Investor Says Tesla Model 3 Will Zero BMW 3 Series Sales

1 month ago by Steven Loveday 145

The popularity of the Tesla Model 3 is staggering, especially when considering the circumstances.

We may have seen this one coming a mile away — Tesla Model 3 kills BMW 3 Series sales — but “zero” is a bit much …  right?

It’s great to support Tesla and green energy for sure, but to say that the BMW 3 Series will lose all its sales sets a new definition for the word Bullish. If Tesla can move briskly on its S-Curve cranking out the Model 3 and take just a measurable percentage of sales from BMW, that is a feat in and of itself. We’d say if BMW sells 20 percent less 3 Series sedans a couple years from now, Tesla has done more than its initial job.

Tesla Model 3 Competitor

BMW 3 Series GT

The bullish man in question here is Social Capital founder and CEO, Chamath Palihapitiya. He recently spoke on CNBC’s Fast Money Halftime Report and said that BMW 3 Series business will “go to zero” following the Model 3. He asserts that 3 Series orders are already taking a significant hit because of the Model 3 pre-orders. Palihapitiya believes:

“…that entire business is going to go to zero.” (referring very specifically to the BMW 3 Series)

“…people are fundamentally misunderstanding the demand of the Model 3.”

Obviously, Palihapitiya knows his claim will be disputed, and he likely meant it with some level of exaggeration. You can’t honestly estimate that something will be so infinite in one direction or another. He made an attempt to better qualify his context, explaining that he believes so strongly in the Model 3 … that the Model 3 is significantly better on such a huge level that:

“There is not a single person of right, sound mind and body, if you could build a Tesla Model 3 online and get it delivered in 30, 60, 90 days, or you have the choice of buying the BMW 3 Series will choose the BMW.”

So, according to Palihapitiya, BMW will continue to sell 3 Series’ successfully, but only to crazy, stupid people.

In all honesty, it’s probably more like BMW will successfully sell 3 Series’ until Tesla can get the Model 3’s production house in order, then it will sell some unknown fraction less thereafter. Right now, Tesla is telling people 12 to 18 months ETA on initial reservations, so BMW has awhile to figure things out. If BMW can get a move on with a pure electric 3 Series in that span of time, well then now we’re talking about more of a fight.

Source: CNBC

Tags: , , , ,

145 responses to "Investor Says Tesla Model 3 Will Zero BMW 3 Series Sales"

  1. Greg says:

    The only thing Model 3 has in common with 3 series is the price range and the fact they’re both cars of similar size. Other than that, they couldn’t be more different, with strong selling points on both sides.

    1. Mister G says:

      Strong selling points on both sides? Model 3=clean, renewable, less CO2, weaker hurricanes, less destruction, less tax payer money spent on hurricane disasters. BMW 3= dirty toxic emissions, non-renewable, more CO2, stronger hurricanes, more destruction, more tax payer money spent on hurricane disasters….I don’t see any strong points for BMW gas guzzlers.

      1. Big Solar says:

        plus tons of maintenance on the bmw

        1. David says:

          That’s part of the appeal of the BMW, tinkering with it and taking it in to the shop to be fixed.

          What are former BMW owners going to do with all their extra time and money?

      2. Viking79 says:

        Electric cars are not zero emission. So much electricity is generated from combustion of gasses and coal that it won’t go away any time soon, and in fact might temporarily increase to handle strong demand. I am not being a troll here, EVs will be better long run, but many way over exaggerate the immediate impact.

        1. SparkEV says:

          Thank you for some sanity, but I’ll go even further. There were far more strong hurricanes in 1930’s than recent, so if you go by the logic of relating weather event to CO2, we should be producing more CO2 since hurricanes were worse with less CO2. This is exactly like Sen Inhofe attributing snow to no climate change. Relating weather instance to climate is anti-science.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTIiWbEQsuw

          1. Mint says:

            Agreed on the hurricanes. The data is too sparse and sporadic to make those kinds of claims with any certainty.

            1. mx says:

              Real Scientists tell us the hurricanes are more frequent Cat 5’s, because average water temperature is Higher, yielding More Energy into the storm.

              Playing with Dynamite! Boom. Look at Houston Texas.
              Humans are supposed to Learn From Experience.
              Smarter humans look at the scientific data, and AVOID the Experience.

              But, it’s your Southern Republican States, it’s your property, Roll the Dice.

              1. needa says:

                Well you know perhaps if the west coast didn’t treat tech, with it’s rare earth metals, plastics, and such, as disposable items we wouldn’t need so many boats bringing that crap across the ocean to fulfil ya’ll’s needs.
                But hey.. let’s just blame the dumb guys that don’t talk right for everyone’s hypothetical problems. Let’s not look in our own house. Way to be the stereotypical liberal and put the blame elsewhere.
                Yes. I used the boats thing because that’s where most of the data comes/has come from. It wasn’t until 2005 that they started placing boueys all over. So they don’t have enough data to prove squat right now. But you go right ahead and hurt the environment a little bit more by telling me how I am wrong.
                Southern republicans… KMA.

              2. SparkEV says:

                Why don’t you go look at the data readily available via google instead of shouting left wing political nonsense. Fact is, there were more in 1930s to 1940s than 2010’s.

                But if you continue to assert that weather is climate, you should follow Inhofe in denying that there’s any warming next time there’s polar vortex, because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

                1. ffbj says:

                  Just proving the point as the 30’s were the the years of the dust bowl, some of the hottest Summers and heat waves.

                  Warmer oceans, more and bigger hurricanes,typhoons,storms.

          2. mx says:

            Stay in your bubble, but, move out of Florida and get north of Houston Texas for your family’s sake.

            1. James says:

              Into tornado alley!

              How North should they go?

              😀 Crazy Friday, arguing global warming on EV website… (sigh)…

              Try to argue with clean(er) air to breathe…Or talk localized air pollution…Gee, but that’s not debatable, so no fun.

              1. ffbj says:

                Not a lot of choices left. I’m at the north-end, mid-west, sometimes referred to as the Upper U.S. so no hurricanes, earthquakes, though there is the New Madrid fault.

                It was actually a consideration in my home purchase. Living in the inner city heat island you get some protection from wind and storms, too.

          3. Viking79 says:

            I agree it is bad to tie specific weather events to a warming climate, but something to keep in mind. Global warming from 1930s to now has been very slight. Less than 1C warmer than 1900? This is a fairly negligible amount for local climates, if it is 1C warmer in the winter I am not going to notice it.

            However, current estimates put the lower end of the range at 3C or so by 2100. This would be noticeable, especially for a hurricane that draws its power from warm ocean water. Models predict that hurricanes and some other extreme weather events could become worse. I.e., instead of going 90 years between this type of hurricane season it might become more frequent.

            1. ziv says:

              A lot of people have no idea that the Little Ice Age ended in the 1870’s and that there was a rather marked increase in global temperatures right up to the 1930’s, followed by a 40+ year drop in temps.
              The period from 1998 until now has been noticeably warmer than the 60’s and 70’s, but it really isn’t that much warmer than the old, un-adjusted records of temps in the 30’s.

          4. Kdawg says:

            You need to look at trends, not anecdotal data points. You also need to understand the science behind it, otherwise you’ll be a victim of the coincidence causation correlation.

          5. mx says:

            The problem with Republican “News” is it’s the Best Propaganda on Earth. When you turn news into a profit-center you get bad science.

            But, you can get real info here:

            Real Scientists RATE News Sites.
            https://climatefeedback.org/feedbacks/

            And for regular Right Wing Hoax Smashing:
            http://www.snopes.com

            Snopes is always good for a laugh about what Repubs have gullibly fallen for lately.

            1. Viking79 says:

              Please don’t generalize, you do a disservice. I know as many democrats that are equally as bad. Most of the news outlets are similar, they add their own slant to the articles.

              The issue I have with current politics is I have to pick a side, and that side has a set of values where I might agree with a few of them and disagree with a few others, and vote for the one I think is best.

              Why do I have to vote binary for all the issues? Neither main political party is a good fit any more and I think it is time they change.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                Viking79 said:

                “Most of the news outlets are similar…”

                Only if you don’t consider such hard-right fake news sources as Fox News, Breitbart, and the Drudge Report to be actual news sources.

                Personally I don’t, but from the tone of your comment, I suspect you do.

                There is a very real difference between an actual news organization putting a certain spin on real news, and a supposed “news” organization deliberately reporting — or even creating — fake news. A visit to such websites as Factcheck.org and Snopes.com (one of my favorites!) and PolitiFact will quickly show the difference. In fact, the difference is so stark that hard-right wingnut spokesmen have started claiming that fact-checking organizations are biased!

                Yeah, right… very Right! You wingnuts keep telling yourselves that. It’s sad when people start believing their own lies!

                “Facts are stubborn things.” — John Adams

                “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” — attributed to Abraham Lincoln

                1. Kdawg says:

                  I believe Jacques Abbadie originally said the quote that Lincoln (and others) have been attributed to saying.

                  “ont pû tromper quelques hommes, ou les tromper tous dans certains lieux & en certains tems, mais non pas tous les hommes, dans tous les lieux & dans tous les siécles.”

                  “One can fool some men, or fool all men in some places and times, but one cannot fool all men in all places and ages.”

                2. ziv says:

                  I can’t speak for Viking, but anyone that looks at Fox and MSNBC and doesn’t see the remarkable similarity in both news channels near continuous doctoring of their messages simply isn’t looking with an unbiased eye.
                  Confirmation bias tends to allow one to look at news that you agree with as being “obviously” accurate.
                  But the problem is, fish don’t know water is wet. And people on the hard right and hard left don’t really understand that when they watch news that agrees with their viewpoint that they aren’t getting the whole story. This is further exacerbated by having a circle of friends that doesn’t include people that disagree with you.
                  When Kael said, “I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.”, she was acknowledging that she DID live in a slightly insular world where almost noone voted for Nixon. Today, even that slight acknowledgement that there is another, possibly legitimate, point of view seems to be increasingly endangered.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    I watch MSNBC a lot. I see a lot of politically slanted commentary, but what I do not see is “alternative facts” and outright fake news of the sort sees so often on Fox News and other hard-right faux news sources.

                    Furthermore, MSNBC has actual news coverage, and it has its commentary shows… and it doesn’t mix the two together indistinguishably to anywhere near the degree that Fox News does. This is an actual, measurable difference; it ain’t a result of me being so liberal that I no longer notice the taste of water.

                    However, if one wants truly unbiased news, I recommend BBC News or (in the USA) the PBS News Hour. It’s sad the way that even mainstream news sources in the USA, such as CNN, have started mixing commentary in with actual news reporting. Wolf Blitzer on CNN is particularly bad about doing that. 🙁

                    1. ziv says:

                      Two fairly recent instances of MSNBC manufacturing fake news are when they had the “Man on the street” interview and the person tore in to Trump pretty sharply. It turns out that they had reached out to Obama’s California Latino Outreach coordinator to give her take on Trump. That is Fake News.
                      And Maddow has repeatedly tried to tie Facebook articles that have been completely debunked to Trump. She knows the articles saying that Russian operatives used Facebook to change peoples opinions are fake and yet she keeps using them. The worst case of Maddow broadcasting fake news was when she claimed that Venezuelans were rioting due to a Venezuelan firm donating to Trump. A complete lie and an idiotic one at that, if you know what is happening in Venezuela.

                3. needa says:

                  Your constant inability to see past your own prejudices continues to baffle the eff out of me.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    Steven Colbert famously said “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” You apparently think that’s literally true. 😉

                    If preferring rational reasoning based on actual proven facts is being “biased,” Needa, then I am very happy to be “biased.”

          6. Bob Strayer says:

            It is not data, it is physics. Cyclones need heat. The more heat the stronger the cyclone. Statistics are beginning to reveal this expected trend.

            1. SparkEV says:

              If climate is so simple as that, we’d know exactly where we’d be next year. Fact is, something as complex as climate can’t be modeled that simply. There are many secondary effects to consider.

              Those guys claiming “stronger” make no mention of what that means. In general, almost everyone agrees there will be more rain (wetter), but it’s not clear if there will be stronger winds as well. But even that, it’s not clear where that rain will fall (land or sea?)

              As others have pointed out, we simply don’t have enough data on hurricanes. It’s not like we can look back millions of years of hurricanes to see a pattern.

              1. Mark.ca says:

                Yes, because what you are talking about are weather patterns not climate. The main point to remember is that there is a relation between CO2 levels and averages temperature rise on climate level—> albedo effect will accelerate the process. This rise in stored energy is a source for local weather to use and push things to extremes. These hurricanes are just a way for the local systems to transfer excess energy. There’s a lot more to it but i know i’m wasting my time here…

              2. Thanh Lim says:

                The jury is not out on hurricane strength. Warmer waters mean stronger hurricanes.

                How do we know this? Because peak temperatures occur in September and the strongest ones in general, occur during that time. Notice hurricanes are usually much weaker in January-June and fewer in count? Why is that? And if you say it’s because it’s winter, then examine what happens _south_ of the equator at that time to get the inverse.

                Hurricane strength lines up with temperature differences. End of story.

            2. Get Real says:

              Yes, it all boils down to physics and first principles.

              The planet is warming quickly due to carbon and methane emissions (which also cause air, water, and ground pollution).

              Bad things are happening as we put much more heat into the system such as the TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND! YEAR STORM THAT WAS HARVEY showed some of us that are not deniers due to their “stupid is as stupid does” ideology.

              https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/15/hurricane-harvey-25000-year-storm/

              As physics never changes more bad things WILL happen such as the melting of almost all surface ice in the Artic which reflects sunlight therefore leading to more increased warming and other feedback loops like the release of gigatons of methane currently frozen in the Tundra.

              Basically the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse stuff because too many idiots who prefer ideology over really basic science.

          7. Mister G says:

            Spark how do you explain increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere since 1958? http://Www.co2.earth
            The science behind higher co2 in atmosphere and higher water temperature is settled science.

            1. SparkEV says:

              As I’ve stated many times in the past, I am labeled a climate change denier, because I believe that recent CO2 increase is primarily due to man made source (via carbon isotope analysis) and that much of recent acceleration in warming can be attributed to increase in green house gases (mainly CO2).

              Now you tell me why I’m a denier and what part you don’t agree.

            2. SparkEV says:

              I misread your post. I read 1858 instead of your post of 1958. Fact is, CO2 has been hugely increasing since the industrial revolution of 19th century, not just from 1958.

              But if you assume huge increase in CO2 from 1958, that makes even weaker argument for recent hurricanes since there were more stronger ones in 1920’s and 1930’s than now.

              Finally, settled science is a religion. Science is never settled.

              1. Mister G says:

                Spark 1958 is when we started measuring CO2 at mauna lau observatory in Hawaii, I’m just letting the data speak for itself.

              2. Mark.ca says:

                “Finally, settled science is a religion. Science is never settled.”
                Stop trolling, you know what he meant. The relation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature is settled.

            3. Jeffrey Spaulding says:

              What does any of this have to do with the Tesla Model 3 potentially outselling the BMW 3 series?

        2. Mint says:

          For short term impact, you should look at new electricity generation, not what’s already built.

          For the last decade, it’s been overwhelmingly gas and wind capacity. Coal additions have been almost zero over the last 4 years. There’s no reason this trend will reverse itself.

          A million Model 3’s in the next few years will add maybe half a gigawatt of demand, on average. If they didn’t get built, that demand wouldn’t be there, and new capacity additions would slow down.

          Given that EVs can take power flexibly and charge mostly overnight, they’re quite well suited to wind energy, which is being built in the US with PPAs of around 2c/kWh.

          1. MarkT says:

            yup. Green cars will get greener.

          2. Viking79 says:

            Natural gas is burning a hydrocarbon, what would do just as much to emissions in that case is switching all combustion vehicles to natural gas. It would be far cleaner than burning petroleum.

            Again, I am not challenging the fact that human carbon emissions are the primary cause of our planet’s current warming cycle (this has long been settled).

            My point is if you have a sudden need for more electricity capacity hydrocarbon peaking plants will likely come into play.

            1. Bob Strayer says:

              Actually, combined cycle gas turbine generators are more than twice as efficient as an automobile engine.

            2. Mint says:

              Natural gas in an ICE has much lower efficiency than a combined-cycle gas turbine generator, especially for anything quicker than a Prius. It’s also rather bulky compared to gas, and refueling infrastructure is much more difficult to build. I think PHEV is better for emissions than NG when EVs aren’t practical for people.

              Long haul trucks refueling at centralized locations are a good candidate for NG, IMO.

              1. It seems that PHEV & EREV technologies are the easiest ones to start a transition from straight ICE only, to the World of EV’s, for a lot of people, trades, & business models or heavy vehicle industries.

                Essentially, like preferring to use CASH, but having a Credit Card for Emergencies.

                The biggest advantage I can see in using Electric Drivetrains, is the ability to simplify the Vehicle Drivetrain, as a whole; the ability today to Multi Source Electricity, and the much safer methods available to move Electricity from place to place.

                The downsides of Batteries, are seemingly being removed slowly, but in actuality, it is in a steady state of improvement.

                The challenges of thermal management are dealt with better by some OEM’s than others, obviously, but if all players would take the demonstrated best practices, and use them, there would be fewer complaints against Batteries, already.

                Obviously, pure BEV’s only require dealing with one energy source in the vehicle, a space and weight limited product, versus a PHEV or EREV needing to deal with TWO Energy Sources & TWO sets of Machinery converting one form of energy each, into mechanical energy, and managing both sets of issues, in one vehicle!

                Still, it seems these last two choices of a PHEV or EREV are popular enough to get, on average, about 50% of the interest, based on market sales, so they are evidence that this also moves vehicles away from the Pure ICE program.

                The Volt has increased in its rating of EV Miles from 38 to 53, about 39.5% More EV Miles, in abou 6 years (Although that message seems to have not been markered or advertised well, beyond those who dig this stuff up, like regulares on sites like this!), and if that increases the same amount in another 6 years, it could make it to about 74 Miles EV Range (73.92, mathematically!), and if it coul continue that pace annother 6 years out, could be at about 103 Miles EV Range (Plus the Gas Range, if that is as easy to get by that time!)

                Definitely, some long term observers needed to record this history and track its progress!

            3. Doggydogworld says:

              EVs on smart chargers reduce and can even eliminate the need for peaking plants.

              A huge fleet of EVs enables much higher market share for variable resources such as wind and solar.

          3. pjwood1 says:

            I’d add Trump had a crack at using “emergency powers” to promote coal, but held back despite lobbying by Murray and First Energy:
            http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/22/investing/coal-rescue-trump-murray-energy/index.html

            So, Mint’s posted EIA information is likely to continue playing out.

          4. needa says:

            I don’t follow. When I take a million model there’s and assume a tank a week (50kwh) I get 7 gigawatts a day.

            1. Mint says:

              I did 14000 miles/yr => 4000 kWh/yr = 0.5kWh/hr, so 500 watts average load per Model 3, or 0.5GW for a million of them.

            2. Doggydogworld says:

              “Gigawatts per day” doesn’t really make sense. I think you mean 7 GWh/day. That’s about 0.3 GW continuous. The main different between your 0.3 GW and Mint’s 0.5 is he assumed 14k miles/yr while your 50 kWh/week would supply a bit less than 10k miles/yr.

        3. Nick says:

          Let’s be real.

          Electric cars are zero emissions. The long tail pipe argument is played out.

          1. L'amata says:

            Solar anyone? Renewable? Does that ring a Bell?? We will not need the grid in the future. The Grid is going where the sun don’t shine!

          2. Viking79 says:

            The argument is played out, and in most circumstances they are less emissions, but they are not zero. Yes, they are zero tailpipe emissions, but not zero emission life cycle. Life cycle is important and too many people overlook it.

            I think it is important to transition many vehicles to be lower emission, but they aren’t going to magically eliminate human carbon emissions.

            All species success comes from ability to extract energy from their environment, and humans have done that by being highly successful at utilizing natural resources of the planet. If we immediately stopped burning oil and gas we would quickly fade from existence as we depend on that energy.

            We are transitioning to more sustainable forms of energy, but that doesn’t happen overnight. If all cars instantly became zero emission overnight (truly zero emission including long tailpipe but excluding production), it would only reduce CO2 usage maybe 16% in the US. 27% of CO2 is from Transportation, 60% of transportation is Light Duty Vehicles (cars, SUVs, and Pickups).

            The 3 big fish CO2 emitters are Transportation, Energy, and Electricity. Forcing all cars to electricity instantly is going to increase that sectors contribution until clean sustainable energy is able to handle the demand (it is not yet).

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              I appreciate you citing actual facts, and taking a practical rather than idealistic view of things.

              But despite that, you manage to be alarmist. Of course the EV revolution isn’t going to happen overnight. And since cars are kept running an average of about 15 years (over multiple owners), the EV revolution will take more than 15 years to complete.

              So while we currently can’t provide enough “clean” electricity, from renewable sources and nuclear power, to power all passenger vehicles if they were all were switched from gasmobiles to BEVs overnight, that’s pretty irrelevant, innit? Because the switch can’t possibly happen overnight, and so it won’t.

              By the time the EV revolution is complete, we should be getting most of our electricity from clean sources. Some regions — including the Pacific Northwestern USA and several provinces of Canada with a lot of hydroelectric power — already are.

            2. abc123 says:

              I think the goal is to reduce emissions. We cannot have a zero emissions lifecycle. It’s impossible. Any type of manufacturing will produce some sort of emissions or waste. The minerals to produce the battery do not magically come out of the ground by itself. We still have to dig for them and they still have to be processed.

              I’m not trying to be critical of your post, but the point to take away is that emissions and climate change is not an all or nothing deal. Just because my EV won’t fix climate change tomorrow doesn’t mean I just give up. Emissions reduction is a cumulative effort. We should aim for emissions reduction, not emissions elimination. That is impossible.

            3. pjwood1 says:

              electric fossil fuel does a lot better than gasoline’s 20lbs/gallon. at a mix of 30% coal, 40% natural gas, it’s about .9lbs/kwh. so, cars start cutting belw 1 pound per mile when above 20 mpg. Electrics have a pretty easy time getting above 3 miles per KWh, or 1/3 pound per mile CO2.

              Fossil fuelgas, or CNG vehicles for that matter, dont compete with typical fossil fuel watts.

        4. islandboy says:

          According to dat from the EIA’s Electric Power Monthly The share of renewables in US electricity generation mix in 2016 was just under 15%, up from 9.5%% in 2006. Combined with nuclear the contribution of zero emission sources in 2016 was 34’5 %.

          Over the past decade or so, the contribution from solar has been doubling every two years or so with the contribution from wind growing ore slowly. If solar continues to grow at anything near it’s recent rates, it could easily be providing 20% of US electricity by 2025. If the contribution from nuclear is maintained, the combined contribution from zero emissions sources, nuclear, hydro, wind and solar should be well over 50% in less than a decade.

        5. Carguy says:

          If you can’t afford solar panels just sign of for wind power. Here is one example. https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/ The grid gets cleaner every minute and gasoline gets dirtier every minute. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/US-Shale-Water-Is-the-New-Oil.html

        6. Thanh Lim says:

          That might be true in other parts of the country, but we already know the trend. It’s happening.

          1) CA is nearly 0% coal, and even natural gas is dropping. We’re beginning to shut off nat. gas plants because of the lower demand. (Thank you LED lights!)

          2) Alternative fuels (wind/solar) on an industrial scale is beating out coal and will beat out natural gas. We all know this. That too, will die over time.

          So for me in CA, EVs win big on it. And since I want to drive my car for decades, (which is the real key for being green), it’ll extremely green.

        7. MDEV says:

          Agree stop producing wind turbines, solar panels, the power to produce them come from coal and fósil fuels in many cases, hence until humanity develops fusion power plants please please stop progress.

      3. Don says:

        Your a brain dead moron that may be the stupidest thing I’ve read so far today. Would expect anything less from a libitard.

        1. mx says:

          Anyone who uses the word lib-TARD is usually dumber than a liberal. If you want to be taken seriously you’d try to sound smart.

        2. ziv says:

          Well that discussion degenerated on a relatively familiar path…
          LOL!

        3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Your a brain dead moron that may be the stupidest thing I’ve read so far today.”

          I thought people like you spelled that “moran”.

          BTW — You might want to review the difference between “your” and “you’re”. You know, if you don’t want to appear to be a brain dead moran.

          http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/026/508/633610346589409100-morans.jpg

          1. Ziv says:

            Call me crazy, but someone using your vs. you’re doesn’t drive me as crazy as someone not knowing the difference between lose vs. loose. Not sure why.

        4. Mark.ca says:

          Caution, guys…if you want to engage Don in a conversation you have to match his low IQ level…impossible.

      4. eltosho says:

        “Model 3=clean, renewable, less CO2, weaker hurricanes, less destruction”

        The damage already done to the climate is irreversible (at least in our lifetimes). Even if we go zero CO2 tomorrow, the hurricanes will continue for a long time (assuming they are influenced by climate change and not a freak occurrence)

        1. Kdawg says:

          “(at least in our lifetimes)”
          ——-
          Why would that stop us from taking action today? Every decision we make shouldn’t just be about what we will see in our lifetime, which isn’t very long.

          1. eltosho says:

            I am not saying that we should not take action! All I am saying is that we can only prevent a future worsening of the damage. The current mess we will have to endure for a long time…

            1. Mark.ca says:

              Carbon capture may help to some extent to slow down the process but it’s not cheap and you don’t see its effects right away so we are unlikely to do it. I would settle for a carbon tax now.

      5. abc123 says:

        Some people cannot charge from home because they live in a condo with strict HOA. This may change in the future, but as of right now, NO.

        BMW is called the “ultimate driving machine” for a reason. I seriously doubt the Model 3 can match that. This may change in the future, but as of right now, NO.

        Some people like the sound of the engine and the nuance of a transmission.

        BMW comes in a 2 door and 4 door configurations as well as a sports wagon. Then they have their M3 series performance cars (M3=BMW, not Model 3).

        I mean seriously, the only thing the Model 3 has in common with the 3 series BMW is maybe the configuration that best matches it. That’s it. Each car has different options.

        When the model 3 is finally mass produced and can crank out numbers to satisfy demand, it will not kill 3-series sales down to zero. Not everyone wants a sedan with 4 doors. Everyone’s preferences are different.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “Some people like the sound of the engine and the nuance of a transmission.”

          Some people get pleasure out of being beaten and whipped, too. Thankfully, most people don’t.

          “BMW is called the ‘ultimate driving machine’ for a reason.”

          Yeah, the reason is BMW’s advertising.

          “I seriously doubt the Model 3 can match that.”

          I seriously doubt anyone who has ever driven a Tesla car would think Tesla should lower its standards that far! BMW merely claims to build the “ultimate driving machine”. Tesla actually builds them.

          No BMW is ever gonna inspire anything like this:

          http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

        2. Jeffrey Spaulding says:

          Also, no dealerships. Probably the number two reason I’m not getting a Bolt.

      6. Dan says:

        It all depends on the source of the electricity! Electricity does not grow on trees and is not free. Electricity from coal likely worse than petroleum car, natural gas (methane) electricity probably better but hardly benign given the very real problem of methane leakage.

        More electric vehicles means new generating capacity needed which is almost always more expensive than existing capacity. The net environmental benefit of EVs is less than most fans think. They are good for minimizing local emissions in cities though not as good as getting the worst 10% of vehicles (generally old ones) off the road would be.

        So love your EV but don’t fool yourself into thinking you are significantly saving the planet.

        1. If you want to reduce your energy demand, move closer to work, such that a eBike or even Walking can get you their, use LED Lighting, go to bed when you need to turn them on – even better, live in a warmer house in summer and a colder one in winter (or insulate better)! Fly less, use a phone to see family instead of gas or electrons in a car, etc!

          So, since we know most Europeans, Americans, Canadians, Asians, and many others are today unlikely to do the above, we are a bit limited and restricted on the benefits we can gain, but: EV’s Are More Fun to Drive than Noisey, and Stinky ICE Vehicles, if only for the better throttle response! But hey, that’s just my limited understanding and opinion! Have a great day!

          I still have to wait until late 2018 to get my Model 3, and getting $ in order is current requirement!

      7. Ree Fox🦊 says:

        What? Do you think before you speak? I feel like just having read your comment lowered my iq.

      8. Stew says:

        Apart from the extra damage done to the environment to get the lithium for the batteries, which incidentally causes more pollution than building a normal car. Oh, and the extra pollution generated by the burning of fossil fuels to produce the electricity required to charge the thing in the first place…..
        I doubt BMW will be quaking in their boots just yet.

    2. Kdawg says:

      “on both sides” 🙂

    3. Jinas says:

      Greg, did you own a BMW 3? I do.
      I sat in the Model 3 (I did not drive it).

      The Model 3 has a very appealing interior. Yes it is at luxury feel. If I give an A to BMW, the interior in the Model 3 would be a B+ at least. The Model 3 is more unique, original and that may be a good thing.

      In the exterior, the Model 3 is proportional, genuine and it is an A.

      Now the major advantage for the Model 3 is the potential low operational costs. The BMW is a very expensive car to maintain after 40K miles. In my case I spend $500/month in gas. The Model 3 would cost me $90/month and at 310 miles range it would cover 99% of my needs.

      Since both cars have a sports appeal, I suspect the beamer and Audi are the German sedans to take the biggest hit. Benz is more classic and it should be ok for now.

    4. philip d says:

      Greg you are wrong! There is one more thing they have in common, a 3 in the name. ;]

    5. eltosho says:

      … and the buyers. Most tech workers were BMW fanboys before Tesla came along. Musk has managed to totally destroy BMW’s (and the other germans) reputation as a high-tech company. This will hurt them badly!

    6. mx says:

      The only thing that will save the BMW 3 series is: “Asymmetric Information”. On the east coast most BMW owners don’t know about Tesla.

      Since the Tesla will Trounce the BMW in Performance and handling, you can only hope BMW will finish up the i5 ASAP.

    7. TM3Reserver says:

      Nope and badly wrong, The TM3has a multi-link rear end, same as BMW,; but, the front has wishbones up front, also like a BMW…and, the TM3 has a built-in roll cage. If so, it has a good chance to be a better time trials car than a BMW3. in either SCCA or NASA. First guy with one gets to hack the inverter for more acceleration off the corners…Deal?

    8. FISHEV says:

      So true. The comparison never made any sense. EV Tesla would be aimed at other PHEV’s such as Prius or Volt etc.

      People buy EV’s like Tesla to cut emissions.

      People don’t buy BMW 3’s to get emissions.

      There’s no connection.

      1. Actually, people Today buy Tesla’s for the Drive, and Leafs to “cut emissions”, most likely! Never hear much about 0-60 in conversations when discussing the Leaf! The Tesla, on the other hand, has delivered a ride that Hauls A$$!

  2. jelloslug says:

    The advantage that most people in the US see with the 3 series is a cheap lease price and a BMW logo on the hood.

    1. L'amata says:

      BMW 3 ..A Fugly small Cheaply build High maintenance “Look at me Car” , So you can It’s a BMW!..Not really a good/fair comparison to Tesla 3 ..

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Not one, but two, Tesla spokesman have made direct comparisons between the Tesla Model 3 and the BMW 3-Series (as well as the Audi A4).

        So clearly Tesla does not share your opinion.

  3. Don Zenga says:

    Because both the models have # ‘3’ in it does not mean one will kill another. There are so many other models in that segment that will lose some share to Model 3.

    In fact some one who plans to buy a premium vehicle like Buick Regal sedan may think that by paying some 8K more he may get the Model 3 which could bring in significant amount of savings with the cheaper electricity as fuel and also a much better ride.

    So Model 3 will not get all its sales from the prospective BMW 3 Series customers alone. Also BMW may lower the price of its 3 Series plugin by few grand and stay competitive. They can also add another range in its plugin like 30 mile, 50 mile…

    1. Will says:

      The guy is crazy. Most of of BMW sales comes from brand loyalty. All seadans sales in US lost 15-30% of sales from last year. So no the 3 series is not going to 0

  4. Mark C says:

    BMW appears to be the most committed to electrifying their lineup, of all the German brands.

    I certainly would not count them out, regardless of how good the Model 3 is.

    1. Vexar says:

      I’ll second that. I bet this tanks Volkswagen CC sales a fair bit more. I also expect that Lexus will continue to have their lunch handed to them, now with the IS sedan, since that’s exactly what happened with their ES large sedan and the Tesla Model S.

      That said, the reservation numbers for Tesla Model III equate to the same sorts of decrease in BMW M3 purchases, but you can’t say it is the same people. You can say it is some of the same people. I know more than a couple Camry drivers who are keeping their POS alive until their Model 3 shows up.

    2. pjwood1 says:

      BMW made its bed. They chose to produce non-mainstream “i-cars”, while going with tiny batteries in the cars they sell. Well-played if you want to max out those profits, but sooner or later “you get what you pay for” comes back to bite. At this point, VW looks more likely for a mainstream all-electric. I gave up handicapping them both, a long time ago.

      “Electrify” is a catch-all term. What are we really talking about? This thread started with a CO2 tangent. How about cars and the >350 horsepower almost every single lithium battery that’s in a >60KWh car is capable of? Capable, that is, if the manufacture was willing to pay for it. Then, there’s the torque where you can use it. These are more likely the reasons the BMW 3-series will lose sales.

      I think it’s funny, that this many years into proprietary oils, fluids, and parts that aren’t serviceable within the long chain of internal combustion, that we still have Euro folks bragging about their “profit” morals. They’ve joined lobbies to thwart simpler, better, if expensive, technologies, and are these self-styled Capitalists.

  5. Don Zenga says:

    Model S 75 KWh (RWD) will be available for order only up to this sunday (Sep-24) and probably the last units will be delivered by Oct end. After that all 3 trims of Model S will be AWD version.

  6. Aigars Mahinovs says:

    The cars are as different as a Jamaha vs a Vespa. Tesla Model 3 by interior quality is barely competing with Toyota Camry, while being priced at a premium executive saloon level due to the expensive batteries. It’s appeal is limited to greenness, in all other criteria it is a car that is way below its price.

    BMW 3 series sales are currently declining because its refresh is coming up. After that sales will jump back up, just like they did for the BMW 5 series this year.

    1. ffbj says:

      Well he did qualify his prognostication by saying people with a sound mind, would buy the Tesla.

    2. jelloslug says:

      When the 7 series was refreshed, BMW never got the market share back that Tesla took from them.

      1. Vexar says:

        Uh… am I missing something, or does the Camry come with a Lacewood dash, dripping with leather and brushed aluminum? I thought it was various plastics and rubbers. 17-inch touchscreen, yeah, that screams Toyota Camry. WTF, dude?

      2. R.S says:

        But the Model S is closer to the 5 series, than the 7 series.

        And the 5 series is doing fine.

    3. philip d says:

      I’m not sure we can make that assumption on interior quality without actually seeing and touching an actual Model 3 interior.

      Minimalism doesn’t equal cheap. It certainly can but that is true for anything. I prefer minimalist interiors as long as the materials are solid and the seats are comfortable.

      People make this same assumption with minimal anything. Like architecture for example. A minimal stock builder home with no details will certainly look and feel cheap. But a home done with really solid nice natural materials applied in a minimal way with complex hidden joints and details looks and feels really great.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Tesla Model 3… It’s appeal is limited to greenness…”

      455,000 people have put $1000 on the table to say otherwise. At this point, your assertion isn’t merely wrong, it’s laughable!
      :LOL:

  7. Jack says:

    LOL, i’d say the investment of that guy will go to ZERO

    1. Another Euro point of view says:

      Likely yes but that is not the question. If company X is supported long enough by juvenile investors in order to awash the market with products sold below cost it actually CAN impact products sold profitably by companies Y & Z. So no matter what happens with Tesla it will certainly impact futur OEMs production as a sort of real life test funded by that breed of “this time its different” investor of what is likely an EV that appeals to the public.

      1. ffbj says:

        Of course it has nothing to do the superiority of the vehicle itself.

        1. Another Euro point of view says:

          Actually Tesla Model 3 is probably a very good car. I regret many things with Tesla (often disregarding practicality, over hyping, sleazy management) but they do make good cars generally speaking.

  8. Another Euro point of view says:

    Actually I think BMW 3 series with their stupidly long bonnets and macho appeal are a bit 20th century. So a swift quick in the butt from Tesla model 3 could probably only do BMW some good.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      It’s not like BMW took away practical controls, and planted everything on a Mongolian center screen 🙂

  9. CDAVIS says:

    From article – Social Capital, CEO Chamath Palihapitiya said:

    “…that entire business is going to go to zero.” (referring very specifically to the BMW 3 Series)

    “…people are fundamentally misunderstanding the demand of the Model 3.”
    ——-

    My guess is that we will see within the next 3 years ~30% of the current BMW 3 Series market share getting eaten up by the Tesla Model 3 and the upcoming Model Y.

    Keep in mind that a *today* BMW owner that would have normally purchased their next new car a BMW… but instead is a *today* Tesla Model 3 reservation holder waiting for delivery… that is an event that *today* has already eaten into BMW’s market share… this is not yet fully understood/appreciated among automotive analysts & autmotovd media.

    Already many of the Tesla Model 3 paid reservation holders are consumers that have crossed over from BMW to Tesla. There are currently few (perhaps non?) Tesla owners crossing over from Tesla to BMW.

    What will be interesting to observe is what amount of lost market share to Tesla from other car makers will it take before the other car makers seriously address The Elephant-In-The-Room:

    Access to a convenient & reliable Supercharging Network is a critical component to the EV value proposition. Only Tesla has to-date tackled this value component and it’s this thing more than any other item that will for a minimum the next 3 years give Tesla a big leg-up over all other EV competitors.

  10. Breezy says:

    The Model 3 will do very well against the 3-Series, but that’s largely because the 3-Series is a car, and sales of cars are declining in general.

    For such a visionary company, Tesla aimed at the wrong target. The Model Y should have been first.

    1. The very fact that Model Y Reservation demand could Eclipse even what they have now in Model 3 Reservations, is an excellent reason to do the 3 First, while the GF1 continues its expansion!

      If they lead with the Y first, and were sitting on a Net 1 Million Reservations Today, deliveries just for that could take 18-24 Months, at a bare Minimum, with the best possible, trouble free, ramp up! More than likely, it could take 24-36+ Months, if that came 1st! Not a good thing!

      So, it was right to start with the Model 3, before the Model Y, for at least 3 Reasons: 1) Give time for the GF1 to get Built Out & all their Cell and Battery Build Process up to speed; 2) Give Freemont time to fully get up to speed, and clear any higher volume hurdles, at a slightly lower demand level; & 3) Demonstrate Solid Commitment, Capability, and Capital Management Skills in supporting a Rapid Ramp Up of high level of production to meet demand!

      They need to satisfy all 3 of those elements, on the way to Launching the Model Y!

      Also, coming at a similar time frame, will be the Tesla Semi, using no less than 3X as many Cells per Truck, possibly 5X to 8X or more!

      So, it’s OK for the Y to come later, while the GF1 gets fully developed, and up to speed!

  11. leafowner says:

    No doubt the Model 3 will take a bite out of the 3 series sales — no doubt it will also take some from all similar sized sedans…..but I would say the BMW would likely take the largest % hit of any one vehicle from the Model 3.

    And I bet y last dollar that IF BMW does come out with a decent alternative full EV to Tesla — it will be minimum $5k more at every level….

  12. MikeT says:

    When it comes to solid state, both Sodium and Lithium can be used alternatively but Sodium is more abundandly avaialable and cheaper but there are a very few sodium battery cells that are being tested and ready to hit the market.

    Driving experience of BMW 3 much similar to EVs in markets today it was the best.

  13. Kdawg says:

    I dunno. If you are a bimmer person, and a plug-in person, there are 5 now made by BMW you could buy, with several more on the way.

    The chasm from gasser to BEV may be larger than this investor appreciates.

    I think it’s going to take more time than 2018.

    1. philip d says:

      Probably. But even if BMW can conclusively figure that Model 3 sales take away even 20% of 3-Series sales then we will likely see a electric 3-Series come along in short order.

      1. Kdawg says:

        Sounds like they have a lot going on behind the scenes right now.

        http://insideevs.com/electrified-bmw-m-coming-soon/

    2. mx says:

      With only 20 miles of range, that’s a marginal set of buyers going into the BMW e series.

      The rest are holding out for the Tesla.
      The others are just waiting to come off lease.

  14. Four Electrics says:

    If the Model S did not cause sales of any luxury car models to fall to zero, why would the 3? It looks like a cross between a Mazda and a frog.

  15. gorr says:

    I think that the model 3 will zero-in the bolt and i3 and leaf instead of the gas bmw 3 serie.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Nope.

      With 455,000 paid reservations, it’s safe to conclude that the majority of TM3 sales will be to former gasmobile drivers, not people who already drive PEVs.

  16. jk says:

    this man must be a complete retard. tesla hasn’t won an official race in its life. the 3 series has much more diversity. hybrid, diesel, petrol and proper racing cars for the road with the m3. the design of the bmw is different to say the least and since the birth of opinion people are going to like one more than the other. a 320d will get you acros the country on 1 a full tank. the tesla maybe just across town.

    1. mx says:

      Tesla is killing on the streets today. When’s the last time you drove Watkin’s Glen.

      1. pjwood1 says:

        A year ago.

    2. BMW – Across the Country on 1 Tank? I couldn’t even make it to the Next Province going West! You must be living in Luxemburg!
      ;÷)

  17. Bacardi says:

    Everyone always misses the lease aspect…58% of all BMWs are leased…Been reported on here over half of all EVs are leased…So purchasing is actually the minority and takes a backseat to leasing numbers…BMWs historically have been highly subsidized while Tesla’s have been less subsidized…

    I did some napkin math on tesla leasing calculator, put in a MRSP of $70800 + dest equals $72K exactly double the M3’s MSRP + dest…Payments exclude tax, times 36 + total down divided by 2 = $21,900 total lease…

    BMW 320i current leasing deal on a MSRP $36095 which includes destination $3954 down and $279/mo = $13,998…It’s a rough example, but in this scenario BMW is 40% cheaper…

    https://www.edmunds.com/about/press/automotive-lease-volume-reaches-record-high-in-2016-according-to-new-edmunds-report.html

  18. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “There is not a single person of right, sound mind and body, if you could build a Tesla Model 3 online and get it delivered in 30, 60, 90 days, or you have the choice of buying the BMW 3 Series will choose the BMW.”

    Gosh, is it possible that Mr. Chamath Palihapitiya might, just might, be a Tesla Inc. cheerleader, pushing Tesla’s stock? Ya think? 🙄

    I’m a strong Tesla fan, but it’s more than slightly over-the-top to claim that anybody who buys a car from another brand is either stupid, crazy, or sick.

    Amazingly enough, in the real world, people have different needs and wants in cars. If they didn’t, then there would be only a handful of cars and a handful of light trucks on the market. There are hundreds of different street-legal cars and light trucks being sold precisely because people have a broad spectrum of what they want and need, as well as what they can afford.

    It’s inevitable that eventually, sales of the BMW 3-Series will fall so far that BMW will quit making them. It’s inevitable that this will eventually happen to nearly all models of gasmobiles, as the EV revolution makes them obsolete. But that is not gonna happen overnight, and the 3-Series is almost certainly not gonna be killed off by the Tesla Model 3 alone.

    Starting in 2020 if not before, Tesla is going to have some actual competition in the PEV market. Gasmobiles will have an increasing amount of competition from compelling plug-in EVs. I doubt we’ll be able to point to any single PEV as “the” car that killed off any particular model of gasmobile.

    This isn’t the 1910s or 1920s, and no one single model of car is going to dominate the PEV market in the way that the Ford Model T dominated the gasmobile market back in the days of the motorcar revolution. The automobile market is now international, and no one single company will be able to dominate sales in the USA, the EU, Japan, China (especially China!), and other countries. There are too many players.

    Much as Tesla might want to grow to be the 600 pound gorilla that Ford once was, it ain’t gonna happen.

    1. Another Euro point of view says:

      I would say that those over enthusiastic articles does Tesla probably more harm than good as it pushes expectations probably too high. If I was a Tesla bull (which I am obviously not) and in 2019 general opinion is “what, Tesla didn’t annihilate BMW !?!” or “what ! where is giga factory nr 10 !?” then I would know who should take part of the blame. PP, in case you are a Tesla bull then you probably do a good job defending your investment.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Thanks for your concern, but I’m not a stock investor. And if I was, Tesla would be literally the last company I’d invest in. I’m much too emotionally “invested” in Tesla to be able to make rational, objective decisions about buying and selling stocks, as one needs to be to be a successful investor. And when I’ve made predictions about whether a stock is going to rise or fall, just for fun, I’ve usually been wrong.

        Besides, if I was an actual cheerleader (or shill) for Tesla, I wouldn’t be able to criticize them… and all the Usual Suspects here should know by now that I do so when I think it’s appropriate.

    2. franky_b says:

      A balanced post from a Tesla fan +1

      There is 2 things that need to happen to see what this guys said happen.

      1- BMW is stupid and will not do anything and keep selling ICE only: We already know this is not true, almost all their lineup has the option of having a plug. That’s better then most. We also know they are commited to bring 12 100% EV by 2025. I would bet one of those is a 3 series variant.

      2- Tesla can move briskly on its S-Curve cranking out the Model 3: Well, I will bet BMW we have another 100% EV out before Tesla has fully delivered the current M3 backlog, meaning before end of 2019.

      In short, statement like this assumes things won’t change for BMW and Tesla will pull the fastest production ramp up ever. Both statement are questionable.

  19. unlucky says:

    Investor in TSLA pumps TSLA stock.

    Now there’s a shocking news story for ya.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Now that should have been the first comment posted to this thread.
      🙂

  20. Paul says:

    If you own a BMW 3, you would understand why Model 3 is a threat based on the brief driving review of Mototrend. Young people buy BMW 3 as opposed to Mercedes C or Audi A4, because of its real or perceived driving dynamics. After Model 3 finally delivered to real customer and if it proved beating BMW 3 in handling, yes Model 3 would be the final nail.

  21. B-rich says:

    Why do I have to buy a Clown Car (i3) if I want an EV car from BMW. I like the fact i3 has range extender (generator) option but it only holds 4 adults and rear doors with stationary windows is annoying for rear seat passengers. I can’t even drop my kid off without stopping the car and opening the whole side.
    BMW better get working on electrifying the 3-series by 2020.

    Meanwhile, I can’t wait to buy a preowned model 3 for $24k in 2020.

    1. Mister G says:

      I agree the i3 is a half-ass job and I drive a Leaf (1/4 ass)…the only real EVs today are Teslas.

  22. CDAVIS says:

    @Pushmi-Pullyu said: “…Much as Tesla might want to grow to be the 600 pound gorilla that Ford once was, it ain’t gonna happen.”
    ——

    Ford got up to ~48% market share in 1914 which I agree Tesla is not likely to ever hit that level.

    …but

    I do think it’s very possible for Tesla to get up to a 19% market share within the next 7-10 years which would easily make Tesla the #1 car maker.

    This is a big departure from my past prediction that the traditional car makers would not allow Tesla to get past a 5% market share. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the traditional car makers do not have the ability to slow down Tesla. The biggest evidence of this is the traditional car makers continuing to ignore the importance of providing a convenient and reliable Supercharger Network for their EV offerings.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Ford got up to ~48% market share in 1914 which I agree Tesla is not likely to ever hit that level.”

      Hmmm, so the assertion I’ve read — and repeated multiple times — that the Ford Model T at one time had a 90% market share, is wrong?

      Well, mea culpa for helping spread a bad meme. I do see a claim that Ford had a 61% market share in 1921, but that figure would likely include Ford’s trucks and possibly other car models.

      But yeah, I think it’s unlikely Tesla or any other auto maker will ever get as much as a 50% market share in any first-world country. As I said, there’s too much competition on the international market. It may be possible for one player to dominate a more backwater region, or one where — like Norway — extreme levels of government incentives and/or taxes greatly favor one auto maker’s cars at the expense of others.

  23. Ford Prefect says:

    Did I miss the announcement about the Model 3 coming in a coupe, grand coupe, GT, and wagon form all set to be available next year?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Sadly, the rest of us missed that announcement, too. 😉

  24. JRL says:

    I would have to say that if Tesla can hit some measure of quality, the would best the BMW 3series. I have owned two in the last few years and won’t by another. From the shotty design of components like the bursting radiator water reservior and other known failing components and the failure of BMW to redesign, they can keep it. Give me a Yugo any day before a BMW. I will try a Tesla once available.

  25. mxs says:

    One would expect such a pipe dream statement to be found perhaps on DT’s twitter, not from actually seemingly intelligent individual.

    Surely, it brought him to the spotlight he was seeking so desperately … really sad with today’s social media giving literally everyone a megaphone when used the wrong way.

  26. Priusmaniac says:

    Actually Chamath Palihapitiya is right but what is debatable is the exact time it will take. For sure gas cars are on a way down and ev on a way up but production capacity can’t be acquired overnight. It is also possible that BMW finally puts an ev 3 series on the market which would obviously change the migration from BMW to Tesla but that ev 3 series would bring gas 3 series even more to zero.

  27. Mister G says:

    Spark CONNECT THE DOTS

  28. Brave Lil' Toaster says:

    Alternative headline:

    “Random dude on the internet makes insane prediction!”

    So… I’m supposed to be impressed by this?

  29. Nix says:

    Buying a brand new car is already an irrational decision (used is nearly always the better option unless there are no used units that are suitable).

    Buying a brand new luxury car is a step up in irrational purchases. People would rarely pay the expensive up-charges for individual luxuries if they were sold individually off the shelf in a store.

    Finally, as we can see from earlier in this blog, rational decision making is no match for firmly and deeply emotionally held beliefs about cars and issues surrounding cars (especially when politics gets mixed in too).

    So any projections based upon people making rational decisions is fundamentally flawed. In reality, buyers are more likely to just follow what they have always done, or follow the lead of people that influence them than to make cold hard rational dollars and cents decisions.

  30. GTV6 says:

    BMW made its reputation in the late 60’s with sedans that were absolutely unique in their driving characteristics. I owned two of those cars nearly new, as well as a new ’76 R75. I loved all three of those vehicles. BMW grew that advantage through the earlier 3 series cars. Now, however they appear to have lost their way for the most part. Overly complex, numb, etc. etc. except for a few models. Audi and Mercedes seem to have a better handle on the sports sedan market.

    When my Model 3 arrives, my expectation is that the handling, ride and over-all performance will be at the least fully competitive except for the steering which will probably be more Audi and current BMW than the exceptional feel of past BMW steering. Pricing is competitive, especially if you are in it for the long hall.
    I have nothing against BMW but if I were them I’d be lighting fires under my product people. Bonfires. Forest fires. Whatever it takes.
    BTW global warming is a scientific, not a political issue. Any young person buying land in Florida today for the future must have extra disposable income.

  31. gtv6 says:

    I left out another Tesla advantage over BMW. A US born company with headquarters in the US, creating manufacturing jobs in the most unlikely place in the entire country. It plays off one of our strengths, hi-tech. You could say that the biggest advantages Tesla has are its head-start, its supercharger network, and its proximity to the most essential ingredient for manufacturing vehicles in the future, access to software engineers. Yes, BMW has the Spartanburg plant, but compare that with Fremont and the giga-factory, to be followed by others in the US if all goes well.

Leave a Reply