I think Tesla is still TBD. They've relied heavily on Government subsidies, both at the Federal and State level that makes the car attractive to the affluent.
Inherently this statement is flawed. A modest tax credit does not make a high end luxury car significantly more attractive to the affluent. These guys are paying in some cases $40,000 just for a modest increase in range and a substantial reduction in 0-60 time. And as the price of the car has marched up since it's introduction, sales have as well which flies in the face of that logic. The $7500 tax credit represents a 7.5% discount on a $100,000 Model S. Anyone buying a $100,000 depreciating asset in the first place likely isn't making or breaking the deal on $7500. There have been studies that have largely debunked this as well, stating that the credit affects sales of cheaper cars exponentially more because it represents a substantial difference in the overall price of the car as the price of the car goes down. That same $7500 tax credit is a 24% discount on the Model 3. A buyer of a $35,000 car is definitely going to consider a $7500 credit in their purchase. I will agree with that and time will tell how the phase out of the credits affects the 3 but to insinuate that the S has been largely floated on tax credits is not an accurate statement. It's been floated on the wealthy and strivers like me.
Additionally, their business model has in the past relied on revenue from tax credits. Take all of those credits away and we wouldn't be talking about the Model 3.
You have to look at this in the proper context because on it's face, yes the sale of ZEV credits pushed them from red to black on a few quarters but as an overall business they represent such a small portion of their revenue as to be inconsequential. It would be as if I had a $10,000 in expenses and and $10,001 in revenue and the $1 difference was from selling ZEV credits. Technically they're what pushed me into the black for that particular quarter but they represent such a statically small part of my revenue as to be insignificant. Far more significant would be the fact that the company is dumping hoards of cash into Model 3 production ramp up and the Gigafactory, the latter of which is a one time expense, not to mention it creates an economy of scale benefit for them that literally nobody else can touch. The Gigafactory will output more batteries than every battery factory in the world... times two. If they were a company not in expansion, trying to turn a profit on an existing product line and this was the case then I'd be in full agreement that they can't rely on credits but the truth is they're not relying on credits and they've said time and time again that selling the credits is not part of their business plan. Indeed, as I mentioned in previous posts, Musk is on record as saying he wishes those credits would either be better enforced so they could realize their entire value or simply go away as they subsidize traditional manufacturers more than they subsidize Tesla. It's just easier to point the finger at Tesla since Tesla receives the benefit directly whereas other manufacturers receive it indirectly.
This is a topic I'm happy to cover in detail if there's anything you're not sure about and as a business owner I consider myself pretty objective on the math. I've studied it pretty extensively which is why I get my knickers in twist when I see people continuing to share the same inaccurate info year after year. A lot of people like to speak of tax benefits and credits while having a tenuous grasp (at best) of what they are and how they work. A few times here people have talked to me about the carbon credits only for me to have to explain to them the very credit they're referring to in their argument. Seems kind of silly on it's face.
Lincoln and Cadillac in the past have built over a hundred thousand vehicles a year. That's Tesla's biggest hurdle in scaling their production and building a car that has is reliable.
I'm not sure reliability will be an issue but I want to see consistency in build quality.
driving to/from wisco this weekend i saw a metric fuck ton of the new xt5's.
they look good.
saw my first continental this weekend too. already looks dated
I haven't seen a single XT5 but I do see the Continentals. I like the Continentals. I feel like they're a step in the right direction. There's something about the rear of the car I can't put my finger on though. It just doesn't look right and it ends up ruining the rest of the car for me. The same goes with the MKZ. The MKZ feels like it has two competing styles going on now. The nose and the rear used to be very similar in concept but now they just slapped their new face on the front of the car without touching the rear and it looks odd.
Cadillac needs to ditch the "art and science" angular design. While it looks good on V models, it dates the mainstream models quickly. I think that the ATS, CTS, etc. design looks dated.
More importantly, build a nice interior. Cadillac's still have cheap looking interiors. GM reverse engineered BMW models in the past to try infuse BMW's secret sauce into the chassis. They need to do the same with interior materials. It shouldn't be hard to quickly track down BMW, Audi, etc. interior suppliers and spec comparable materials.
Cadillacs are pretty boring too. The CTS especially is a good looking car but it's just meh. The CT6 is a good looking car too but I have to see one next to a CTS to know it's not a CTS.