• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Analysis Reveals Tesla Spends More On Warranty Costs than Daimler or General Motors


    • How much Tesla spends on warranty work is shocking to say the least

    Despite the hoopla and endless praise for Tesla and their vehicles, there are a number of owners who aren't happy with the company. Go on to any Tesla forum and you're bound to fin endless posts from owners of the Model X listing issues from poor paint quality to doors not closing. The Model S is no stranger to problems with batteries failing and the infotainment system freezing.

     

    This is a big issue for Tesla as they have been burning cash for the past two years, with a good amount of this cash coming going to repairs and warranty costs. CEO Elon Musk has promised investors to slow down the burn and curtail costs retaining to repairs. With Tesla announcing their results later today, we'll see if that promise was kept.

     

    But how much is Tesla spending when it comes to repairs? Reuters did some analysis on Tesla's recent annual report by looking at the total vehicles sold and total spending from warranty repairs and accruals - money set aside for future warranty work. Their analysis showed Tesla spent $1,043 per vehicle on repairs and set aside $2,036 per vehicle for future warranty work. The good news is these numbers are 17 and 34 percent lower than 2014. But compared to the likes of General Motors, Ford, and Daimler, Tesla's numbers are quite high.

    • General Motors: $400 per vehicle on repairs, $332 for future work
    • Ford: $429 per vehicle on repairs, $308 for future work
    • Daimler: $970 per vehicle on repairs, $1,294 for future work


    It should be noted that Tesla only sold 50,000 vehicles last year, while GM, Ford, and Diamler sold millions. Nevertheless, spending just over $150 million of the total $700 million burnt for repair work isn't a good sign.

     


    Telsa in a statement to Reuters said it has reduced the cost of repair claims in the first year along with the amount it reserves for future repairs.

     

    Source: Reuters

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    Pretty sure salaries are not being reflected in warranty/repair costs, DD. Otherwise, GM, Ford et al, would be MUCH MUCH higher with their employee count.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Pretty sure salaries are not being reflected in warranty/repair costs, DD. Otherwise, GM, Ford et al, would be MUCH MUCH higher with their employee count.

     

    warranty work Hours get billed back to warranty cost centers at HQ.  

     

    A GM tech being paid for non-warranty work is being paid by the dealership who charges the customer and takes a markup.

     

    A GM tech being paid for warranty work is being paid by the dealership who bills a specific number of work hours back to GM.

     

    Legacy Dealerships don't make much profit on warranty work.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Tesla still has 400,000 orders for the Model 3.  People are thirsty for a Tesla, the demand is off the charts high for them.  The company however at some point has to turn those sales into a profit.  They can't survive forever without making a profit.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    moment of truth is coming nigh for Tesla.  If they were smart, they would either fix the Model X's complexity (ditch the doors) or add a model 3 crossover.

     

    You can't build cars with subpar quality for too long before it comes back to hurt you.

     

    if they go belly up, i would not want a furrin company to swoop in and buy the scraps at pennies on the dollar.  If anything, some Chinese company would buy it up and turn it into just a design center, and fund them so they could make the cars in China.  A better scenario is Ford or GM buys them, strips the meat off the bone, and throws away the scraps.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, that may well explain THIS story:

    "Having only recently begun production on its first CUV, the Model X, and with the launch of its first 'mainstream' model, the Model 3, just around the corner, it's an incredibly important time for Tesla. While it's never good for a company to lose several import executives, now is an even worse time for Tesla to be losing them. And yet two manufacturing executives, including the global head of production, just announced they're leaving."

    More at the link:

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/news/a29069/tesla-just-lost-two-important-manufacturing-executives/

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I expected it to be a little up there....but wow, that is pretty bad. 

     

    Considering the price point, you would expect more.....

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, that may well explain THIS story:

    "Having only recently begun production on its first CUV, the Model X, and with the launch of its first 'mainstream' model, the Model 3, just around the corner, it's an incredibly important time for Tesla. While it's never good for a company to lose several import executives, now is an even worse time for Tesla to be losing them. And yet two manufacturing executives, including the global head of production, just announced they're leaving."

    More at the link:

    http://www.roadandtr...ing-executives/

    saw that, wonder if that's an indicator of the whole thing blowing apart at the seams

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well if they go belly-up, they go belly-up.

     

    But hopefully they built enough momentum to keep GM, Nissan and others committed to electric.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The free market is the ultimate factor that should determine such things.

    As with much that I write, there seems to be this impression that I have a hate-on for Tesla and Musk. Not so-I applaud the leaps in electric car tech that he helped facilitate. But from the beginning, his hubris and financing models were suspect.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The free market is the ultimate factor that should determine such things.

     

    Tesla stock is up $10 in after hours trading.  Ford fell after announcing big profits. So much for the market... eh?

     

    Musk has the bucks, he can put more money in if he needs to. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Random thing - ...I was watching Tesla stock when it was hovering at like $30-35 per share. This was after the IPO, but before their infamous DOE loan repayment.

     

    They were doing crazy things even back then in 2010. But I thought for a moment. They want to pay off their DOE loans quickly, I thought. So predictably, they had their IPO, but something in their prospectus must have really riled potential investors at the time. I was ornering people (and I was to say the least, not nearly sophisticated with the finances, being really just a kid) to buy Tesla stock. Everyone I could, buy it now, I think they're gonna do something to shock potential investors.

     

    Now the stock was priced at $17 per share in the initial offering. They raised a rather mundane but not insignificant $228 million dollars. 

     

    But the way they paid off their loans in one lump sum, and then how they rocked the world with the Model S....their share price started to skyrocket. It was a firmly held belief at the time that the company had a winning product, and I think there may have been some overly high optimism, largely because no one had a recent example of how the consolidation in the industry, between the OEMs, the integration with suppliers has made it so difficult to become a mainstream, blue-chip automaker.

     

    I think Tesla as a name is too valuable. I can easily imagine if Tesla goes belly up there's going to be plenty of scavengers wanting an excellent deal. Though I wonder what kind of leverage anyone has on Tesla.

     

    The company has already made the majority of its IP public. It has nothing to lose by toughing it out. It's largest equity holder is the highest executive, and he continues to take the heat from not only the industry, but every time there are more offerings of ownership, he takes a big hit, and then put his own money on the line to repurchase shares at absurd prices.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The free market is the ultimate factor that should determine such things.

     

    Tesla stock is up $10 in after hours trading.  Ford fell after announcing big profits. So much for the market... eh?

     

    Musk has the bucks, he can put more money in if he needs to.

    Bre-X stock was once an investor darling as well. Google how THAT ended up. As Mark Twain once wrote, history doesn't repeat itself-but it rhymes.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Every Chevrolet Bolt that will be rolling off the assembly line will lose General Motors close to $9,000 once they are sold. This seems like madness, but according to a report from Bloomberg, there is some method to it. 
      Thanks to new regulations done by California Air Resources Board, automakers have to sell a certain amount of zero-emission vehicles if they want to sell other vehicles - primarily crossovers, SUVs, and trucks - in the state. These new regulations say by 2025, zero-emission vehicles need to make up 15.4 percent of the market. Since then, nine other states including New York have adopted these regulations. All told, these ten states make up 30 percent of the total U.S. auto market.
      Take for example Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. CEO Sergio Marchionne revealed a couple years back they take a hit of $14,000 on every Fiat 500e sold. But if they wanted to sell Ram pickups and Jeep SUVs in California, they need to take the hit.
      How does Bloomberg get the $9,000 figure? That's due to a source at General Motors who revealed the estimate is based on the Bolt's $37,500 base price. A GM spokesman declined to comment.
      If General Motors is able to sell enough Bolts, they'll be able to gather enough credits to not only sell other vehicles which will make up for the Bolt's loss, but also be able to sell extra credits to other automakers. Tesla has taken advantage of this to great effect. In the third quarter, Tesla made $139 million from selling credits.  
      Source: Bloomberg
       
       
       

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Every Chevrolet Bolt that will be rolling off the assembly line will lose General Motors close to $9,000 once they are sold. This seems like madness, but according to a report from Bloomberg, there is some method to it. 
      Thanks to new regulations done by California Air Resources Board, automakers have to sell a certain amount of zero-emission vehicles if they want to sell other vehicles - primarily crossovers, SUVs, and trucks - in the state. These new regulations say by 2025, zero-emission vehicles need to make up 15.4 percent of the market. Since then, nine other states including New York have adopted these regulations. All told, these ten states make up 30 percent of the total U.S. auto market.
      Take for example Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. CEO Sergio Marchionne revealed a couple years back they take a hit of $14,000 on every Fiat 500e sold. But if they wanted to sell Ram pickups and Jeep SUVs in California, they need to take the hit.
      How does Bloomberg get the $9,000 figure? That's due to a source at General Motors who revealed the estimate is based on the Bolt's $37,500 base price. A GM spokesman declined to comment.
      If General Motors is able to sell enough Bolts, they'll be able to gather enough credits to not only sell other vehicles which will make up for the Bolt's loss, but also be able to sell extra credits to other automakers. Tesla has taken advantage of this to great effect. In the third quarter, Tesla made $139 million from selling credits.  
      Source: Bloomberg
       
       
       
    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Europe's 400 Ultra-Fast Charging Network by 2020

      Europe like America has the 3 basic charging standards in play in their fragile network of 2016. These is what we know as the 110, 220 and 440, level 1, 2 and 3 chargers. Yet Europe is not standing by waiting for Tesla or American Auto companies to drive EV auto's. Instead Europe has built the following consortium of Auto companies who have all chosen to contribute an equal amount to building the next generation charger network. VW, GM, BMW, Daimler, FORD, FCA, Hyundai, Volvo and Jaguar Land Rover have choosen to build 400 locations over the next 3 years that will sense and charge up to 350 kW in the period of a quick Coffee break. This is significantly faster and higher than the Tesla 120kW fast charging system. The goal by the European Government is to offer road trip worthy auto's with fast charging to bring less noise and cleaner air to European cities by 2020 and to make the bulk of inner city auto's EV's within 10 years of the fast charging system going live, so by 2030.

      Diamler is wanting to lead the European charge with their 300+ kilometer EV-CUV

      This would seem to show that Tesla has had the desired effect of making a market changing revolution of how companies and governments see the future of transportation.
      Source PM
    • By William Maley
      As sales of compacts and sport cars begin declining, automakers are faced with tough decisions as to what in terms of production and workers. General Motors made the difficult decision to lay off 2,000 workers at two plants.
      Bloomberg reports that GM will be cutting the third shift at their Lansing Grand River plant in Michigan (home to Cadillac ATS, CTS, and Chevrolet Camaro) and a shift at Lordstown, Ohio plant (home to the Chevrolet Cruze). GM spokesman Tom Wickham said the company is treating the layoffs as permanent, although some workers will be able to transfer to other plants.
      The layoffs are due to sales of compact and sports cars going down due to consumers buying more crossovers. Sales of the Chevrolet Cruze dropped 20 percent through October, while the Camaro has seen a drop of 9 percent.
      On the same day, General Motors announced a $900 million investment for three plants - Toledo Transmission Operations, Bedford Casting Operations in Indiana, and Lansing Grand River. Wickham said this investment would not add any new jobs.
      Source: Bloomberg, General Motors
      Press Release is on Page 2


      General Motors today announced initiatives to strengthen and align its production output at key U.S. manufacturing operations. The plans include investing more than $900 million in three facilities — Toledo Transmission Operations in Ohio, Lansing Grand River in Michigan and Bedford Casting Operations in Indiana —  to prepare the facilities for future product programs.
      GM also announced plans to align production output with demand for cars built at the Lordstown, Ohio, and Lansing Grand River, Michigan, assembly plants. As the customer shift from cars to crossovers and trucks is projected to continue, GM will suspend the third shift of production at both facilities in the first quarter of 2017. 
    • By William Maley
      As sales of compacts and sport cars begin declining, automakers are faced with tough decisions as to what in terms of production and workers. General Motors made the difficult decision to lay off 2,000 workers at two plants.
      Bloomberg reports that GM will be cutting the third shift at their Lansing Grand River plant in Michigan (home to Cadillac ATS, CTS, and Chevrolet Camaro) and a shift at Lordstown, Ohio plant (home to the Chevrolet Cruze). GM spokesman Tom Wickham said the company is treating the layoffs as permanent, although some workers will be able to transfer to other plants.
      The layoffs are due to sales of compact and sports cars going down due to consumers buying more crossovers. Sales of the Chevrolet Cruze dropped 20 percent through October, while the Camaro has seen a drop of 9 percent.
      On the same day, General Motors announced a $900 million investment for three plants - Toledo Transmission Operations, Bedford Casting Operations in Indiana, and Lansing Grand River. Wickham said this investment would not add any new jobs.
      Source: Bloomberg, General Motors
      Press Release is on Page 2


      General Motors today announced initiatives to strengthen and align its production output at key U.S. manufacturing operations. The plans include investing more than $900 million in three facilities — Toledo Transmission Operations in Ohio, Lansing Grand River in Michigan and Bedford Casting Operations in Indiana —  to prepare the facilities for future product programs.
      GM also announced plans to align production output with demand for cars built at the Lordstown, Ohio, and Lansing Grand River, Michigan, assembly plants. As the customer shift from cars to crossovers and trucks is projected to continue, GM will suspend the third shift of production at both facilities in the first quarter of 2017. 

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)