Tesla Model 3

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by JSH

Amazon made $10.1 Billion in 2018.

That's the whole point. Amazon wasn't profitable for 10 years or so, while they grew exponentially. Once a major force in the market, the growth slowed down and profits emerged.

And so it will be with Tesla and other companies that go down this route.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

That's the whole point. Amazon wasn't profitable for 10 years or so, while they grew exponentially. Once a major force in the market, the growth slowed down and profits emerged.

And so it will be with Tesla and other companies that go down this route.

Amazon has been profitable since 2009. Their recent spike in profits is from their AWS division. The retail business is still basically break-even. That is not surprising as retail has VERY low margins, lower than even making cars.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JSH

Amazon has been profitable since 2009. Their recent spike in profits is from their AWS division. The retail business is still basically break-even. That is not surprising as retail has VERY low margins, lower than even making cars.

Aston Martin has never made a profit over it's entire existence.Funny world!

[aerohead]

I apologize if this is repeat information.
In the December,2018,MOTORTREND Magazine,they reported on the Tesla Model 3 PERFORMANCE track comparison between the Jaguar I-Pace and Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifolglio.
*The Tesla was heavier,but quicker to 60-mph than the Alfa,with less horsepower.
*The Tesla was quicker to 100-mph.
*The Tesla stopped better.
*On the 1.55-mile Willow Springs International Raceway,the Tesla was within 0.9-mph of the 550-hp Alfa.
*The Tesla was within 1.12-seconds of the Alfa around the race course.
*On the skidpad,Tesla was within 0.02g's cornering grip as the Alfa's.
*In figure-eight competition,the Tesla matched the Alfa's performance.
*After 6-laps,half of the Alfa's tire tread was gone.
*The Tesla's tires were un-phased.
*Tesla figured that with the same,gummy,sacrificial tires as the Alfa,the Model 3 could have easily matched the Alfa's track time and skidpad.
*The Tesla had greater range than the Alfa.
*The Alfa required PREMIUM fuel.
*The Tesla was zero-carbon at the 'tailpipe.'
*The Tesla was satisfied with 'REGULAR' kWhs,of which California's are 30%
renewable-sourced.
*The Tesla's race track lapping 'fuel economy' was 'an astonishing 17 mpg-e.'
*The Tesla's track performance exceeded the Ford Mustang GT Performance Pack 2'.
*The Tesla was $ 10,195 (US) less than the Alfa.
*The Jaguar wasn't even in the same league.
*And MOTORTREND stated that we should consider Tesla's Track Mode as version 1.0.
Kim Reynolds,who wrote the article,mentioned that a few days before,Bob Lutz had said ' Tesla has no tech advantage,no battery advantage.No advantage whatsoever.'

[jjackstone]

The line about regular Kwhs cracks me up. I want to see the premium ones.
JJ

[JSH]

The inclusion of the Jaguar is really weird. It is a CUV while the others are sport sedans and it is bigger and 1000 pounds heavier than the others.

It would have been more interesting to put a couple more performance cars in the mix. Maybe throw in a Mustang or something 1/2 the price of the others.

I'm not surprised the Tesla did well. I don't think anyone questions Tesla's performance capability.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JSH

The inclusion of the Jaguar is really weird. It is a CUV while the others are sport sedans and it is bigger and 1000 pounds heavier than the others.

It would have been more interesting to put a couple more performance cars in the mix. Maybe throw in a Mustang or something 1/2 the price of the others.

I'm not surprised the Tesla did well. I don't think anyone questions Tesla's performance capability.

Considering it's weight,frontal area, and mutilated roofline (high drag) they thought the Jag acquitted itself okay,in comparison to a VW Golf R and Subaru WRX STi.
Their Real-World range of 225-miles,considering a 90-kWh pack,compared to Tesla's 310-miles,with 75-kWhs, attracted criticism to Jaguar's wide tires and Cd 0.29,noting that there was a reason for Tesla's roofline and narrower rubber.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Considering it's weight,frontal area, and mutilated roofline (high drag) they thought the Jag acquitted itself okay,in comparison to a VW Golf R and Subaru WRX STi.
Their Real-World range of 225-miles,considering a 90-kWh pack,compared to Tesla's 310-miles,with 75-kWhs, attracted criticism to Jaguar's wide tires and Cd 0.29,noting that there was a reason for Tesla's roofline and narrower rubber.

Again a Golf or WRX is an odd match-up against a CUV. I would expect them to compare the Jag to something in the same class like a Porsche Macan Turbo or Mercedes AMG GLC

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by JSH

Again a Golf or WRX is an odd match-up against a CUV. I would expect them to compare the Jag to something in the same class like a Porsche Macan Turbo or Mercedes AMG GLC

I don't know Motor Trend's reasoning for the comparison.They may want to illustrate BEV performance in the context of 'street credibility',where the consumer's metrics are basically:acceleration,cornering force,lap-times,course top-speed,etc.,compared to ICE vehicles.
Soon,they'll have an Aston Martin Lagonda BEV,SUV to compare.Audi already has two BEVs on the market.Nissan-Infiniti-Renault-Mitubishi have a dozen in the pipeline.The BMW i4.Buick Enspire.Ford's MACH-1.Y2C8 mid-engine Corvette E-Ray hybrid,1,000-hp performance monster.Merced4es-AMG GT4.
Geely-Volvo-Polestar-1-2.Porsche Mission E Cross Turismo.Tesla Roadster-II.VW Atlas Cross Sport plug-in.And a bunch more.
It's a way to demonstrate aspects of each car,away from just straight-line numbers.

[wdb]

Tesla Model X and S sales plummet. Cannibalization from Model 3 is mentioned.

https://electrek.co/2019/04/04/tesla...e-and-refresh/