This was posted 5 months 12 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Tesla Model Y RWD Existing Inventory: $54,900 (2024) & $53,780 (2023, Select States Only) Delivered + On-Road Costs @Tesla

3722
Tesla Model Y RWD Existing Inventory: $54,900 (2024) & $53,780 (2023, Select States Only) Delivered + On-Road Costs @Tesla
Go to Deal
Izzyhop on 09/06/2024 - 17:09 tesla.com (14063 clicks)
Last edited 11/06/2024 - 13:38 by 1 other user

Tesla has discounted existing inventory for the Model Y RWD 2024 to $54,900 (save $2,800) or 2023 to $53,780 (save $3,920) compared to the new stock $57,700 price from the previous deal.

Discount also applied to 2023 LR $66,400 (save $4,900), 2024 LR $68,200 (save $3,500) and 2023 Performance $78,490 (save $5,810).

Prices above include $1,400 delivery fee and $400 order fee. All prices exclude on-road costs which will vary per state.

Discount applied to older stock running the Hardware 3 compared to the latest Hardware 4 cars. HW4 has better cameras but removes the ultrasonic sensor (USS), and new black 19" Gemini wheels as standard.

2023 price is not available in every state, but 2024 stock seems ok in all states, drive away price for each state in price order for the 2024 Model Y RWD below.

  • ACT - $55,539 on road
  • QLD - $56,758 on road (exc. $6,000 EV rebate)
  • NT - $57,296 on road
  • TAS - $57,725 on road
  • NSW - $57,902 on road
  • SA - $57,973 on road
  • VIC - $58,251 on road
  • WA - $59,540 on road (exc. $3,500 EV rebate)

Referral Links

Referral: random (781)

Referee gets $350 off Model Y & 3 purchase.

Referrer gets $175 credit toward Supercharging, software upgrades, merchandise, service payments or a new vehicle. Limit of 10 referral benefits per calendar year.

Automotive Car Electric Vehicle SUV Tesla Inc

Related Stores

Tesla
Tesla

closed Comments

  • Vancomycin 1000mg on 09/06/2024 - 17:10
    +24

    WA really needs to lift their game up.

    • 4foxache on 09/06/2024 - 17:56
      +21

      Factor in the rebate and you're doing better than Vic

      • bigbadaboom on 09/06/2024 - 18:59
        +29

        as is with anything nowadays, VIC is a pretty low bar.

        • mlburnian on 09/06/2024 - 19:46
          +20

          What Dan did to VIC is nothing short of astonishing …the scary part is that he would have won another term if he stayed on…

      • Stealthchicken on 09/06/2024 - 17:58
        +5

        Not strictly true, when working at the port last year there was hundreds of teslas coming off the ship weekly.

        • AircraftFreight on 09/06/2024 - 18:03
          -7

          They directed all deliveries into Melbourne as eastern dealerships were bloody hungry at the time. (This is from a dealer where I got my used Model S in April)

          • JDNE on 09/06/2024 - 18:54
            +2

            @AircraftFreight: Negative. They are received in all states.
            Maybe was the case years ago, but not the recent 12 months.

            • Erasmuz on 09/06/2024 - 19:05
              +12

              @JDNE: Can confirm, 2 years ago when we purchased our Tesla I got a tracking number and could follow the ship from China > Singapore > Fremantle. It definitely didn't come interstate via road.

      • Duala on 09/06/2024 - 18:05
        +11

        Ok dude, now happydude?

      • BobLim on 09/06/2024 - 19:32
        +29

        No private vehicles should have any subsidies. Taxes should be used for things for the public good, like public transport, or left with the people who earnt it.

        • kaleidoscope on 09/06/2024 - 21:57
          +1

          Not happening in au :-)

        • happydude on 09/06/2024 - 23:35
          -7

          How did you get 6 up votes and I got 11 downvotes?

          • spb on 10/06/2024 - 05:45
            +7

            @happydude: Because you didn't explain your reasoning, it is the equivalent to saying "we should cull all horses" vs "we should cull feral horses in national parks because of the environmental damage they cause".

        • 1st-Amendment on 10/06/2024 - 10:04
          +4

          Taxes should be used for things for the public good

          But who decides what is 'the public good' and what isn't? Because this is the crux of most political issues.

          • BobLim on 10/06/2024 - 11:15
            +1

            @1st-Amendment: Based on consistency of policies, economics, and expert advice? Do you disagree that public transport and active transport should be encouraged over other types of mobility? In a technical sense, projects with a BCR under 1 should never be entertained, and for those above, priority should be given to projects benefitting a greater number of people IMO.

            Why does every infrastructure project and "strategic plan" seem to mention that these modes are a priority, yet it's also simultaneously somehow a good idea to gift thousands of dollars to incentivise someone to increase congestion and drive around in a 2000kg+ vehicle with minimal marginal running costs?

            • 1st-Amendment on 10/06/2024 - 21:10

              @BobLim:

              Based on consistency of policies, economics, and expert advice?

              How is that measured?

              Do you disagree that public transport and active transport should be encouraged over other types of mobility?

              Depends. Not enough info given.

              projects with a BCR under 1 should never be entertained

              Could you give examples of when this happened?

              Why does every infrastructure project and "strategic plan" seem to mention that these modes are a priority, yet it's also simultaneously somehow a good idea to gift thousands of dollars to incentivise someone to increase congestion and drive around in a 2000kg+ vehicle with minimal marginal running costs?

              The largest transport infrastructure project I can think of is the Sydney Metro and that does not fit your description.

              • BobLim on 10/06/2024 - 21:55

                @1st-Amendment:

                How is that measured?

                Obviously some subjectivity exists. I think constant government messaging about "busting congestion" and "reducing our climate impact", along with a published preference for modes other than private cars, is inconsistent with offering several thousands of dollars in subsidy for private cars (and indeed, spending billions on new freeways). There are other policy options which are not as inconsistent.

                Why, for example, can I salary sacrifice an electric vehicle with no FBT, but not a train ticket or commuter bicycle?

                Could you give examples of when this happened?

                Everything on this list presumably? If anyone can explain how spending $49k on a football club reunion event or $55k on a sign in front of a primary school helps to build a train line, I'd love to hear it.

                There are plenty of projects which scrape in after including a bunch of far-fetched assumptions and benefits remote to the project itself. These projects often blow out in costs so that even with those dodgy benefits they wouldn't be over the line once built. Example (and my understanding is that it's gotten worse since the post)

                The largest transport infrastructure project I can think of is the Sydney Metro

                Sydney Metro is literally a public transport project? See also 180 pages here and "NSW Government will align its education campaigns with infrastructure delivery to make walking and riding the first choice for short trips." (p27).

                I'd say the logical "first choice" for many would be the electric car that a government rebate helped pay for, and where the marginal cost of that trip is next to nothing, no?

                • 1st-Amendment on 11/06/2024 - 08:44
                  -3

                  @BobLim:

                  Why, for example, can I salary sacrifice an electric vehicle with no FBT,

                  So the first thing to remember is that tax is not 'the government giving you money', it is the government 'allowing you to keep more of your own money'.

                  So looking at it that way, why is there an FBT in the first place?

                  but not a train ticket

                  Train tickets are already subsidised. Ticket revenue does not cover the full cost of building and operating a railway.

                  or commuter bicycle?

                  Bicycles don't contribute to the cost of the roads they use, so this too can be seen as a 'subsidy'.

                  If I was King, most of these complicated taxes, levies, duties, and the corresponding rebates, exemptions, write-offs would be done away with. It seems that governments have set up an entire industry to tax people, then another one to arbitrarily give some of it back. The waste and inefficiency of all this way of doing business is nuts.

                  If anyone can explain how spending $49k on a football club reunion event or $55k on a sign in front of a primary school helps to build a train line, I'd love to hear it.

                  I can't speak for every line item of government spend, but the governments of day obviously decided that this was in 'the public good'. This is why 'the public good' is not a great qualifier for policy.

                  Sydney Metro is literally a public transport project?

                  Yes, did you forget you argument?. You said all projects are all about cars and not public/active transport, I gave you an example where the biggest most expensive infrastructure project ever is about public/active transport.

                  I'd say the logical "first choice" for many would be the electric car

                  Not according to sales figures. 90%+ still seem to prefer hybrids and ICE.

                  that a government rebate helped pay for, and where the marginal cost of that trip is next to nothing, no?

                  I find the EV subsidises a complete scam. They cost us all a lot and achieve nothing. But I think the part you are missing is that the reason the EV crusade is such a joke is precisely because the people in charge believe they are doing it for 'the public good'. And this is an example of why 'The public good' is a terrible reason to do things since it can be used to justify literally anything.
                  Spend a $100B on EVs? 'For the public good!'
                  Force people to take experimental medicine? 'For the public good!'
                  Commit genocide? 'For the public good!'

                  It's a slippery slope.

                  • BobLim on 11/06/2024 - 20:57

                    @1st-Amendment:

                    why is there an FBT in the first place?

                    The government hates the peasants getting anything for themselves without taking a cut at every turn? My point is that this government has removed FBT for novated leases on electric cars for some reason at great expense, but not for the modes they claim to be supporting and preferring, i.e. public and active transport, which would be a much lower cost per person. It's irrelevant how much each mode is supposedly subsidised - we're talking about the individual taxpayer.

                    You said all projects are all about cars and not public/active transport,

                    Nope, the opposite in many cases. But spending up big on vehicle subsidies and road projects both directly competes with funding for the public/active projects, and reduces their appeal for users. Many such projects have dubious BCRs even if they were to be aligned to the behaviour-change ambitions in the strategies (which they're not).

                    The NSW government is spending billions on the Sydney Metro and its associated active transport infrastructure because it says this is the right thing to do strategically. How does funding thousands of private cars deliver on this strategy to discourage private cars? The NSW and federal governments are seemingly exploiting every possible opportunity to get as many EVs as possible into the hands of NSW drivers - how is this consistent with walking and riding being the "first choice" to get around?

                    the people in charge believe they are doing it for 'the public good'.

                    If this is true, it's both disturbing and unacceptable. People holding such a view would not constitute "experts" in my opinion. I don't see how funding private cars would likely ever stack up in any reasonable benefit-cost analysis, and certainly not in the way it's currently implemented.

                    Force people to take experimental medicine? 'For the public good!'

                    That sounds familiar?

                    • 1st-Amendment on 11/06/2024 - 22:36
                      -1

                      @BobLim:

                      My point is that this government has removed FBT for novated leases on electric cars for some reason at great expense, but not for the modes they claim to be supporting and preferring, i.e. public and active transport

                      And I just gave you an example where they did do that. They did both. Not everyone can catch a train everywhere. Not everyone lives near a train station.

                      Many such projects have dubious BCRs

                      Could you post these so we can compare?

                      How is this consistent with walking and riding being the "first choice" to get around?

                      Is this an actual objective of the government? I can't imagine anyone thinking that something like that could ever be practical.
                      Everything I've read on the subject talks about 'multimodal', not just walking and cycling.

                  • p1 ama on 11/06/2024 - 20:58
                    +1

                    @1st-Amendment:

                    I find the EV subsidises a complete scam. They cost us all a lot and achieve nothing. But I think the part you are missing is that the reason the EV crusade is such a joke is precisely because the people in charge believe they are doing it for 'the public good'. And this is an example of why 'The public good' is a terrible reason to do things since it can be used to justify literally anything.

                    Sure, but if you're against government subsidies, I mean EVs is pretty far down the list on the basis of how much governments are actually subsidising them.

                    I respect people who have a principled opposition to government subsidies of any private industry, however, I've never met a single person who is actually principled about this. The issue is that many people simply just end up calling out subsidies for things they dislike and remain silent on things they do like. It's just partisan hackery.

                    If you have a principled objection to government subsidies, you should be protesting about big defence contracts, and to fossil fuel producers (see https://australiainstitute.org.au/report/fossil-fuel-subsidi…), which costs the Australian taxpayer $14.5b last financial year (a 31% year-on-year increase).

                    I've not been able to find any figures on what the total cost of EV subsidies are, but realistically, it will not even be anywhere in the same ballpark as $14.5b. Last year (in 2023), there were 87,000 EVs sold. Even with a subsidy up to $10,000 each (which they're not), the total ends up being just $870m, so less than $1b, less than 1% of the total government subsidy of fossil fuels (and even a smaller percentage of defence).

                    If you were truly against government subsidies, why not go after the biggest categories of waste first? Or is it just subsidies of sectors you don't like? Be principled, and don't be a hack.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 11/06/2024 - 22:21
                      -3

                      @p1 ama:

                      EVs is pretty far down the list

                      But are they? I've seen estimates that this 'Net Zero' malarkey will cost over $100B and for what exactly? What is the return on this investment?
                      Remember it's not just the discount on the car, it's all the infrastructure upgrades required to support them which are huge, the higher priced electricity which then makes EVERYTHING cost more etc

                      you should be protesting about big defence contracts, and to fossil fuel producers

                      You don't seem to understand what ROI is. Those things literally keep people alive. I'm fine with taxpayer money being used to create and maintain civilisation. EVs do none of that.

                      If you were truly against government subsidies, why not go after..

                      You've proceeded on a false assumption that all spending is equally useless. I find defence spending quite valuable since it is the only thing keeping the whole show going.

                      I find fossil fuels quite valuable because they provide all of our food and clothing and materials that we need to survive. Without them there literally would be no civilisation.

                      What does an EV provide anyone other than a slightly more smug way to travel short distances?

                      If you were truly against government subsidies,

                      I'm not. You seem to have misunderstood my post so I'll summarise my point. It's not the subsidy itself, it's the justification used for the subsidy.

                      • p1 ama on 12/06/2024 - 10:54
                        +1

                        @1st-Amendment:

                        Those things literally keep people alive. I'm fine with taxpayer money being used to create and maintain civilisation.

                        Subsidies for large fossil fuel corporations who have a persistent and stable revenue source is "creating and maintaining civilisation"?

                        I find fossil fuels quite valuable because they provide all of our food and clothing and materials that we need to survive. Without them there literally would be no civilisation.

                        Ah - so "the greater good", I see. Yes. Thought you weren't a fan of the "greater good".

                        What does an EV provide anyone other than a slightly more smug way to travel short distances?

                        Why is an EV a "more smug" way to travel? It's just a car.

                        This is a silly discussion to have, you've clearly picked a political lane and are just defending your tribe. Sad to see - thought we had an intelligent one who actually has principled beliefs.

                        • 1st-Amendment on 13/06/2024 - 08:06
                          -1

                          @p1 ama:

                          Subsidies for large fossil fuel corporations who have a persistent and stable revenue source is "creating and maintaining civilisation"?

                          Yes. Do you know where stuff comes from?
                          Here's a test you can do at home. See how long you can survive without using the products of fossil fuels. No plastic, glass, steel, concrete, food clothes, electricity, medicine. Get back to me with your findings.

                          Ah - so "the greater good", I see.

                          It's not 'greater good', it's tangible and measurable benefits. eg Food keeps people alive. Do you eat food? Next time you eat anything ask yourself, 'where did this come from?'. It sounds like you're in for a revelation.
                          'Greater good' is the vague excuse used when you can't define the actual benefits, like with EVs. What tangible benefit has been gained from all the government funding? Can you name any specific benefits?

                          Why is an EV a "more smug" way to travel?

                          No idea, but it seems to have that effect.

                          This is a silly discussion to have

                          What is silly about it? The fact that you can't define the ROI of EV subsidies compared to other spend such as Defence or Fossil fuels? I actually thought that was a good discussion since so many people don't seem to understand how they work.

                          you've clearly picked a political lane

                          You mean YOU made some false assumptions…

                          thought we had an intelligent one who actually has principled beliefs.

                          You invented a strawman then argued against it. That's not a great start.

                          • p1 ama on 15/06/2024 - 12:30
                            +1

                            @1st-Amendment:

                            It's not 'greater good', it's tangible and measurable benefits. eg Food keeps people alive. Do you eat food? Next time you eat anything ask yourself, 'where did this come from?'. It sounds like you're in for a revelation.

                            Great, so would you be in support of providing food to those who can't afford it?

                            • 1st-Amendment on 16/06/2024 - 10:16
                              -2

                              @p1 ama:

                              Great, so would you be in support of providing food to those who can't afford it?

                              Depends. You haven't really given much detail of your grand plan there… What food? How often? What is the eligibility criteria? How is the scheme funded? What is the success metric?

                              Did you work out where your food comes from yet? Because if you did you would know that this is already happens to some regard. Primary industries receive 'subsidies' specifically for things like this. Because here's the kicker, cheap and reliable Fossil Fuels are at the heart of it all. Now you know this, does this change your opinion?

                              • p1 ama on 16/06/2024 - 11:58
                                +1

                                @1st-Amendment:

                                Depends. You haven't really given much detail of your grand plan there… What food? How often? What is the eligibility criteria? How is the scheme funded? What is the success metric?

                                As a broader idea - similar to how "fossil fuel subsidies" is also a broader idea - we can make decision on which fossil fuels, how often, which producers get it, what are the eligibility criteria for the producers and so on.

                                Did you work out where your food comes from yet? Because if you did you would know that this is already happens to some regard. Primary industries receive 'subsidies' specifically for things like this. Because here's the kicker, cheap and reliable Fossil Fuels are at the heart of it all. Now you know this, does this change your opinion?

                                I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that fossil fuels have an important use. I'm not debating that. I think you're misguided, I'm not against private companies digging up fossil fuels and selling their output. This is free enterprise and the market obviously exists for it, so it is good business (as it has been for hundreds of years, let's not forget). Hence your argument that "waaah fossil fuels are really important" is meaningless, because there are plenty of other "really important" industries which could lay claim to government subsidies.

                                FWIW, you could make similar arguments about subsidising farming (everyone needs foods), automotive (everyone needs cars), textiles (everyone needs clothes)…etc., based off of your similar argument that "everyone needs fossil fuels".

                                Ultimately I think my view is quite straightforward, we shouldn't have government subsidies of private industry. If it's a competitive marketplace and demand exists for an output, then we should jsut let the free market work. As you say, let people keep more of their money.

                                I'm not the one trying to twist myself into a pretzel defending why my money should go into the coffers of multinational fossil fuel companies. If you are so keen for your tax dollars to go to them, perhaps you should consider making a direct donation.

                                • 1st-Amendment on 17/06/2024 - 10:31
                                  -1

                                  @p1 ama:

                                  because there are plenty of other "really important" industries which could lay claim to government subsidies.

                                  But not EV's, Which is topic here. What value do they give to society? How many disadvantaged people are better off because someone somewhere bought a Tesla instead of a BMW?

                                  you could make similar arguments about…

                                  The point you seem to be missing is that 'fossil fuel subsidies' aren't there because the LNP are goblins that live under the mountain and eat coal for breakfast, it's because cheap and reliable energy is what keeps civilisation out of the dark ages. And without it, millions of people die.

                                  we shouldn't have government subsidies of private industry

                                  Remember, not all 'subsidies' are the same thing. The government allowing you to keep some of your own money (type A - freer markets) is not the same as them taking one persons money to give to someone else (type B - socialism). This is an important distinction that is often missed.

                                  I'm not the one trying to twist myself into a pretzel defending why my money

                                  It's not your money. This is where you are going wrong. See point above. Most 'Fossil Fuel subsidies' are in the form of tax breaks (Type A), and they have real world benefits ie civilisation. How do EV subsidies compare?

                                  should go into the coffers of multinational fossil fuel companies

                                  It doesn't. You seem confused on how tax breaks work. The Type A subsidy not mine or your money, it's their own money they get to keep to invest in projects that keep civilisation running.

                                  If you are so keen for your tax dollars to go to them

                                  Not my tax dollars (mostly), it's their own tax dollars.

                                  perhaps you should consider making a direct donation.

                                  I do by investing in them. Because I like civilisation and I want it to continue.

                                  So the argument here is when you said "I mean EVs is pretty far down the list" when based on ROI it's probably at the top.
                                  Maybe only eclipsed by Aboriginal welfare, I can't think of any bigger waste of taxpayer money (Type B), happy to be corrected though. WGEA is up there although their budget is only $10M/year so peanuts compared to tens of $billions blown on 'Net Zero' and 'Reconciliation'.

                    • arcticmonkey on 23/06/2024 - 20:13

                      @p1 ama: Those fossil fuel subsidies are disgraceful

          • aarick on 05/07/2024 - 09:44

            @1st-Amendment: Exactly. The reasoning for EV subsidies for private vehicle is to increase EV adoption. This would lead to reduction in emission, leading to slowing climate change which is good for the public.
            Not saying this is my view, just explaining the logic and that it meets the objective of subsidies for the good of the public.

            • 1st-Amendment on 05/07/2024 - 12:20
              -4

              @aarick:

              Just explaining the logic and that it meets the objective of subsidies for the good of the public.

              The problem is that no 'public good' can actually be demonstrated with EVs. What has actually been objectively improved?
              This is the difference between actual measurable improvements (ie as with fossil fuels that created civilisation as we know it) and pipe dreams and fluffy virtue signalling that cost a lot but achieve no measurable benefit.(as with EVs)

        • Dsiee on 10/06/2024 - 12:44

          Sure, we need to tax negative externalities so we can have a free market then.

        • Big L on 10/06/2024 - 13:23
          +2

          Like mining companies, energy companies, media companies, negative gearing, franking credit rebates to non-tax payers, diesel subsidies, jobkeeper, aged care grants….

          • BobLim on 10/06/2024 - 14:12

            @Big L: Agreed with many/most of those - EV subsidies are not the only example of waste, but they are the one discussed in this post.

            • 1st-Amendment on 13/06/2024 - 08:54

              @BobLim:

              EV subsidies are not the only example of waste, but they are the one discussed in this post.

              It is useful to compare though, because is it is a common argument used in defending EV subsidies, 'bUt fOsSiL fUeL sUbSiDiEs!!!'

              It almost like the people making these claims have no idea how any of this stuff works.

              First important point, not all 'subsidies' (I'll use this word to cover all government measures) are the same. eg The government allowing you to keep some of your own money is not the same as the government taxing some people and giving that money to someone else.

              Second important point, some 'subsidies' can be shown to have a net benefit, especially once you consider what type the subsidy is (point 1 above).

              Third important point, government 'subsidies' in principle are supposed to help the disadvantaged among us. So cheaper energy means cheaper stuff which everyone benefits from. How does an EV subsidy, literally a cash handout for middle class people help poor people? It is comedy how insane the idea is.

      • noz on 09/06/2024 - 23:23
        +11

        I'm fine with that. As long as you also get them to remove all subsidies to fossil fuel companies?

        • beach bum on 10/06/2024 - 00:09
          +6

          Do you mean like 50% diesel fuel subsidiary for all mine’s vehicles ?

        • Ugly on 10/06/2024 - 08:33

          What subsidies to fossil fuel companies?

          • Thorn69 on 10/06/2024 - 08:49
            -1

            @Ugly: i dont think they will answer you , as far as i know the government has a 70 to 80 cent excise on fuel, the mines in qld pay royalties and a low amount of taxes because of royalties ,people cant basic math but if the state government had said no we will operate this mine instead of letting some other entity operate it taxes would be nothing wouldn't need them, but nothing our governments do make a iota of logical sense

            • greatlamp on 10/06/2024 - 14:02
              -1

              @Thorn69: Fuel excise is specifically earmarked to cover the maintenance of roads. Vehicles not driven on public roads, such as in a mine, are exempt. It doesn't have anything to do with the states.

              Personally I don't think mining companies need such a discount but it isn't exclusive to them.

          • BeepBoop on 10/06/2024 - 09:37
            +2

            @Ugly: Here's a report. There are also plenty of other articles and sources of information available if you look for them.

        • 1st-Amendment on 10/06/2024 - 21:14
          -1

          As long as you also get them to remove all subsidies to fossil fuel companies?

          Can you name one? Or did you just read that in the Guardian and repeat it?

      • 0806449 on 10/06/2024 - 09:49
        +1

        Yep give it to all the road cyclists. 🤪
        They are the one risking eveything to wear lyrca

    • shegeloaf on 10/06/2024 - 03:53
      +1

      Time to relocate to Tas to save 3k

    • HeWhoKnows on 10/06/2024 - 08:29
      -1

      This is proof that the EV charge has run out of steam (sorry power).
      They have more or less sold as many EVs as people are going to take.
      Sales are slowing right down now is infrastructure in Australia is still very poor and power prices (rechrarging costs) are going up and up.

  • SpeedRunnerLink on 09/06/2024 - 17:12
    +34

    Going to keep dropping now since demand has fallen significantly and with competition from BYD as well.

    https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/ca…

    • UltimateAI on 09/06/2024 - 17:26
      +32

      Possibly but that article is bollocks, two carries recently arrived with thousands of cars each. Delivery centres are currently packed with people collecting Tesla’s.
      Won’t really know the truth until early next month.
      We do know EV sales are up 10% so growth has slowed, but it’s still growth. EV demand is up 325%…

      • choofa on 09/06/2024 - 17:45
        +7

        Tesla model Y sales are actually up 10% this year

        It’s the model 3 sales that are massively down this year

        • Vorsprungdurchtech on 09/06/2024 - 19:47
          +15

          Tesla model 3 monthly sales:

          May 2023 - 1,298
          May 2024 - 1,958
          Up 50.8% vs same month last year

          YTD sales

          2023 10,117
          2024 8,823
          Down 12.7% vs same period last year.

          VFACTS May 2024

          • choofa on 09/06/2024 - 19:53
            +3

            @Vorsprungdurchtech: So it’s not that massive. Tesla sales for the year are very close to last years total

            They are healthy numbers regardless. No real worry. Which is what Tesla said during all this media beat up.

            • SpeedRunnerLink on 10/06/2024 - 14:55
              -1

              @choofa: Not really.

              If theyre dropping prices like this and sales numbers aren't going up that's not a good sign.

              Even if they sell more in 2024 it doesn't mean its the same as 2023 as they have sold a lot of cars much less than what it was worth in 2023. With inflation their running costs have also gone up which hampers their final numbers.

              this is far from a healthy number if you dive deeper into the issue.

          • Big L on 10/06/2024 - 13:25

            @Vorsprungdurchtech: Tesla aren't reporting to VFACTS anymore

            • x d on 10/06/2024 - 15:36
              +1

              @Big L: "Tesla said it will continue to report its data until the end of the financial year – 30 June 2024 – to "ensure continuity of public reporting of vehicle trends including electric vehicle uptake."" - Drive

            • Vorsprungdurchtech on 10/06/2024 - 17:42
              +1

              @Big L: This month (June 2024) will be their last reporting month.

        • x d on 10/06/2024 - 15:44

          Not sure where you got your numbers: TMY May 24 - 1609, May 2023 - 3178, that's 49% down. Despite plenty being available, sales have started to slide after March with 4379 sales, but only 1166 in April, and now getting no where near previous.

          • choofa on 10/06/2024 - 15:55
            -1

            @x d: Have a look the yearly sales YTD
            Monthly sales fluctuations aren’t a reliable indicator as shipments are inconsistent
            Tesla Model Y
            2024 YTD: 9610
            2023 YTD: 8442
            Actually up 13.8% this year so far

            • x d on 10/06/2024 - 16:17
              +1

              @choofa: Month to month numbers used to be inconsistent previously as they came in every 2-3 months and stock were immediately delivered. Now there's plenty of stock in inventory so monthly sales fluctuations don't exist and reflect deliveries and demand.

              • choofa on 10/06/2024 - 16:27

                @x d: The fact is that Tesla model Y sales are up 13.8% YTD
                Things may well be turning south but so far it’s not that bad. Let’s see where it ends up by the end of the year and we will know the full story

          • Vorsprungdurchtech on 10/06/2024 - 17:47

            @x d: Per my post, you'll see figures are for model 3, and clearly stated from VFACTs May 2024.

      • Xizor on 09/06/2024 - 17:50
        +7

        It's not bollocks, it's just sensationalized. Gotta get those clicks and make a song n dance. But there are many real challenging factors playing out. Between the ongoing flood of Chinese EVs and, probably more importantly given the nature of our car market, rapidly improving hybrid availability & options, Tesla is having to go through working out where they fit on this market without protections moving forward.

        • Bill Burn on 09/06/2024 - 18:30
          +6

          Gotta give the boomers tomorrow's zingers

          • Tleyx on 09/06/2024 - 18:36
            +2

            @Bill Burn: Gotta cope that their ice will have resale

      • poppingtags on 09/06/2024 - 18:58
        +8

        The big threat that has a lot of brands shaking is the introduction of 12 new Chinese marques that have extremely competitive pricing, within the next year or so. We'll have a lot more options in the sub $50k market by then, and in even better news - the secondhand values of a lot of EVs, especially Teslas given the numbers they were purchased in, are going to plummet. I wouldn't be surprised if second hand Model Ys hit $40k next year.

        We saw the same doom and gloom about Japanese and Korean cars when they first started arriving here - and now people love them. The only difference is the Chinese marques are getting better, much faster than the Japanese and Korean marques did. They've already cracked top 10 sales lists in Australia, and will only keep increasing their market share in the coming years.

        • muzzamo on 09/06/2024 - 19:44
          -2

          The other difference is that china is a geostregic rival (and our largest trading partner).

          We are spending ~500B on subs for a reason.

          • gromit on 09/06/2024 - 19:48
            +5

            @muzzamo:

            We are spending ~500B on subs for a reason.

            Yep to curry favour with the yanks. Those subs would be little more than an anonying pimple for China if we got in a conflict with them.

            • Rally Dave on 10/06/2024 - 11:23
              -4

              @gromit: To completely ignore a real threat to our way of life, a country that has been aggressively impacting us economically with trade sanctions as we call them out, a country that uses slave labour to build cheap cars and ignores human rights constantly, a country that has taken over the once owned freedoms of Hong Kong and constantly lies, a country that ignores internationally accepted laws and UN declarations shows a massive selfish need for just cheap stuff and ignore all the consequences. I just wonder whether it is the fact that you are paid by the CCP, totally ignorant, or totally selfish (or something even stranger. CCP constantly cries out about anything we do but lies about what we do. They make the most of our freedom of speech int eh western world to create turmoil and disharmony by making up lots of fake social media posts. They have been found to have over 1000 CCP employees working in our country, illegally conducting military and coercive behaviours against individuals, especially those that have immigrated from China. They also have jailed Australians (and still have) and will not let our government contact them or make sure that get a fair hearing.

              • TightAl on 10/06/2024 - 11:32

                @Rally Dave: Lmao get off the pipe.
                Guess what country in the world divvies out the most sanctions?
                It's not China.

          • Manny Calavera on 09/06/2024 - 20:41
            +10

            @muzzamo: Are we doing the Utopia bit again?

            https://youtu.be/MTCqXlDjx18?si=1fY4vp0Dl-GmsuEm

        • Grok on 09/06/2024 - 19:53
          +12

          The threat to Tesla is Chinese EVs not legacy auto. The Chinese though are still in the copying phase of development and their self driving tech is nowhere near Tesla. If Tesla perfects FSD and robotaxis then China is toast and the all pervasive private car is history.

          For every other car maker China is an existential threat of the highest order that is why the USA has effectively banned them with 100% tariffs. The Europeans will do the same, or more accurately, more of the same. The Europeans have all sorts of barriers to foreign car already.

          • slipstreamexpress on 09/06/2024 - 20:36
            -7

            @Grok: Tesla is behind the major European brands now in terms of self driving, and falling further by the month.

            FSD from Tesla is not even remotely feasible in the near future despite the snake oil musk tries to sell. Merc, BMW, Volvo and others are going to get closer long before Tesla does and this will spell very hard times for them in the future.

          • dealhunter52 on 09/06/2024 - 22:08

            @Grok: Turkey just announced 40% tariff on Chinese car imports yesterday. EU will follow suit. If not, their local auto industries will be decimated, resulting in economic downturn and massive layoffs.

            • gwong on 10/06/2024 - 12:36
              +1

              @dealhunter52: Well that would push more to Australia

              • dealhunter52 on 10/06/2024 - 12:52
                +2

                @gwong: Australia doesn't have a local auto industry. We import all our cars anyway, so it will only result in cheaper and more competitive prices.

          • 0806449 on 10/06/2024 - 09:51
            +2

            @Grok: Negated once they build BYD in Mexico for US market

          • Alistair79 on 10/06/2024 - 09:54
            +3

            @Grok: China already has thousands of robotaxis running is various cities for over a year now. I can almost guarantee that China will lead the world is autonomous driving technology simply due to the fact that they have hundreds of millions of people crammed into cities where autonomous driving vehicles make the most sense.

            • resisting the urge on 10/06/2024 - 10:41
              -2

              @Alistair79: How many involved in incidents though? Even Chinese AI has to learn. Only way to do that is with miles… er, unless…

              And each company will have to attain regulatory approval in each market. May not happen until 2050. By that time…

              • TightAl on 10/06/2024 - 11:34
                -1

                @resisting the urge: This is the mental dissonance that comes with everything China.

                HoW ManY InciDeNts lol

                • resisting the urge on 10/06/2024 - 15:13

                  @TightAl: Uh, I dunno- the dissonance of Tyrell Corp's coming autonomous units is enough for me…

            • dealhunter52 on 10/06/2024 - 12:15

              @Alistair79: US has Cruise and Waymo robotaxis that have been running in US cities since 2022. Tesla has the lead in private autonomous driving.

            • Grok on 10/06/2024 - 13:00
              +1

              @Alistair79: Nonsense.

              The Chinese Robotaxis are crude, geofenced affairs that need very very detailed maps this bears little in similarity and capability to Tesla’s aim for a Robotaxi that works through vision everywhere in the world.

              The Tesla system completely different thing, it aims to be completely autonomous everywhere.

              The news media who take their advertising also state that the Mercedes Benz autonomous system is more advanced than Tesla. Go look up the ridiculous limitations and ridiculous scenarios when the MB system works. It’s a complete nonsense.

          • Big L on 10/06/2024 - 13:27
            -1

            @Grok: You must be new here, uttering such sense.

            • Grok on 10/06/2024 - 13:58
              -1

              @Big L: You seem to not know anything about the Tesla autonomous system or the automotive industry.

              Plus I have twice the membership here than you.

          • nomoneynoproblems on 10/06/2024 - 16:16
            -1

            @Grok: Self driving tech is a pipe dream, unless its on a track. At which point you may as well be on a train. Look at any autonomous tech. There will always be someone behind the wheel.

            • Grok on 10/06/2024 - 18:39

              @nomoneynoproblems:

              Self driving tech is a pipe dream

              Two points

              One, I said if

              Two, They said the exact same thing about mainstream electric cars in general. Some still do!

              OK, Three, They said the exact same thing about fully reusable rockets.

              Many human accomplishments in human history were pipe dreams for centuries until they weren't

              If Elon pulls off his dream of a fully autonomous robotaxi he will change the entire world. The private car will go away with all that does to society. An electric autonomous robotaxi will cost a tiny fraction of the cost an Uber to hire, the private car will make no sense.

              Look at any autonomous tech. There will always be someone behind the wheel.

              Not the Tesla system.

              • nomoneynoproblems on 11/06/2024 - 09:36

                @Grok: Electric cars and reusable rockets were always a money problem. How much money do you invest in it before you get a return on it. Musk managed to convince people he could do it.

                Autonomous anything is a safety issue, hence why there will always be a need for a human behind the wheel. Look at airplanes and ships. They essentially drive themselves but we still need people in the cockpit.

                The only way autonomous driving really takes off if everyone else doesn't drive.

                • Grok on 11/06/2024 - 11:30
                  +2

                  @nomoneynoproblems:

                  Electric cars and reusable rockets were always a money problem

                  Not true.

                  GM threw billions at the electric car and gave up the minute the government got off it back. Then crushed all the cars.

                  NASA spent hundreds of billions trying to make the Space Shuttle partially reusable and failed miserably. Each flight of the Shuttle needed six months of repairs and each flight cost more than a conventional rocket.

                  NASA couldn’t do it with effectively unlimited funds.

                  SpaceX took a completely non conventional approach that was and is still widely criticised to developing its rockets and it is paying dividends.

                  The only way autonomous driving really takes off if everyone else doesn't drive

                  Elon Musk thinks otherwise, why the hate?

                  Aren’t people allowed to go for the impossible anymore?

                  By the way, I am dubious myself that it can be done this decade the way Musk sees it.

                  • nomoneynoproblems on 11/06/2024 - 14:22
                    -1

                    @Grok: lol it is true. The cost of the EV1 was too expensive and had barely any range so of the course the government got off their back. It wouldn't be the first time a government agency tried to intervene only to back pedal.

                    NASA aren't a private entity so of course they wouldn't build re-usable rockets and why would they? They're a space agency not a rocket building one. I'm pretty sure Boeing build their rockets for them.

                    I'm not hating on anything. I just disagree that autonomous vehicles are pipe dream in the western anglosphere. Like i said, its not a money problem or even will be a technology problem at this rate, but its a safety one. Someone above mentions it happening in China. I can see it working over there as the government can impose their will onto the people but here? No. Too much red-tape and safety first culture in the west.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join