Quote:
Originally Posted by twitchyzero
panel gaps are just the tip of the iceberg..if you bothered reading my last 2 posts
Munro et al had two 2 cars for teardown...he even said in that April interview it's hit and miss some are fine while others are garbage
so if Tesla's defense is true, it still doesn't address what happens if your'ps was produced in 2017 or early 2018 with 90s Kia finish? there's no lemon law here
the bigger issue seems to be removing hundreds of spot welds...so they traded one problem for a potentially a much larger one...are we gonna see crash tests re-done?
Munro suggested that Tesla is inexperienced outside battery and drive controller and the chassis is overtly-complicated and heavy and that it was impossible to sell at 36K without loss
|
Regarding profitability, the most accurate teardown of the vehicle to date shows material and logistics cost of $18k and labour cost of $10k. I think they can be profitable on that considering they have done zero marketing for the vehicle. (REF:
https://electrek.co/2018/05/31/tesla...oduction-cost/)
For the overtly complicated and heavy vehicle that's being produced, when comparing it to a traditionally built ICE vehicle it's not really a fair comparison. Tesla has built these cars to be fast and safe first and foremost. So far, the vehicle has hit the mark on both of these (ref:
2018 Tesla Model 3).
Any panel gap issues or whatever else you can nitpick about it are quickly fixed upon delivery. One thing Tesla has done very well thus far is stand behind their vehicle and fix any issues with it.