Munro Eats Crow, Finds Tesla Model 3 To Be Highly Profitable


Early critic sings a new, more harmonious tune.

When Sandy Munro, eponymous founder of Munro & Associates, first got his hands on a Tesla Model 3, he was not impressed. At all. He was taken aback by the process needed to pop the hood in an emergency situation. He said the panel gaps could be seen from Mars. Even the door handles seemed to him to be a bit of a pain. His tune, characterized by the woeful cry of several sad trombones in uneven harmony, has since changed.

His company, which does intensive teardowns of vehicles and offers up complete analyses in the aftermath, has now finished its work: the early example of a Tesla Model 3 has been completely disassembled and every piece examined, priced, and compared with competitors. Now, instead of being disdainful of the California company’s effort, his lips drip admiration for the car’s engineering.

Talking in the video above with John McElroy of Autoline, Munro says they’re now eating crow at his outfit. Going over a table of scattered components, he points out how they found very good integration of the various electronics used in the car, something he had said needed much improvement in electric vehicles after conducting similar work on the Chevy Bolt. The work in this area of the Model 3, he says, is “…a symphony of engineering…”

He also had good things to say about the batteries that power the mid-sized Tesla. Previously, Munro had gone back and forth between LG Chem and Samsung cells as being the best, but now he believes the 2170 cells— which he notes put out 50 percent more power despite being only 20 percent larger than previous ones — produced by Panasonic and Tesla at Gigafactory1 set the standard.

His biggest concession came next. Admitting “I have to eat crow,” Munro declares the Model 3 profitable. And not by a slim margin, either. “Over 30 percent,” he responds when asked by McElroy. As an example of where money is saved, he shows the auto business commentator an entry in a report comparing the car with the Chevy Bolt and BMW i3. Here, we see the price of the rearview mirror assembly in the Tesla is $29.48 and a bargain compared to the $93.46 price tag on the one in the BMW or the $164.83 for the part in the Chevrolet. The huge savings, he points out, come from that earlier remarked upon electronics integration.

There are lots of other little details to take in, so if you haven’t watched it already, go ahead and hit that play button.

Source: YouTube

Categories: Tesla, Videos

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

121 Comments on "Munro Eats Crow, Finds Tesla Model 3 To Be Highly Profitable"

newest oldest most voted

Margin is not the same as profit. Time to eat even more crow.

many people don’t understand that gross margin != net profit or even net margin.

Bon Appetit!

(⌐■_■) Trollnonymous

Just put a little Soy Sauce on that Crow and it’ll be fine………LMAO

What was that board with 12 processors?!?
I wish he could explain why he used the rear view mirror as an example.
BMW uses that assembly for it’s MobileEye sensor.
But, Tesla has 12 on the car, so not directly comparable.

But, good to see Tesla has some high quality components and yet still makes a good profit margin on the vehicle. I guess you have to build your own batteries to get to profitability.

“…you have to build your own batteries to get to profitability.”

Inexpensive cells (which were also the most energy dense) have always been the main key to Tesla’s success. The Gigafactory1 paves the way to profitability.


Rather then completely contract out batteries, Tesla has taken firm control of the single most expensive part of a compelling EV and is relentlessly driving down the price and raising the capabilities of its batteries and battery packs as it ramps its production of such into many times that of the laggard, legacy OEMs.

A perfect example is that they already use LESS of the expensive cobalt then the upcoming NMC 811.

Going to be fun to see all the serial anti-Tesla trolls, shills and shorters like 7 pretend Teslas and mental MadBro try to explain these facts away!

It is really too bad that we won’t be able to see all of the excessive hand waving gestures and flailing antics, that precipitates the “explain these facts away” anti-Tesla troll posts, from the obvious usual suspects.

I disagree with your assertion that Tesla’s Gigafactory is going to drive down the cost of cells long term. In fact, the Tier 1 supplier model the auto industry currently uses is the primary reason vehicles are so cheap today. Vertically integrating is great for control of the supply chain, but keeps costs high because all of the production is going to a single user. LG Chem, for example, can produce cells for multiple automakers in the future. There will be slight changes from one manufacturer to another, but they will run off basically the same lines using the same equipment. LG Chem can now subsidize the cost of those cells among demand from 6 different manufacturers. Tesla can only subsidize its costs with its own sales. This means LG would now have higher profit margins and therefore more money to feed back into R&D (assuming they are run well). Don’t get me wrong, Tesla’s control of the Gigafactory will also make them nimble and better able to innovate than the auto industry model, but ultimately they will pay the price for that with higher battery costs. That is the reason the auto industry has removed so much of its… Read more »

“That is the reason the auto industry has removed so much of its vertical integration over the last 20 years.”

Also, all other auto makers DON’T have a plant in the most expensive place in the USA to manufacture something. Until Tesla can shift primary manufacturing to other, cheaper locations, they can’t be cost competitive. Fremont was cheap initially but carries high costs in the long run.

At the scale the Gigafactory produces at, it doesn’t really matter whether there is one customer or six.

The real trade-off is that outsourcing gives away some of the profit, but on the other hand also outsources most of the risk. If it turns out you invested in the wrong technology (Nissan), you are stuck with the costs, while other makers can just switch suppliers. That’s why Tesla actually keeps Panasonic at arm’s length, so they can still switch to other suppliers if they should offer superior technology or prices in the future.

LG won’t be in a good position by selling an inferior product.
The problem with an external supplier is you’re dependent on their rate of innovation. That’s fine for MB, but, that’s not good enough for Tesla.

Using LG is the perfect way to stay in second place, or worse.

The perfect example of just depending on outside suppliers for your “innovation” is the new Prius Prime and what a disaster that turned out to be, in innovation. 20-25 miles of range? in 2018???
The electric part of the hybrid system is still small and underpowered, because the battery has no power. Making it sub-standard compared to the new Leaf, or better yet, the 2019 Leaf with battery cooling.

Prius Prime, with 8.8 kW, delivers just 1/9th the Energy of a Long Range Model 3, but at just 25 Miles Electric Range is about 1/12th as far as the Tesla’s Range! That Toyota Gas Engine must be pretty heavy!

Getting a battery powerful enough for a decent PHEV from external supplies is not a problem — other makers are doing it. It seems Toyota simply didn’t want to invest into development of a more powerful drive unit, that could actually perform reasonably in electric-only mode. It’s an alibi-PHEV.

Only true up to a point. Ehen production gets high enough, to produce more you need to build more assembly lines at this point you’re no longer saving more because you’ve maxed out the efficiencies of the line.

I think it is about the amount of battery manufacturing being done by each.
Panasonic is a clear winner so far.

“LG Chem can now subsidize the cost of those cells among demand from 6 different manufacturers. Tesla can only subsidize its costs with its own sales.”

The problem with your argument is that Tesla alone generates more demand for battery cells, and therefore more production, than all of LG Chem’s EV customers put together!

In other words, you’ve got the right argument… but you’re applying it to the wrong battery maker. That’s an advantage for Tesla’s supplier, Panasonic, more than LG Chem.

Go Panasonic! 🙂

Tesla has the most advanced low-Cobalt Li-Ion battery technology in the market and is currently supply-constrained to meet demand for both their vehicle and stationary storage applications even with Gigafactory 1 running full steam ahead. The Tier 1 supplier model may make sense in a stable industry, but the EV market is a long way from that, with battery chemistry advances and things like hybrid battery/supercapacitor storage developments proceeding apace.

Actually, the fast pace of advancement is an argument in favour of keeping the options open for switching to another supplier with better technology… Not being straddled with a bad investment, like Nissan.

Don’t forget that Tesla will outsell the next 6 highest EV Selling OEM’s, with Model 3 alone! They are only 50% of the planned production rate on it now, and are already selling more cars just in the Model 3 line, than any other OEM, as imperfect as they are!

Plus, how many MWh has LG Energy Sold? (Tesla Energy’s OTHER Competitor)

There is no public data available which compares battery costs across manufacturers. You’re inventing facts where none exist.

One fun fact: Nissan tried to make their batteries in house, but switched to outsourcing. Even Tesla doesn’t make their own batteries: they outsource them to Panasonic.

I could well believe Tesla has cost advantages here; but when Chevy can put out a 240+ mile EV at $35K and Tesla cannot, it raises some suspicion as to what their batteries actually cost to make.

GM is losing $7,000 on each Bolt, they make up on it by qualifying on CARB credits

And selling Silverado Pickups & SUV’s.

It’s called operating a profitable enterprise.

“One fun fact: Nissan tried to make their batteries in house, but switched to outsourcing. Even Tesla doesn’t make their own batteries: they outsource them to Panasonic.”

In both cases, that’s at best a half-truth. Typical for one of our Tesla-bashing Usual Suspects.

Nissan partnered with battery maker NEC to create AESC, which made Leaf battery cells and packs. It was a partnership. Apparently an ill-advised one, since they used a bad battery chemistry for the Leaf (and no, the so-called “lizard battery” wasn’t much of an improvement), but the basic idea of a BEV maker partnering with a battery maker was a good one.

Similarly, Tesla has a partnership with Panasonic at Gigafactory 1. Panasonic contributed a significant amount to the costs of building out Gf1. It may be an “arm’s length” partnership, as Antrik said, but it’s still a partnership, and it’s still sharing risks and costs, just as Nissan did with NEC. Since we now have pretty clear evidence that Tesla’s battery cell costs are lower than anyone else’s*, clearly Tesla chose the right partner!

*Elon said at the last stockholder’s meeting that Tesla believes it will get cell costs down to under $100/kWh later this year!

AESC was a joint-venture, not a partnership like Tesla/Panasonic. That’s why Nissan can’t just get rid of it.

Tesla Makes Many Parts In House Tesla Outsources Very Little, Instead Letting Suppliers Make Their Profit they keep it In House ..Auto Makers in the Past Made all Their Own Parts Instead Of Out Sourcing As they Do Now a days .

Yes, and the auto industry uses an outsource model because it decreases cost. The marginal profit that is lost on each component is more than made up for with lower unit cost. It makes far more sense to outsource your seat manufacturing to a company that only makes seats than to do it yourself, for example. That seat manufacturer has invested billions in equipment that can churn out high quality seats by the millions each year. For an automaker to do that themselves means they have to invest in that equipment, keep it maintained, and then only spread the cost of that investment over the thousands of seats they make each year. Outsourcing drives down costs. Vertically integrating gives a lot of control, but keeps prices high.

You have it wrong. Seat makers save money by getting super cheap labor and DO NOT invest in technology.

Most seat components are built in the USA and Europe, the labor rates are not especially low.

Regardless, I was using seats purely as an example. The point does still stand, though. Outsourcing is cheaper. It’s why automakers do it.

And yet they don’t outsource ICE manufacturing… Strange, isn’t it?

Every generalisation is wrong. Outsourcing is a trade-off, not an all-around win. In some cases, it’s a bad trade-off.

Some ICE development is “outsourced” in the form of joint ventures with other automakers. But generally, you don’t outsource your core competency. Each business needs to be good at *something* or else there’s no reason for it to exist.

From what Munro is saying in this new Model 3 teardown video, it seems pretty clear that what Tesla excels at is integration of the parts. What Munro is now saying pretty clearly contradicts all the claims from Tesla bashers saying that any legacy auto maker could do what Tesla is doing if they wanted to. That’s pretty clearly wrong.

And of course, as various car reviewers have noted, Tesla also excels at integration in how the car is controlled, and ergonomics of use. That’s one of the reasons that so many people, perhaps most people, find Tesla’s cars to be so much more of a pleasure to drive than any other cars.

That’s pretty much my point: not everything should be outsourced.

Some think that with battery technology taking a central role in EV design similar to the engine in combustion vehicles, battery cells are what EV makers should keep in-house. The problem with this however is that battery cell technology is such an extremely wide design space, that there is way too much risk of betting on the wrong horse, and totally getting left behind. (See Nissan…) Thus, those arguing that serious EV makers need to have their own battery production period, are just as wrong as those arguing that everything should be outsourced period.

Tesla is taking a middle ground: keeping proprietary the details of the cells custom-designed for their needs, so they keep somewhat of a competitive edge; while leaving general research and manufacturing mostly to an external partner, thus minimising risk of running into a technological dead end.

The German Auto cartel are in deep dodo for collusion that apart from DieselGate, stifled innovation, reduced quality and screwed suppliers. Relying on suppliers for innovation is very limiting. Tesla has on many occasions had to self design and manufacture because suppliers could not supply, had too low quality or too many faults. From Bosch steering bolts to Model X doors to battery assembly line software, Tesla has suffered major costs by outsourcing.

I’m pretty damn sure that board with the 12 processors is actually the BMS board of a Chevy Bolt. (Which someone apparently put there for comparison…)

The boss guy doesn’t seem to have a very firm idea of the specifics.

There were a lot of comments responding to Munro’s first video about the Model 3 teardown which also pointed out that he appears to be rather ill-informed about the electronics. So I would take everything he says about that with a large pinch of salt.

In fact, aside from some pretty basic stuff about assembly and the cost of individual parts, I think we should be very skeptical of everything Munro says about any plug-in EV. He betrayed a shocking lack of understanding about electric cars in the first teardown video, and he embarrasses himself by briefly repeating in the first part of this video his wild exaggerations about the more or less invisible panel gap irregularities he tried but failed to highlight in the first video.

I’m also quite skeptical that Munro is sufficiently expert on EV batteries to pronounce the Panasonic/Tesla 2170 as significantly more advanced than other BEV batteries. As a Tesla fan it would be nice to think so, but I’m highly skeptical that Panasonic’s battery tech is significantly more advanced that either LG Chem’s or Samsung’s tech. A bit more advanced, sure. But that much more advanced? I doubt it.

Another Euro point of view

I also had that impression about this guy competences regarding the electronics.

He hires experts for the electronics.

Just to be clear, I’m not actually questioning the accuracy of the conclusions his team arrives at; I just don’t get the impression that he is personally involved in the process all that much…

The camera is not built into the mirror in the BMW. It has Homelink buttons, a light for the alarm and a compass display.

Why write ONE $87,000 report on the Tesla Model 3 when you can write TWO!?!

All the credibility money can buy, my friends, regardless of if you’re on the short side or the long…

I don’t see any inconsistencies with prior Munro reports. In the first he compared it to a cheap Kia. In this one he finds it is full of cheap parts.

Yeah, that 1 board with 12 cpu’s, they cost the same as potato chips.
Go back to Russia.

You know, I think more people would listen to what tou have to say if you were not so negative. He compared it to early 90’s Kia build quality. Best batteries in the business are also the least expensive due to vertical integration. That isn’t the same as cheap, you know it, and because all you seem to do is use negativity about, so-far, Tesla only, you get labeled as a hater or somesuch.

Sandy invested in some humility, and that is a special place for anyone. Someday, I hope you find a place where you admit you are wrong.

Don’t bother, he is paid to hate.


Most of the Tesla cheerleading you are here come from those with no personal Tesla experience. The reality is a bit different. I am not negative; only accurate. I call it like I see it. In the past, I’ve praised the M3’s driving dynamics as superb. However, I’ve also had mine in service three times due to failures of (IMHO) cheap components. If I regularly visited an EV site with a negative Tesla bias, you would see me constantly correct the narrative by pointing out positive aspects of Tesla that were missed. But those sites don’t exist. Instead, you have sites full of fanboys with a biased, overly rosy view. Therefore, a frequent need exists for correction back to a neutral accuracy—again, by pointing out what is missed. And there’s a lot of that. I cannot help that Elon Musk is crazy or that the company’s operations are a comedy of errors. If you prefer that I confirm every positive attribute of Tesla that arises in the news, I suppose I could do so, but it adds little value to the site. This place is already a circle jerk echo chamber. I’d like to find the time to write a… Read more »

Dismissive comments about how Tesla runs their business don’t add any kind of balance, just more useless noise.

Hahaha! Now you own a notional Model X AND a Model 3. Who’s the idiot? I suppose it’s anyone here (like me) that responds to you. But I’ll play again for a minute. You claim you’re only here to offer a fair and balanced perspective to all the ‘fanboys’ (God I hate that ridiculously cliche overused term) that have no experience with Tesla. After all, if we did, we’d see the light of our ignorance, just like you have. You say you’re simply neutral in order to restore balance in the overly positive EV Force, but you aren’t. Neutral would mean that you offer both positive and negative, purely objective, which you are FAR from. If you actually pushed back from your ego for about 2 seconds, you’d see that folks like myself, Pushmi, Nix, Trollanonymous, and others actually hold positive (by positive I mean constructive, not merely “fanboy” worship) discourse with each other, in between the unwelcome and incessantly negative sprinkling of comments from yourself and bro1999. Obviously you gain something of a regular satisfaction in popping up to merely derail and hijack constructive conversations here, for what purpose I can’t imagine, but you are FAR from neutral. Many… Read more »

Pushmi is anything but balanced. He had definitely too much kool-aid.

That is standard equipment: ownership experience. People regularly ask me if I like my Tesla, if i would buy it again, etc. I grin. Every time I navigate around a traffic jam, get back from a long trip to a lonely airport parking lot, carry a surprising amount of cargo, or get Tesla-stalked, yeah. Five 1/2 years later and people are still giving me a thumbs up on the road, taking pictures, etc.
Don’t blame the Tesla fanatics, blame the cars and the way the world responds to them. As for 7 e-‘s, I am curious about Elon’s outburst against the SEAL diver, but why did Elon call him that? A baseless attack? Also, “pedo” is a random slang, but assuming Elon meant paedophile, I just wonder why. The divers did move drugged children through the water, as opposed to the rigid dive tank. My theory is Elon felt that was a reckless, risky thing to do to the kids, compared to a custom submersible with an air system.

Elon is FAR from perfect. What the haters fail to understand is the separation between Tesla products and his Twitter activities. My Model S’ performance didn’t degrade the last couple days because of his ridiculous comments.

Another Euro point of view

“If I regularly visited an EV site with a negative Tesla bias, you would see me constantly correct the narrative by pointing out positive aspects of Tesla that were missed”.
Same with me, in sites where there is a overly negative sentiment about Tesla I never fail to bring the positives aspects. I can only but observe the herd instinct among my fellow human beings, few things annoys me more than choir singing.

Stop showing up at Church each day ending with “Y”, then!

Just because it annoys you, doesn’t mean you are entitled to burst in and spoil the party 😛

The only reason he posts here is to bash Tesla. Admitting he was wrong, ever, even once, wouldn’t fit his agenda.

The fact is that I only have recent first-hand experience with Teslas and the Bolt. Bolt stories are fairly rare, but if they appear and I have something to contribute, I will. I will say that my Bolt experience has been much better than my Tesla experience from a reliability and cost perspective, but from a driving perspective, it is the opposite.

So then, you’re now admitting that every time you claimed one of your claimed “seven electric” cars was a Model X… you’re now admitting all of those claims were completely and utterly untrue, just as we Tesla fanboys have been saying all along?

It’s hard to keep all your falsehoods straight, innit?

And why should we believe anything you say now?

“O, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”

— Sir Walter Scott

Speaking of people with an agenda, how’s your TSLA stock doing these days? Spreading enough positive FUD lately?

LOL… Positive FUD. Right. There is so much positive about fear, uncertainty, and doubt! 🙂

No, he specifically says high quality components when discussing the comparative analysis. Not that you care, since we all know you are trolling.

I personally inspected the Model 3 and my opinion is that, yes, its parts (trim, interior, brake components, and exposed suspension) are of relatively cheap material quality but are OK quality for the price. The interior haptics are great for what they used.

I’m actually surprised it took you an hour longer than the first comment shared on this article to slam Tesla. You know, considering it had ‘Tesla’ and something positive toward the company in the headline. I would’ve thought you have some kind of alert on your phone for when positive Tesla articles drop.

If an inaccurate, negative Tesla articles appear here, I would happily correct them. Would you care to point me to one which is inaccurate and negative? How about one which is negative at all? They’re rare to non-existent. I’m still waiting for the Elon Musk pedophilia story to drop, and the one about donations to Republican PACs.

This is an EV site, not a “Elon Musk’s personal battles” site.

Nor is it the “obnoxious TSLA fanbois with nothing better to do that pick fights on EV sites with people that don’t glorify all that is Tesla” site.

I don’t see people picking fights with you. I see you picking fights.

If you were truly looking for negativity, you can happily dance your fingers right on over to Yahoo, which runs hourly negative press articles on Tesla and Musk. As much as you’d like to think the ENTIRE world is pulling for Tesla to a fault, it’s mostly the exact opposite that’s the case. Humans hate success stories, they thrive on the negative (like yourself). That’s why it’s the EV crowd against the world right now. The fact that you think Elon and Tesla need a little more shade thrown at them tells me that you’re intentionally ignoring the assembly line of negative press stories rolling out daily from Fox, CNN, Drudge, both aisle/political parties right now. You honestly think anyone besides Tesla owners really pull for Tesla? Big Oil, every electric utility, every ICE manufacturer, the UAW, NADA, Jim Chanos and his legion of shorters, and on, and on, all stand against Tesla. You think you’ve cornered the market on being a ‘beacon of light’ by ironically attempting to darken the views of Tesla members? Again, you think you’re somehow doing us all a favor by blessing us with your arcane insights. Thanks but no thanks. I’ll take my blue… Read more »

“Would you care to point me to one which is inaccurate and negative?”

That’s easy; Munro’s first “Model 3 teardown” video was both highly inaccurate — filled with factual errors– and highly biased against Tesla, as was pointed out in a rather large number of comments to the InsideEVs article about that video.

Did you post any comments to that article which corrected the many mis-statements of fact and/or the rather strong anti-Tesla biases present in the video? Heck no, you didn’t!

Here is the one and only (sarcastic) comment you posted there:

“All Tesla owners know their cars are not perfect. A subset, like me, refuse to accept that 🙂 “

I see you once again repeated your false claim to own a Tesla car there.

Eleventy Pretend Electrics said:

“I don’t see any inconsistencies…”

Yeah, it’s just amazing how much you can’t see when you have your Reality Distortion Tesla Hater goggles on, innit?
😆 😆 😆

Another ad hominem attack? Please address the content of my post, if you would. Otherwise it looks like you have nothing to contribute but hate.

An “ad hominem” attack? I’m reminded of a line from “The Four Musketeers” (1974), addressed by a musketeer to the conniving, manipulative villainess MiLady DeWinter:

“Since when has it been possible to insult YOU, madame?”

Since when has it been possible to insult a troll like YOU, Eleventy Pretend Electrics? You’ve gone to a very great deal of time and effort to make your bed; now lie in it.

That’s pretty much all PP has to contribute here. Occassional readers of this site probably go “WTF is wrong with that guy/Did he forget to take his meds?” when they read one of his posts.

I’ll take my Bolt’s advanced rear view mirror with backup camera over the Model 3’s prehistoric slab of plastic and glass.

*rear view mirror camera that can be switched on at all times, NOT just a backup camera. The Bolt has a regular backup camera that pops up in the 10.2″ center display, along with a 360 degree birdseye surround view camera, something the Model 3 doesn’t offer despite having a billion external cameras.

I find that comparison of the mirror stupid…

The Bolt mirror has more functionality than Model 3’s mirror. It is designed to show the rear camera capture when objects are blocking the rear views. The Model 3 doesn’t have that functionality. Sure, the center display can replace that by show the display there where the Bolt can also do. The expensive rear view mirror is where the driver can use something “familiar” instead of relying on center display. Plus, it is optional so it isn’t really that direct comparison.

The rest of the comparison might be more valid as Tesla was trying to use the “simplistic” approach to all of its interior design. But not all buyers might like the so called “simplistic” approach. We will see if Tesla can put out the $35K base version soon.

Didn’t he say that Tesla was able to use cheaper mirrors because they integrated components and hardware together efficiently, allowing them to do double duty (3:50)? He didn’t say Tesla was using a simplistic design, he specifically said that their components were integrated together in a “symphony of engineering” (1:50). Go back and listen. He isn’t saying what you wrote here at all.

Yes Tesla’s design is simpler, but the Bolt’s design benefits the driver not just a refactoring to reduce cost.

I am not so sure I would trade a huge screen for a tiny rear view mirror just so I don’t have to learn to look down a few inches. My learning curve is not that steep but I realize not everyone’s learning curve is the same. To each their own.

Ok, so I get it now.
Tesla uses it’s large display for the backup camera display, multi-purposing the display.

The Bolt has a nice feature where the backup camera is displayed in a more expensive “mirror”. But, if you have a large iPad Pro like display, you don’t need an expensive mirror to do the same thing. The Bolt mirror is nice if GM doesn’t offer a large screen on the base model.

The live view mirror is not the backup camera (Bolt EV has two rear cameras). The backup and surround view (optional) appear on the standard 10” LCD display.

It offers a 10.2″ center display standard on both trims.

Spoken like someone who has never set foot in a Bolt, let alone use the rear view camera mirror. I’ve filled my Bolt’s hatch to the roof (completely blocking the view of a “dumb” rear view mirror), but in the Bolt I can flip it to rear view camera mode and Presto! I have a crystal clear view out the back.
Stick to pretending being a Tesla “expert”. Thanks.

I agree completely and it’s a big part of the reason that I struggle to get excited about the Model 3 (and why I cancelled my order). The Model S is an incredible car, but the Model 3 is difficult to love for exactly the reason you said: “simplistic approach”. Every single aspect of the Model 3’s design was done to decrease complexity and decrease cost. For a Honda Fit that’s fantastic! For a supposed luxury car it’s a cop out. You pay luxury car money to get unnecessary design flourishes, careful craftsmanship, and attention to detail that drives cost up, but feels special. The Model 3 looks and feels like a Civic, not a C-Class or A4. The saving grace is that the Model 3 is truly impressive to drive, but so is a C-Class/A4/etc and they don’t feel cheap. To me, the Model 3 is like a Mercedes CLA or Audi A3: it’s got the right badge and most of the time drives like you expect a luxury car to, but lacks all of the subtle qualities that make owning a luxury product worthwhile.

Please, a Tesla is NOT a luxury car. Examine their website. No where does it call a Tesla a luxury car. It is a premium car in their class. Not luxury.

Nope. Even one of Tesla’s biggest fans, Bjorn, says Teslas are not luxury.

I will say that I find the Bolt’s blind spot detection and in-mirror notifications to be much more intuitive than Tesla’s. Tesla’s blind spot detection is so bad as to be non-existent.

Don’t fall for the Bolt’s in-mirror LCD, though. I haven’t found it to be useful at all.

Bolt’s in-mirror LCD is a bit gimmicky. It is an option and available on Cadillac. So one doesn’t have to get the “expensive” one.

The time it is more useful is when rear hatch area is packed to the limit and block rear visibility. Sure, one can drive with center display showing the rear camera display. But the mirror LCD display is more “natural”.

The best “rear view” feature of the Bolt, IMHO, is its ability to detect cars approaching laterally, but outside the view of the driver. In other words, cars that you will hit if you continue to back out. I’m sure other cars have this feature, but it’s new to me. I love it.

Yep, the rear view mirror camera combined with the side view mirrors eliminate the blind spots. Plus you have the blind spot detection system as well.

I Admire a Man Who is Man Enough To Admit His Mistakes . Unlike The “Tesla Shorts” out there that Constantly Lie, No Matter What !

I will say exactly what I said the first time.

Munro is selling a report. This is a sales pitch. They release a teaser to get some corporate mid level managers to cough up corporate bucks to see the rest.

This is just as much sales hype as when Munro put on his sad face and made the first sales pitch.

If you think after either sales pitch that Munro has some superior authority over BMW or GM or Tesla you have just been sold into a sales pitch.

I’m impressed that Munro is willing to own up, in a major way, to the wrong-headed negative attitude toward the quality of the Model 3; an attitude which hopelessly colored the original Munro “teardown” video. That’s not something you see very often at a for-profit company.

My respect for Munro just went up a few notches.

And it’s great that after a detailed analysis, Munro has found that Tesla has build a BEV which is far and away superior to other BEVs in terms of cost, profitability, and integration of components. I was aware that Tesla was advanced over legacy auto makers in terms of integration and ergonomics of use and control, but here it’s revealed that Tesla is equally advanced in terms of integration of build!

So, a big raspberry to all those who have been saying that other auto makers could easily and quickly do what Tesla is doing, once they decide to do so! 😛 😛 😛

Go Tesla!

I Respect Honesty & I Agree , It’s Always Easier Said Than Done !

Maybe that is exactly what a “for profit” company needs. If Tesla is so inferior, then maybe nobody needs to buy that report. But if Tesla is superior, then those “competitors” might buy a report to find out “how superior” Tesla is.

Either way, by flip-flopping his viewpoint, it also generate more coverage for his company which is directly helping his “sales of report”…

Has Munro issued a report on the Bolt? Because currently I see it leading in both cost and profitability over the $50K M3–and of course, it shipped earlier as well. The LEAF might beat the Bolt too, but it’s not as directly comparable, due to the smaller battery.

Yes, they tore down both the Bolt EV and i3.

Sandy has gone and done BMWI3 and Bolt and came to the accurate conclusion that the BOLT cost GM $7000 more than GM was selling it for thus getting the BOLT notoriety of “compliance car” .A GM official was flabergasted how accurate the cost breakdown was ( it was commissioned by UBS Bank) done in early 2017 iand can be viewed in
Youtube and Autoline daily

The UBS report based on that tear-down is also freely available on the net.

(It does have a number of mistakes though, so I wouldn’t trust all conclusions…)

Sandy Munro s eating crow was what I expected as the teardown were of early examples and low Vin#s

I’m amazed by your ability to pick up information which are convenient to your agenda but blend out or distort the rest.

Did the teardown take into account the cost of manufacturing? As in, the sunk cost of the automation gone into building the car that Elon Musk said was too much automation.

That’s a one-time cost. It decides how profitable the Model 3 program ends up being all in all; but not how profitable building each individual car is.

I haven’t watched the video yet, but he’s talking about 30% profit on the long-range (more expensive) Model 3, correct? Did he say what kind of profit he’d expect on the $35k version?

He didn’t address that issue. Presumably he was talking about 30% profit only on the one unit that he did the teardown for, including whatever options it had. Since only the Long Range version of the TM3 is available to buy, presumably the unit he used for the teardown was one of those.

Even so, I don’t know how anybody could say with certainty that the car would be X% profitable. Surely the profit margin would partly depend on the economy of scale; with a higher volume of production, each unit of the car should cost less. Cost isn’t an absolute value; it’s relative. Surely Munro must understand such a basic concept, so why does he ignore it here?

I find this whole series of videos by Munro to be very strange. This guy is considered an expert in the field, yet he gets so many things wrong and so much of what he says is at least questionable if not clearly and completely wrong?

I hope other automotive “experts” have much, much more expertise than Munro is displaying!

AIUI a tear-down can only estimate a gross margin; not how much net profit Tesla will actually make after accounting for fixed costs.

Autoline replied in the comments that Sandy said even the base 3 would have margins in the double digits.


How would he determine the profit on a car he hasn’t torn down or even seen yet? Extrapolation digresses into wild guesses when major parts of the vehicle have never been seen. Like the entire interior.

30% margins! Wow! Tesla should be rolling in the money shortly. The Q3 earnings report should be a short killer for sure!

Not really Tesla is spending a lot on expanding charging network, service centers, gigafactories, labor, mobile service, semi, roadster, model y…GO TESLA GO DESTROY DIRTY GAS GUZZLERS AND DIESELS LOL CONNECT THE DOTS ON CLEAN AIR WAKE UP EARTHLINGS

Indeed, that’s what Elon has been saying for a while now.

Sandy Munro is head salesman in charge at Munro and Associates –it’s his job is to create a buzz.

Is the buzz real? — just send in $87,000 and you can find out!

I’d cut Monro some slack. Elon said this about his initial assessments:
Have been meaning to get around to talking to him. Some of his criticisms are valid, but, on the higher body/chassis weight front, he wasn’t fully appreciating that we were going for much higher crash safety levels than other cars.
I have thought that Sandy was a bit too protective of Detroit in interviews but this last assessment seems counter to that. This is great news for all EVs.

That MONRO report is disingenuous for the fact that not all BOLT ev’s have the ‘Expensive Mirror with backup camera’. I also have a much cheaper ‘chromatic’ mirror on mine. (The cheapest one is a plain old day/night mirror which I do not have). If they are going to compare 2 mirrors choose 2 that are the same, which MONRO surely could have done. Again, he Childishly is bowled-over with the Surface Mount parts or chipped capacitors on the multilayered boards, and still hasn’t acknowledged that some of what he was looking at was made by NVIDIA even if it had a Tesla logo on it for their proprietary implementation of a very standard board used by many manufacturers. You can look at the controller board of a 2 decade old hard disk drive and see similar levels of integration. Monro is obviously new to anything electric or electronic, and is much too easily impressed. That is not to knock Tesla, but it is certainly no place to brag about something extraordinary. One thing he *DID NOT* mention is the ‘3’s twelve volt battery is far more serviceable and standardized than the impossible to get to, proprietary ‘S’ twelve volt… Read more »

I take the opposite view to Joel here..

Munro had already taken the car apart. It now looks like he has COMPLETELY changed his mind. About everything. Adults just don’t do that.

You can’t say that Munro is just a ‘Silly Commenter’ who doesn’t know anything about how cars are assembled. And I find it hard to believe that he has been living under a rock for the past 40 years and now has suddenly discovered electronics.

The mirror example given by BRO1999 shows that he is WILDLY OVERINFLATING the cost of competitive makes’ parts.

Maybe he just misspoke, and meant to include “not”. 🙂

Does this high profitable mean they use cheaper parts? I am confused.