Cumulative Tesla Model 3 Production Estimate Exceeds 200,000

FEB 19 2019 BY MARK KANE 43

Roughly 200,000 produced in about 20 months.

Bloomberg’s Tesla Model 3 Tracker shows that cumulative production of the Tesla Model 3 exceeds the major milestone of 200,000. That is since July 2017 when the 30 first were delivered.

The counter indicates 200,667 total Model 3 produced and an average production rate of 5,455 Model 3 per week.

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

Total production this quarter reportedly already hit 45,000, which, with more than one month to go, should make Q1 the best quarter so far, but of course, a lot depends on how accurate the estimates are.

Keep in mind that Bloomberg’s tracker is not intended to successfully track production over the short term. Adjustments are made on a regular basis so that it’s fairly accurate over time. Still, it’s interesting to keep an eye on it and get some idea of which way numbers are headed. You can take the trends and averages found in the tracker, along with other available online data, and come up with your own estimate.

As you can see in the graph, the raw weekly data indicates a level of 8,000 Model 3 per week (which we know is not true). Even Bloomberg openly admits that it doesn’t represent its best estimate of current output. Assuming that the average is close to the real production rate (and increasing), the production rate must also increase, at least to the neighborhood of about 6,000 per week. It’s also difficult to know if a production number like this is sustained or based on bursts, since there are many variables in place here.

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
  • 2019’Q1 – already 45,005 produced (estimated)

Cumulative through the end of 2018’Q4 – 155,662 produced and 147,610 delivered.

Separately, we noted that Tesla registered 292,118 VIN numbers for the Model 3, including more than 54,000 for international markets (outside of North America).

Source: Tesla Model 3 TrackerModel 3 VINs

Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

43 Comments on "Cumulative Tesla Model 3 Production Estimate Exceeds 200,000"

newest oldest most voted

That’s still 7.5k circa per wk this quarter and rising, not too shabby.

Which exceeds their goal for the end of 2019.

So if you add in the x and s then they are making around 9,000 cars a week. Or 468,000 cars a year. So it looks like they are already on track to surpass their goals for the year. In other words Musk is wisely placing Tesla in a position where they will exceed expectations.

Remember the 5,455 number is a 13 week moving average. The tracker shows 8k per week now as it was way low earlier. I think Tesla has been at 6k per week for some time, even when showing 4k a week in the chart. The 8k is not a real value, just a correction to the fact the tracker was underestimating the earlier weeks by a large margin.

I am using 7,000 a week as an estimate for current weekly production.

You can get a more accurate estimate of weekly production with a pair of dice.

Every step of the way there are doubters….

Right. It’s unfortunate that Bloomberg chooses to correct previous over- or under-estimates by switching to deliberate under- or over-estimates, in an attempt to correct the average.

I see multiple reasons to ignore what Bloomberg calls its “Model 3 Production Tracker”… which isn’t at all a tracker, but rather an estimator, and a wildly inaccurate one at that.

I see no reason to pay any attention to it, and it puzzles me that InsideEVs keeps citing that as a source for articles.

People follow it because it shows the trend

“Wildly inaccurate”? The tracker has been quite accurate in longer-term trends, such as the 13-week (AKA one quarter) running average represented by the line in the graph. It has been shown – repeatedly, I might add – to be within a few percent of the numbers Tesla later publishes themselves.

You need to stop looking at the individual weekly segments. Which, by the way, is exactly what this article here says (if you’d actually go read it).

It’s only within a few percent thanks to huge adjustments right before Tesla’s announcement. Sometimes they adjust up, sometimes down. Before the adjustment they’ve been off by 20% or so.

It’s probably the most reliable source out there we have right now, and seems to have correctly shown the long plateau of the second two quarters of 2018 when Tesla didn’t produce more than about 4,500 M3s a week, and the production that is now nearing 6k/week.

While the 8000 per week raw data is almost certain to be inflated by the 278K registrations, the 5,455 per week is a 13-week trailing average and should be stated. Grammar nazis constantly call for corrections. Though grammatically challenged, the statistical data has the same effect on me. The current production rate is much higher than 5,455 for some time now. Nothing wrong with posting 5,455 per week when stating 13-week trailing average.

Exactly. The most interesting estimate is the quarter to date number which indicates that Tesla will produce 50% more model 3s this quarter compared to last quarter.

And just like that, the registrations are nearing 300K, and weekly production is stating 5,500 without stating an average (except in graph notes). They scare me the most when their cumulative data fluctuates backward on a daily basis now. Bloomberg is all over the place. The one trustworthy number is the one reported by IEVs at the end of every month.

Grammar nazis?

If you’re referring to my objections to Bloomberg calling their wildly inaccurate production estimator a “tracker”… well, that’s not an error in grammar. It’s flat out misrepresentation. The difference between “true” and “false” isn’t a matter of grammar!

If Bloomberg stuck to actually tracking Tesla’s Model 3 production, then nobody would be complaining. It’s unfortunate that they choose to keep making estimates of current and near-future production based on data which keeps leading them to wildly inaccurate estimates, as various notes at their own website report.

Mark, help me with the numbers. If Mod 3s are being produced at this rate and assumedly sold immediately then how could Jan 19s monthly sales number be only 6500 and will Febs number therefore be massive to correct it?

They are going to Europe and China. And, there is definitely no immediate delivery. They have to be loaded on a ship and cross the ocean, then be prepped to deliver. Only a small amount can be transported at a time. We only report U.S. sales numbers in our monthly scorecard. This is about cumulative production. Upcoming deliveries in the U.S. will continue to be down since deliveries have shifted to oversea’s markets. However, this article has nothing to do with sales or U.S. sales. Again, it’s a production estimate, which is made abundantly clear in the article, and there are two paragraphs of disclaimers.

I Find it hard to believe that the Title, which state US sales, does not convey the information that it’s US sales only. And all previous articles showing a massive cargo of Model 3 going to Europe en China have been written ad nose-am, on this site and others, and still, people do not want to believe that the Model 3 is a financial success…

I’m confused. The title talks about cumulative production. It says nothing about sales or about U.S. anything. The article is about the total approximate number of Model 3 vehicles manufactured. Our site’s Monthly Sales Scorecard tracks U.S. deliveries, which is a whole different story. Perhaps we are thinking the same or you are confused, but I don’t understand your comment. Sorry.

Considering Model 3’s European focus this year, will IEVs be tracking sales outside the US?

We always publish multiple articles about oversea’s deliveries. We also have tracking info for several European countries, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to estimate U.S. numbers. But, no, our scorecard will always officially count U.S. numbers. EV sales blogspot covers global, and we leave that to them since our scorecard already encompasses much of our time.

It is now exactly 7 weeks since the beginning of the year. 40,005 / 7 = 6,429 average weekly production. This is significantly higher than Bloomberg’s production rate averaged line (ignore those light green background bars). Since all of this data comes from the same source, it shows uncertainty of data and I have to think the real answer is somewhere between the 5k/wk shown on the production chart and the total chart. This means Tesla has not yet made 200k cars. I think Tesla’s weekly production of Model 3 must be close to 6k/wk.

Was it not 45,005 ?

Actually what the data shows is that the first half of this quarter’s production is much higher than the last half of last quarter’s production. It shows that Tesla is making more cars with the same amount of labor which means that they are driving the labor cost per car down.

Love this rising BEV production numbers, and im really glad im not a shorter😁

Or it shows the Bloomberg estimate has gone of the rails. Again.

How far off is it in your opinion.

37-38k actual production this year vs. their 47k.

Lots of people are going to get triggered by this headline and the use of Bloomberg’s tracker for giving any meaningful estimates mid-quarter.

I’m one of them, so let me say it now: “It ain’t accurate; quit trying to draw any conclusions about production from this thing!!!!!11!!!!1!”

There, I’ve said it. Now take a deep breath and relax. Because frankly, it’s getting less and less important what the production figures look like at any given moment. They probably aren’t at 200k, but they probably will be within a week or two. Go back this time last year, or six months ago, and yes it was important, because there was a ramp up that needed to happen in order for Tesla to stay in business. But now, it really doesn’t matter any more because it’s not going to make any real long-term difference.

Yeah. If anyone comes to the conclusion, based on Bloomberg’s consistently inaccurate production estimator, that Tesla’s production this quarter is 50% higher than it was in last quarter… well, I think it’s almost certain those people are setting themselves up for a big disappointment when the real numbers come in. I include IEV’s own estimates in the category of “real numbers”, since they have been consistently shown to be pretty accurate. If I recall correctly, the largest difference between their estimate and the real numbers, for any month, was 200.

Now, that’s not to say that record will hold as Tesla’s production and sales continue to climb; the same margin of error in larger figures naturally will result in a larger variation in actual numbers. But InsideEVs’ staff go to a great deal of effort to make sure their estimates are pretty close, and I’ve come to trust them… trust both the figures and those who work to make IEVs’ estimates.


To some degree this is really the first plug-in vehicle success. It is the first one to have successful mainstream car sales success numbers.

The industry needs to copy the success of the Model 3:
-200+ miles range
-Attractive design
-(relatively) affordable
-120+KW DC-fast-charge port
-A good reliable network of DC fast-chargers.

If the automakers can do that AND can get the price down into the mid-$30K range, EVs will really start to take a bite out of ICE cars.

Just wait until the Model Y comes out!

Yes, putting a crossover out will help sales. Although it might not be quite as much as many think since I assume that a taller Model Y will have less range for the same battery amount. They might have to put in more batteries to get the same range. And larger size will cause larger price. Thus, it will cost more.

On the other hand, hopefully they will have been able to push battery costs down more such that the Model 3 will then become cheaper and the Model Y will be sold for the prices that the Model 3 started out with.

Right. it’s also my hopeful guess that in two or three years, we can have a 62 kWh battery in the Y (able to achieve some 250 EPA miles) for the price of the 50 kWh in the TM3 sometimes this year…

It’s pretty expected that the Model Y will cost more than the Model 3, isn’t it? In the same way that the Model X costs more than the Model S, and for the same reason. Bigger cars have bigger bodies, even if all else is equal, and that costs more to produce.

It’s what I’m waiting personally! But first, Tesla is working hard to be able to produce the $35.000 SR model 3 profitably, and it wasn’t, very understandably, an easy ride so far. Hope they succeed to do it sometime this year. Then, the true flood will begin especially here in Europe where the big VAT make the LR and even the MR Model 3 too expansive to allow very big sales numbers.

uh no.
The MS continues to still outsell its direct ICE competitors. As such, MS is really the first EV success.
And the industry is DYING to copy M3.

That’s true. The Model S certainly has stolen market share from the high-end luxury/sports-sedan market…the BMW 5 & 7 series end of the market. But the sales numbers of that niche market is pretty small so they were still able to largely ignore Tesla. There’s no way they can ignore 20,000+ Model 3s sold each month now.

20,000 Model 3s sold each month. Ancient history? How will they react to 20,000 sold bi monthly?

Im not so sure they will. Or can.
If they make great BEVs it will hurt their ICE sales. Thats why the fud and news of teslakillers will continue to be just that; news.. , not high number deliveries
its kind of sad

Yes, they will drag their feet for as long as possible. That’s why the Model 3 is the HUGE breakthrough plug-in vehicle…it has been so successful that it has swallowed up ICE market share. Specifically, the Tesla Model 3 has swallowed up ICE market share in the luxury/sports-sedan segment. They can no longer ignore it as it is seriously eating up their sales.

It’s just one small segment of the overall auto market. But since it is an area of significant profits, it is one they can no longer ignore.

If I recall correctly, the Model 3 has about 0.5% of the overall auto market. While that certainly is significant for a single model, it’s rather far from “seriously eating up their sales”.