Tesla Production And Deliveries Graphed Through Q3 2018

OCT 2 2018 BY MARK KANE 30

We need to keep increasing the scale of these here graphs.

Tesla production and deliveries of electric cars in the third quarter more than tripled year-over-year in line with the company’s guidance.

The latest results make previous quarters looks tiny, but the funny thing is that at full capacity numbers can be 60% higher (10,000 Model 3 and 2,000 Model S/X a week and 140,000+ a quarter).

Tesla Model S/X/3 Deliveries (quarterly) – through September 2018

Production of Tesla Model 3 was at the end of the quarter above 5,000 a week and moreover almost entirely dual motor versions, which required Tesla to reach a production volume of more than 10,000 drive units a week.

Deliveries are now at an all-time quarterly high of 83,500 (can be up to 0.5% higher) (up 219% year-over-year) and >154000 YTD:

  • Model 3: 55,840
  • Model S: 14,470
  • Model X: 13,190

The increase in production is tremendous:

Production hit an all-time high too of 80,142 (up 216% year-over-year) for the quarter and 167,975 YTD:

  • Model 3: 53,239
  • Model S + Model X: 26,903

Sales numbers are higher than production, because there were thousands of cars (produced in the end of Q2) in transit, that were delivered at the beginning of the third quarter.

Tesla already delivered more than 440,000 electric cars so 500,000 will be easy to achieve by the end of this year.


Tesla Model X Deliveries (quarterly) – through September 2018

Categories: Sales, Tesla

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

30 Comments on "Tesla Production And Deliveries Graphed Through Q3 2018"

newest oldest most voted

Its called exponential growth.

Build it (compelling EVs with a complete ecosystem of support) and they will sell very well in their segments as Tesla has proved repeatedly.

@ Mark Kane


Such a graph (with each bar representing the delivery number in one particular quarter), but only for the Tesla Model S.

Could you make that as well?

Sure. Ready.

Thank you, and for the Tesla X, let it be complete? Please 🙂

For full completion, I made a graph of Tesla semi trucks deliveries below:

[ ]


I’ll bet you are fun at parties as well…

Who doesn’t love pie, charts? And everyone goes nuts over the scatter-plots at the Fiscal New Year party.

Ok. Done.

And shouldn’t it include Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, etc.?

I absolutely agree the charts should include data on all cars made by Tesla Inc. which have badges for Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, etc.

Here it is: [ ]

We’re starting to head into the steep part of the S curve for EV adoption. The non-Tesla carmakers are going to be in for a shock; they’ve been planning to take their time and introduce more EV models over the next 3-5 years with a leisurely ramp-up in production. By the mid 2020s they’ll be wondering what hit them.

If the non Tesla manufacturers aren’t making EV’s then production volumes won’t be high enough to actually make much of a difference to the market outside of a few small segments (midsized premium sedan and EV’s/plugins). by mid 2020’s Tesla will still only be producing a couple of million cars worldwide max, in a market where 30 million cars are sold in North America alone.

When companies like VW add to that with their couple of million EVs a year in the early 2020’s then the manufacturers that haven’t thought about EV’s will start worrying. Tesla doesn’t have and won’t have the production capacity to really make a major difference for a while yet.

Tesla is entering higher-volume segments pretty soon starting with the Model Y; and very likely even more before the mid 20s… I agree that this will still add up to “only” a couple million vehicles per year by then — but that’s enough to be felt quite a bit by the established players. (Especially those who have much of their sales in the same segments…)

In 2020 a lot of car makers will be trying to ramp up on BEVs and finding their battery supply is constrained. What’s the difference between a ramp up and an S curve? The latter generates shock waves. At about %25 of cars being BEV sales, one of the first casualties will be gas stations.

Depends on how you define the “steep” part: it’s getting steeper every year — but still far from the maximal growth rate, which will be reached shortly before exponential growth transitions into asymptotic, probably at slightly above 50% market share… Going by current trends, that’s still almost a decade away.

WOW Elon – well done 🙂

Seeing how flat the S sales are for the last 2 years it’s an understatement to say the TM3 is important for Tesla …and why the Y is needed to keep the company expansion going.

AIUI, Model S and X are still production-constrained rather than demand-constrained… Tesla hasn’t even tried doing traditional advertisement yet; and in spite of falling battery costs, prices for these models have gone *up* rather than down. Once they switch to Gigafactory cells, enabling them to increase production more easily, I suspect they will start looking into actively pumping Model S and X demand.

Having said that, there is no doubt that introducing further models is crucial to keep growing fast 🙂

I used to think they might need some change to maintain demand with the release of the 3. Doesn’t appear to be an immediate problem. I strongly doubt they will change production levels of the S and X much from current. Why risk the margin compression? Their margins on these products will increase over time just based on their total production volumes. That alone offsets many needs for investment in the segment.

“AIUI, Model S and X are still production-constrained rather than demand-constrained… Tesla hasn’t even tried doing traditional advertisement yet…”

I don’t think that’s correct. If the MS and MX were still supply-constrained, then Tesla wouldn’t be doing sales promotions such as selling reduced-price MSs and MXs with 75 kWh battery packs electronically limited to 60 kWh as “S60s” and “X60s”, with the promise that they could be upgraded later… for a fee.

Sales promotions like that are intended to increase demand, which wouldn’t be needed if the supply was production-constrained.

As to why Tesla has chosen not to use traditional advertising… I confess I don’t understand that. Maybe Elon just has a personal distaste for it, or perhaps he thinks that would cut too deeply into Tesla’s revenue. At any rate, internet “buzz” over Tesla, and word-of-mouth advertising by Tesla car owners, seem to be doing a pretty good job of reaching Tesla’s target market. Those who say Elon should stop tweeting don’t know what they’re talking about. Elon’s tweets need to be filtered, yes… but not stopped!

“Those who say Elon should stop tweeting don’t know what they’re talking about. Elon’s tweets need to be filtered, yes… but not stopped!” Fair point.
And by the way, Tesla didn’t sold 75 kWh battery packs electronically limited to 60 kWh for a wile now.

Well, here I explain it again. Model S and X currently both use the 18650-type cells made by Panasonic in Japan. They made a contract to supply batteries for ~100 k vehicles annually, and Panasonic built out production lines according to that number. The whole supply chain and manufacturing line capacity in Fremont is set-up to sustain 100 k/year production, but batteries is the most crucial part. Some gradual improvement in cell production can increase the total by a tiny bit, as well as Panasonic dropping customers in consumer industry one by one as contracts allow (and demand declines due to notebooks switching from cylindrical to pouch cells), to free up some additional capacity. But one Model S 100D already equals batteries for >1300 notebooks (considering 6 cells per unit). For 1000 additional Model S (~1% increase), someone else has to give up production equivalent of over >1.3 million classical notebooks with Panasonic cells. The total classical note book market worldwide has dropped to about 60 million units (not counting the tablets, ultraslim-types etc.), and not all of those still use cylindrical cells (and not all of those cylindrical cells are made by Panasonic). So growth is indeed limited. Sure,… Read more »

So… your argument is that making cells in higher volume drives up the price per cell?

You get an “F” in Economics 101.

Furthermore, Panasonic almost certainly makes a higher profit margin selling to any of its customers other than Tesla. Arguing that Panasonic should ignore the potential to sell more cells to makers of laptops, so they can sell more cells to Tesla… that’s completely backwards. Since Tesla is by far Panasonic’s largest customer by volume, we can be sure that Tesla is getting a better deal than anyone else, and therefore Panasonic makes less of a profit per cell by selling to Tesla.

Panasonic absolutely should pursue any possible contacts for battery supply outside Tesla. In fact, there’s a rule in business that it’s not healthy for any company to have any other single company as either a supplier or a customer for more than 20% of its production. Obviously that rule is violated by many auto parts suppliers, but Panasonic would be well advised not to tie itself too closely to Tesla’s success or failure.

Do Not Read Between The Lines

I think his point is reasonable. Since 18650’s other uses are declining, and Tesla has switched to 2170 for newer cells, investment in additional 18650 production capacity specifically for S & X wouldn’t be a good long-term deal.

I think Tesla will see out the current deal, then maybe agree something transitional, and then go for a new design for the S & X packs.

And … stock price down 3% today. I guess how much you make, sell, deliver, and grow isn’t that important in the auto industry?

1. Most stock buying and selling decisions are not based on fact or rational analysis; they are mostly emotional decisions, highly affected by what investors (or institutional buyers/sellers) see other investors doing. There is a great deal of buying and selling based on non-objective factors such as hunches, gut “feelings” and guesswork.

2. Even when emotion-based buying and selling is ignored, the rise and fall of stock prices don’t actually reflect what investors think a company’s current performance is; they reflect what they think the company’s future performance will be. If investors already expected Tesla’s sales/deliveries to be up significantly this quarter, then that expectation was already “baked into” the previous market price.

Looks suspiciously like that “S” curve we have heard so much about…

Definitely an “S-curve” of growth at Tesla. Whether Tesla’s growth is going to be strong enough, over the coming years, to either drag or stimulate the entire EV market into an S-curve of growth… that remains to be seen. I hope so, but similar hopes in the past have found disappointment.

“We need to keep increasing the scale of these here graphs.”

A serious suggestion, Mark: You might consider using a logarithmic scale for future articles on this subject, since Tesla is now showing logarithmic growth.

And thank you for showing us the second graph above. That’s the one that I think really illustrates the data under discussion. I hope you don’t find this to be a negative comment, but in the future you might want to consider omitting some or all of those other graphs, which (in my opinion) don’t really add to our understanding. I know it’s common to show graphs of cumulative sales in articles like these, but I’ve never understood why; I don’t find them at all helpful.

Please consider this constructive criticism; I really appreciate the work you’ve put in here! 🙂