Tesla Registers 6,711 New Model 3 VINs

OCT 7 2018 BY MARK KANE 23

Surprisingly most of them were single motor versions

Tesla just registered another batch of 6,711 Model 3 VINs, according to Model 3 VINs tracker. It’s a lot, especially since earlier this month the company registered 4,609 and 118.

Interesting is the ratio of dual motor versions (single or dual motor versions can be decoded from the VIN number). In the case of the 4,609 it was about 85% dual, for 118 just 21% dual and now just around 45% dual out of 6,711. In total, that’s 11,438 VINs within 4 days.

It seems that Tesla again is trying to produce more rear-wheel drive Model 3s. The end of the third quarter was mostly focused on the all-wheel drive versions.

In total some 129,346 VINs were registered.

Total production, estimated by Bloomberg (not always accurate), stands at 95,629 with a production pace of 4,129 Model 3 a week (but take those numbers with a grain of salt).

Production and deliveries of the Model 3 in previous quarters thus far:

  • 2017’Q3 – 260 produced, and 222 delivered
  • 2017’Q4 – 2,425 produced and 1,542 delivered
  • 2018’Q1 – 9,766 produced and 8,182 delivered
  • 2018’Q2 – 28,578 produced and 18,449 delivered
  • 2018’Q3 – 53,239 produced and ≈55,840 delivered
  • 2018’Q4 – already >1,361 produced (estimated)

Tesla Model 3 Tracker (Source: Bloomberg)

Source: Model 3 VINs, Tesla Model 3 Tracker

Categories: Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

23 Comments on "Tesla Registers 6,711 New Model 3 VINs"

newest oldest most voted

Interesting w.r.t. the RWD/AWD split.
It looks like that the 85% AWD percentage of the previous batch of 4609 wasn’t necessarily typical. I’d expect overall a roughly 50%/50% split.
People who live in moderate-to-hot and dry-ish climates (pretty much all of the US West Coast, most of the Southwest) probably prioritize AWD a lot less, esp. at $6K, for a vehicle not intended to go offroad.

Same for the Southeast.

No need for dual motor in Texas, unless you want a faster 0- 60 time 😉

I wonder if maybe some in this batch are going to be standard batteries? We wouldn’t know from the VIN alone, would we?

I’ve been predicting that battery production would become a bottleneck in Q4 for quite a while. Until Panasonic’s new machines boost output by 30% sometime this quarter, I think they’ll be limited to only making enough cells for 6500 long range Model 3/week, so if the rest of the assembly line is able to go faster, that would suggest they should switch to making some standard range Model 3s.

I expect any delivered this year will only go to employees though. Give them the cheaper Model 3 with the full tax incentives that they’ve worked through Hell for.

Panasonic’s three new lines should boost output by close to 30%.

Tesla used to code battery size in the VIN, not sure if they will for Model 3.

Digit 8 is a little confusing on the decoder:
Digit 8: Motor/Drive Unit
1= Single Motor – Standard
3= Single Motor – Performance
2 = Dual Motor (standard)
4 = Dual Motor (performance)
A= Single Motor – Standard
B= Dual Motor – Standard

1 and A appear to be the same, as do 2 and B. As A is already in use I’m guessing 1 and 2 are Standard Range descriptors and A, B, 3 and 4 are Long Range.

This is an educated guess and could be slightly wrong.

The last reported number was 20 GWh per year from the 10 existing cell lines — that’s good only for ~5,000 long-range Model 3 per week. (Might be a tick more: the exact nominal capacity of the Model 3 battery pack is not known last I heard; but it must be pretty close to 80 kWh at least…)

The new lines OTOH are supposed to bring that to 35 GWh per year, which is a 75% increase.

They’re adding three new lines now. Next year they expect to add another 5-6 to reach 35 GW. It’s been misreported as a single expansion, but they do it in small bites to match Tesla’s ramp.


At first all you could get was the RWD, so now they are just catching up the backlog of mostly AWD.
I think wavelet is pretty close with the 50/50 split, though I think it’s closer to 60/40 in favor of RWD, when it all shakes out.

With the end of full tax credit I think buyers more tight on money will try to get the model 3 before the end of the year.
I think this will be the quarter with the biggest demand for the model 3 in the US, it would be good Tesla could make as many as possible.

Hopefully TM3 has 80,000 + deliveries in 4th quarter.

65k is much more likely.

Tesla went from a 5000 burst week at end of June to 5300 at end of September. The big leaps are behind them.

They did, but it is more like 2,000-3000/week end of Q2 sustained to around 4,000-5,000 Q3. They worked hard to get the average up. They will do the same this Q, sustain above 5,000/week up to maybe 7,500/week.

They jumped from 2000/week sustained (2500 burst) throughout most of Q2 to 4000 sustained (5000 burst) the final week by: 1. Adding tent line (GA4 – 1000/week) 2. Hiring ~2000 underrated humans to replace finicky robots on GA3 They ran the new 4000 rate all of Q3, except for down time July 1-4 to recover from Week5000 and in mid-August to tweak the lines some. My best guess is GA3/4 are ready to try for the 6000/week Muskgoal burst, but the paint shop held them back. (Panasonic only limits sustained output, not burst). They had to stop making certain colors just to hit 5300 the final week. There are no more big leaps like the late Q2 GA4+underrated human 1-2 punch. Jumps will add a few hundred/week, not +2000. They’ll grind toward 5k sustained/6k burst in Q4 as they work out the paint shop issues and Panasonic adds lines. New machines from Grohmann will come online late in Q4 so they can put those extra cells into packs without needing more workers who aren’t available to hire in Sparks, NV anyway. As they resolve these kinks they’ll find more GA3 issues to fix. The game of Whack-a-mole will continue and… Read more »

“Tesla went from a 5000 burst week at end of June to 5300 at end of September. The big leaps are behind them.”

False. It is a ramp. They will continue to have production jumps as they continue to work out restraints until they reach their final rate. They are aiming at 10k a week rate. They are only half way. Third parties have noted that they can get to 8k a week with minimal investment. Those investments are surely in process since the firm plans to end the year at a higher rate. According to their second quarter report:

“We aim to increase production to 10,000 Model 3s per week as fast as we can. We believe that the majority of Tesla’s production lines will be ready to produce at this rate by end of this year, but we will still have to increase capacity in certain places and we will need our suppliers to meet this as well. As a result, we expect to hit this rate sometime next year.”

Their production rate will continue to jump in fits and starts for a while.

Yup. The idea that there will be a smooth ramp up from here on, is ignoring the evidence and the history pretty strongly. We will continue to see periods when Tesla idles one or possibly more of the production lines, for a day or two or possibly even a week or two, in order to perform some upgrade to increase throughput.

I’m also far from convinced it’s a constant 24/7 operation. As I recall it was reported, a few months ago, that Tesla was running only a partial shift on Sunday, with some scheduled down time to perform needed maintenance. It wouldn’t be a surprise to me if Tesla went to an all-out 24/7 run at the end of the quarter, since they put on an all-hands-on-deck, pull-out-the-stops effort to maximize production. But after that maximum effort, there is almost certain to be a pause to take a breath, and during that pause it seems reasonable to assume Tesla will be doing some of that maintenance which had been put off.

That should be every 4 or 5 days now.

It’s amazing to see the dramatic increase of the Model 3 production numbers. What’s just as amazing is the anti-Tesla crowd who still intentionally disregard the dramatic increase, simply believing that ignoring the increase makes it not so.

There’s a vehicle identification number number in the article. 🙂

At least there’s only one case of it.

I’ve seen some comments use that redundancy every single time. Thankfully, IEVs articles usually avoid that error. #GrammarNazi

Please use troys tracker for gods sake. Bloomberg showed 6k production when it was around 4k and less than 2k when it was 5k

It’s sad that Bloomberg hasn’t removed from its website what it laughingly calls its Model 3 Production “Tracker”, out of sheer embarrassment.

At the very least, they could re-label it slightly more accurately by changing the name to an “estimator” rather than a “tracker”. I suppose asking for a label which would actually be appropriate, such as “Production Guess-O-Meter”, would be asking too much. 🙄