, even most SRs will include options which will make them profitable. I suspect that the decreasing battery costs, volume discounts, and efficiencies will actually eek a small profit from even the $35k car.

you Are right. Production is the limiting factor
But there is a chance for Tesla to sell a lot more of the pricey versions, but around here a hitch is a must have

This is just a result of Tesla registering a lot of VINS. Read the comments on the blog itself – it’s likely still around 5000 per week.

They are currently producing (6.2k + per wk) in 3 weeks what it took them almost 3 months in Q2 last year !

Take that production estimate with a large grain of salt. Bloomberg is unreliable for short-term production estimates. Unless we have other confirmation that Tesla is producing a steady 6k/week I’d assume it’s more like the 5k/week that they’ve been struggling to maintain for months.

I certainly would not take Bloomberg’s word on Tesla having actually produced 20k Model 3s in January already. Seems like one of those numbers that’s going to get adjusted down in the future.

Unlikely, rumors I have seen is production of batteries has been near or over 6k per week for most of the last 2 months. I find it unlikely that they would be storing batteries.

So that means they’ve done about 6400 per week in January. The 4900 number is an average for a few months I think. Sweet deal.

More accurately: 6,150 per week.

(20,208 / 22) X 7 = 6,150

I really wish the would update the text of the Bloomberg tracker article:

“If Tesla can’t figure out how to make more cars soon, it could open a lane for rivals from Detroit and overseas to establish the high-volume market for a $35,000 electric car—one that Tesla has had in its sights from its very beginning.”

Ford and GM are not about to sweep the rug from under Tesla if they “can’t figure out how to make more cars soon.”

Yes sir just like the $35,000 Bolt and Leaf are crushing Tesla at the moment. Actually less now with the tax credits.

Austrian Nissan dealer sent me an email today. There will only be 5000 Leaf with the 62kWh battery for all of Europe in 2019.
Good luck with that.

Wait for Model 3 Mid-Range or Standard Range. Within a year, they can probably sell 5000 a week in Europe.

I sort of suspected Model 3 production would be kept steady around the 5K/week mark as Tesla appeared to be quickly exhausting demand for high-end, no-lease versions and has to grapple with higher post incentive prices in the US so it’s great to learn production is actually still expanding and north of 6K/week now. Remarkable that there should be so much demand for these rather pricey versions, hopefully it’s enough to unlock the economies of scale for the lower priced versions.

Europe hasn’t had their chance at the pricey versions yet. It is their turn now.

China too.

Rest of world frankly — then there is the Right Hand Drive market…… it may go for a good part of 2019…

They have been producing 6k/week since Mid November as I understand it, and now they are moving toward 7k/week, but shipping roughly 3k/week overseas, so the US demand has likely saturated for a bit at around 4k/week, but world demand has not. Very roughly estimating/speculating here. Once world demand starts saturating I am sure we see a less expensive Model 3.

I still think many buyers of Model 3 are waiting to make sure the company is stable before pulling the trigger, so I think there is still plenty of demand in the US, but it might not materialize for a year or two. Also, any announcement on FSD could have a huge impact on sales as well.

It’s often suggested that US demand is currently in steep decline due to saturation of the high end component of Model 3 demand and the higher post incentive prices while overseas demand has to pick up the slack. It would be great if under such condition there is still net growth but we’ll see when the final numbers come in, Bloomberg tracker isn’t exactly the last word and Elon Musk’s alarming letter the other day suggests Tesla has to struggle to keep up demand needing lower priced versions.

I think you are misreading EM’s letter. They are transitioning to EU deliveries. Most cars have been sold in California, leaving the rest of the US as a large market. SR+PUP will be profitable, and have lots of demand (like me).

Didn’t Tesla report that in final quarter of 2018 they built on average less than 5000 Model 3 per week?

5K per week would have been 65K for the quarter. They were a bit under that. But the factory isn’t running every day of every week – they’re bringing it down on a regular basis to improve efficiency. Seems quite plausible that they’re satisfied with production for now and simply cruising at 6200/week.

4k/week is way too high for US right now, IMHO. I doubt they’ll deliver more than 5k Model 3s in January. Demand should come back somewhat in Feb/Mar, but more than 20-25k total for Q1 would surprise me.

75% of sales in Q4 were to new customers. So sales of the pricey version might slip by 25% as the deposit holders are now satisfied, but I expect they’ll still be pretty significant, and probably grow as more people become aware that Tesla exists.

Production is currently still around 5000 per week. (It is definitely not over 6000 a week). This is just a result of the mass VIN registering for Europe.

Musk stated that they will need to at least start producing the MR mid-range RWD version sometime in May. Tesla sold 139,000 Model 3s in the US last year. Unknown how many were MRs but safe to say 120,000 were not. Tesla has in the past has equaled global sales of the Model S & X with that of the US. If that holds true, you would expect 80,000 – 100,000 Model 3s sold in Europe, Japan, China, Australia, Canada, and Mexico combined between January – April. At 7000 per week, that only leaves 20,000+ for the US market. If I were king of Tesla, I would try and sell MRs with premium packaging for 4 -6 weeks or as close to the close of Q2 to maintain profit. You then start filling the standard range at a higher volume in the US only at first first to hold as much margin and tax credit as possible. Q3 results are released at the last moment deep into November. HOPEFULLY, gigafactory 3 is close to partial production to supply the SR to the Asia market, followed by the rest of the world from this point moving forward. I would expect the… Read more »

We NEED the MR in Austria ASAP. The AWD versions are too expensive to qualify for the subsidy of € 3000.
(BTW: you only qualify for the subsidy if you have a contract for 100% renewable electricity with your provider.)

“80,000 – 100,000 Model 3s sold in Europe, Japan, China, Australia, Canada, and Mexico combined between January – April. ”

That’s too high. Jan-Apr overseas Model 3 deliveries will be 40-60k. The higher number assumes they ship continuously and take the huge hit to Q1 reported revenue, profit and cash flow. If they use the S/X start-stop cadence then it’ll be closer to 40k.

Tesla only offers AWD/P overseas for now. Those versions comprised less than half of US/Canada sales in 2017-18, call it 65k. That’s why Musk says they have to ship MR overseas by May.

More like the side of a steep mountain than an S curve.

Model 3 Sales in U.S. is still estimated to be 12k per month.
Even if it dropped off 40% it will still be the best selling EV in US for many months.

So, they will reach 300k in total in the end of 2019? Or will they reach more?
Maybe 450-500k in the end of 2020?
Or will they be able to keep factory running at full speed? At least when the cheap model comes. Then they may reach 650k – a million maybe..
Unless there come competitors, or current EVs from other manufacturers lower their prices.

There are no real competitors yet. The recent ‘competitors’ are disappointing, but they will sell well in their limited numbers. It is hard to match the 3’s safety, efficiency, range, features, SC charging, etc.

Just make sure you read the 1/23 blog post on the Bloomberg Model 3 Tracker site before you get too excited.