Tesla Model 3 – Highest Recorded VIN Now 8362

blue Tesla Model 3 front

DEC 30 2017 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 51

The NHTSA now lists VINs as high as 8,362 for the Tesla Model 3.

In fact, some 3,568 new Model 3 VINs were just recently added to the system.

VIN 8362 Listed On NHTSA – Last Update 12-29

The number 8362 indeed seems high, but remember that does not indicate production figures as VINs aren’t necessarily sequential.

However, if we look back at a few of our previous Model 3 VIN reports, it becomes quite clear that the Model 3 ramp is underway.

For example, some two months back we reported the highest VIN on NHTSA at 2639.  A week or so before that, the highest recorded VIN was 2136. So, a jump to 8362, even if not all sequential, is still very significant. In fact, they slot in line with Model 3 delivery predictions put forth by an analyst.

In just a few days time, Tesla will report Q4 sales. And of course, we’ll be compiling sales for our upcoming scorecard. Sales begin on January 3 at around 9 AM EST. Soon after, we’ll have Tesla figures too, so this upcoming month of sales reporting will surely be one of the most exciting to date.

Source: NHTSA

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

51 Comments on "Tesla Model 3 – Highest Recorded VIN Now 8362"

newest oldest most voted

I find it strange that the Wall St. boys are looking at these numbers. The current production of Tesla is irrelevant now. What we should be looking for is the number of factories that Tesla will build. Tesla will get any money it needs to expand, as it did in the past.

It’s not irrelevant, Tesla has bills to pay. And no, Tesla can’t keep raising more investor cash in perpetuity. They need to start showing profits soon and odds are stacking up against them. Expiration of subsidies, increased competition and technological progress are some dark clouds on Tesla’s horizon

I hope and pray that there is competition so that we get more EVs on the road and get rid of oil faster.

Getting rid of oil will be great. We can dig up all of the cobalt, copper, manganese and aluminum out of the ground and leave massive open pit mines behind.

Oil will still be used to power airplanes (of which there are more flying every year), bunker oil for boats, oils for plastics/tires/asphalt/ basically everything other than fuel for personal vehicles. Yah, it’ll be great.

All this greatness coming soon, it will be a nice start to MAGA! Good times ahead!

The Nickel and Lithium mines also add to the spectacular wonders of your “massive open pit” mining operations.

It wouldn’t be fair to leave these additional mines off the list of “Eco Wonderment”. Mining operations and their associated infrastructure, wreck environmental havoc, along with their dreaded “Zone of Death”.

The Toxic broth that spreads downwind from smelting ore, requires an expensive remediation effort. Smelters have a horrible track record of containing their airborne lasting toxic legacy.

Mining has many tough issues to reconcile. Managing the open pit waste, using known containment strategies is a good start.

FYI, Lithium is not mined. Lithium is found in brine pools that are bereft of life. It has no significant impact on the environment like mining.

Mining in itself has little environmental impact. And lithium will be mined in larger quantities in a few years. There are plenty of mining prospects just waiting for a bit higher price.

How do they get the cobalt and nickel?

The vast majority of the cobalt is a by product of the copper industry.

I’m a future 3 owner. Some Brine pools contain shrimp being eaten by flamingos. I’ve been to Chile and Bolivia. Mining can be done intelligently.

There is no such thing as a “lithium mine”

Unless you have a third option, we have oil and all its glorious pollution from damage from the drilling process to the air we breathe or lithium open pit mining that scars the landscape. I always love arguments that conveniently present only one side, and never mention the alternative. Oh, and also don’t propose a viable solution.

Keep up the good negative work!

“…lithium open pit mining that scars the landscape.”

Gosh, it’s terrible how those evaporating pools “scar the landscape” of the barren, dead salt flats where lithium-bearing brine is extracted. 🙄

No open pit mining involved. But of course, actual facts are irrelevant to your EV hater posts, aren’t they, “John”?

Pushmi- please re-read my post again my friend. I was actually highlighting the worn-out argument from pro-oil enthusiasts who only present the negative aspects of EV’s vis-a-vis the methods that lithium is acquired, without mentioning a word about the cradle-to-grave pollution/damaging effects of petroleum based energy.

And if you actually read my other comments, you’d find that I’m about as pro-EV as anyone on this forum. (I own a Volt and a Leaf).

You may be confusing me with another ‘John,’ but for the record, I agree with vast majority of the contributions you make to this site.

Fossil fuel for this ?

“You may be confusing me with another ‘John,’ but for the record, I agree with vast majority of the contributions you make to this site.”

My apologies, sir!

I guess you meant part of your post to be taken ironically. Upon re-reading your post, I confess to some confusion regarding that situation.

And thank you for your kind words! 🙂

Yessir! Irony indeed. And hypocrisy. I get tired of the worn out Big Oil argument that electric vehicles aren’t 100% clean and efficient, therefore “we’ll just stick to oil.”

Thats like saying you make a cake with just flour. There is more than one ingredient in batterie manufacturing.

I can’t speak for everyone who wants to get off oil… but when it’s stated that way, the meaning is typically a draw down. No one realistically believes we will eliminate oil completely. But even a a 10% – 20% drop in demand would decimate prices, followed by a reduction in investment (which we are already seeing) and you will start to see oil companies investing in mineral mines. Now…do not compare mining minerals to fossil fuel extraction and refining. I work (on and off) in the oil extraction industry, and mining minerals requires less resources and less energy. Second… those minerals are not being burned and pumped into the atmosphere. Third, by volume alone… no one is filling their EV up with a tank full of minerals every week. You’re comparing a resource that is burned instantly and is for all intents and purposes unrecoverable… to a relatively minute amount of minerals that are both recoverable, and last for many years. Don’t compare apples to marshmallows. A railcar full of lithium and cobalt is not the same as a rail car full of oil. One could potentially power a single vehicle for one year, while the other… hundreds of… Read more »

Jay your railcar logic needs some more clarity, (not the Honda type).

Lithium and Cobalt are used as energy carriers, much the same as your purported rail car “carrying” the oil or minerals. The minerals used for battery manufacturing, don’t produce any power on their own, are no different, as an energy carrier, than the the basic steel or plastic used in making a lousy, but extremely energy dense (by volume) gas tank.

Check out the Law of Conservation of Energy, for your reference to powering up any device. Obviously, the Law of thermal dynamics is well known from burning vast amounts of oil in ICE for the last century.

Here in Cairo Egypt I get 3,400 of sunny hours per year. Let us say that I have 2 kW solar panels. So 2 kW X 3,000 h = 6,000 kWh for max $1,000. Add another $1,000 for a used Nissan Leaf battery to act as storage then we have enough electricity to charge any EV for at least 20,000 km per year. All these number are conservative numbers. But the main punch line is that for $2,000 or less if you know what you are doing, you can fuel your car and run your home AC lights etc for at least 20 YEARS. And when the batteries are dead they can be recycled. God knows what will the price be in say 10 years time for either solar panels, batteries or cars!

“Let us say that I have 2 kW solar panels. So 2 kW X 3,000 h = 6,000 kWh”

Dream on.

Never ever will your panels yield that much. The best place for solar panels in the world is the Atacama desert. The yield there is barely more than 2000 kWh per year per kW of nominal power.

http://sunmetrix.com/where-is-the-best-location-on-earth-for-solar-energy/

While a bit on the optimistic side I think you are missing the bigger picture. One can EASILY add solar, like we did in far less than ideal Tennessee. We are powering our house and both plug-in cars. In 4 years we have produced over 98% of the energy used in the house and both cars. Try maining your own gasoline.

And while burned oil is gone forever, an EV battery can be recycled, bu only after MANY years of use.

“Here in Cairo Egypt I get 3,400 of sunny hours per year.”

I call BS on that.

365 x 8 = 2920!!!

You are telling me somehow you are getting ON AVERAGE 9.3 hours of sun light (NOT daylight) per day. The typical DAYLIGHT average is about 10 hours in your location, but there is very little generation of the solar in the first couple hour and last couple hour of the day.

You are just exaggerating the numbers.

Don’t forget their making electric planes too

Yes it will be great because rather than burn oil simply to get around we can put the oil to better uses. Even better we won’t have to breathe the fumes from exhaust when in our cities.

As for aircraft and boats, EV versions are coming for those too.

Getting rid of oil in the automotive sector is going to be a bit challenging for the tire industry. It’s going to take some more time for development, to find a sustainable solution for where the “Rubber meets the Road”.

So, “rubber” is a totally natural and renewable substance that comes from trees. Not sure how you think it affects the usage of oil in the automotive industry.

Unless you mean synthetic rubber, which is based on long hydrocarbon molecules normally based on petroleum.

Tires are still about 50% natural rubber.

“I hope and pray that there is competition so that we get more EVs on the road and get rid of oil faster.”

Have you stopped using oil, nat gas, plastics,… Have you given your home up so that nature can return the lot to the CO2 absorbing plants that once lived there?

I didn’t think so.

Why not

Tesla CAN keep raising investor cash as long as investors are willing to give it. The hyperbole of “in perpetuity” not withstanding, they will, for at least during this growth phase, raise cash as needed. There’s more here than meets the eye. Don’t limit your thinking to JUST automobiles.

This need will, as a matter of course taper off, as more products are sold and as more get into the pipeline. Also, with regard to subsidies, Tesla benefits LESS from those than other manufacturers. Musk isn’t afraid of technological progress and competition in the EV realm. In fact, he welcomes it.

+1

Am I the only one who thinks that Tesla are holding back the ramp up slightly and stockpiling Model 3, to push past January 1 before hitting 200.000 sold units? In order to maximise the number of cars that can be sold with the fedral tax credit?

I think they will control the ramp up so as to not hit 200,000 until April 1, giving them the full credit for all 2018 deliveries.

But they also have Model S/X deliveries which has unknown demand…

I should correct myself in that the phase out would begin October 1, so it would only be the full credit for 3/4 of 2018. Regardless, I think with the Model 3 delays they are not as close to 200,000 as you think to risk passing it January 1.

They may favor selling more outside the US until April 1 or October 1 (whichever you mean). Don’t forget they continue to sell Model X and Model S vehicles!

Just so you understand, once the 200K-th vehicle is delivered, all other deliveries during the current and next quarter are at the full rate then it starts to reduce…So the best way to do this is not deliver the 200K-th vehicle until the very being beginning of the quarter…

“Am I the only one who thinks that Tesla are holding back the ramp up slightly… to maximise the number of cars that can be sold with the fedral tax credit?”

No, sadly, it seems to be a pretty popular misconception that Tesla might be dragging its feet on production, from people who don’t realize that Tesla can sell all the cars it wants overseas (and in Canada and Mexico) without any impact on that 200,000 limit.

Go Tesla!

Don’t expect to be blown away by the Q4 numbers. The first non-employee deliveries didn’t happen until the last week of the year. I’ll be impressed if it’s over 3000.

Enough already with counting VIN’s, it’s ridiculous. We will find out soon how many they shipped in Q4 soon, which I expect to be roughly 5k, But Q1 of 18′ will be much higher, I’d guesstimate 50k. Again…find something more productive to do with your time then counting VIN numbers.

Thank you.

We know that Tesla is now using non-sequential VINs; a deliberate strategy to frustrate those who were tracking VINs to estimate Tesla’s production.

So reporting VINs is pointless; the information content equals nil. Give it a rest already!

+1

Lets wait for 4 more days to know the Model 3 sales.

Indeed good progress. I’m guessing my VIN will be around 40,000 so LET THEM KEEP COMING!!!