Reuters: Tesla Has Ditched Its Affordable EV Efforts in Favor of Robotaxis

by Chris Teague

Published: April 5th, 2024

reuters tesla has ditched its affordable ev efforts in favor of robotaxis

Affordable EVs seem to be a nut that no automaker can crack, as every promise of a “sub-$30,000” model or similar has fallen through in favor of higher prices. It now seems that Tesla is following suit, despite repeated promises that it would develop a mass-market EV at a reasonable price. Earlier today, Reuters reported that the automaker had ditched its efforts to develop the car and would look instead at developing autonomous taxis on the platform that would have underpinned it.

CEO Elon Musk has been beating the affordable EV drum for a while, telling investors in January that the car would enter production in Texas as soon as late 2025. The automaker doesn’t have a communications or PR department to respond to inquiries, but Musk posted on X, saying, “Reuters is lying (again).”

The car, which was projected to start in the mid-$20,000 range, would have helped Tesla compete against the increasingly fierce Chinese auto industry. Companies like BYD have built impressive electric vehicle catalogs in recent years, and the automaker has been in a back-and-forth battle with Tesla for the top spot in global markets.

Tesla’s stock, which is more important than the cars for some people, tumbled 3 percent on the Reuters report. The decision was apparently made public, at least internally, in late February, with a source telling Reuters that “Elon’s directive is to go all-in on robotaxi.” Some said they felt optimistic about the call, saying that Musk believes that autonomous people movers are the “future of mobility.”

This course change is surprising and will undoubtedly cause quite a stir, but the truth remains that many automakers are losing serious money on EVs. That makes it exceptionally difficult to be profitable overall and raises questions about affordability for the foreseeable future. Raw materials and manufacturing remain significant financial hurdles to cross, so we’ll just have to wait and see if Elon’s decision is prescient or foolish.

[Image: Tesla]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

#Tesla #ElonMusk #affordableevs

Chris Teague

Chris grew up in, under, and around cars, but took the long way around to becoming an automotive writer. After a career in technology consulting and a trip through business school, Chris began writing about the automotive industry as a way to reconnect with his passion and get behind the wheel of a new car every week. He focuses on taking complex industry stories and making them digestible by any reader. Just don’t expect him to stay away from high-mileage Porsches.

More by Chris Teague

Comments

Join the conversation

5 of 76 comments

Mcs on Apr 08, 2024

The model 3 is using a brand new platform. I think the S may have been updated as well. The main problem with Tesla is that Musk is an arrogant idiot. That leads to all sorts of issues. Everything from lack of focus to alienating much of his customer base via twitter.

As far as technology goes, Tesla (and everyone else) needs to get to 800-900 volt architecture ASAP on all it's vehicles. Not just Cybertruck and Semi. That's where the industry is going. Soon they'll be competing with vehicles like the NIO ET9 that can charge at a rate of 150 miles in 5 minutes. There are other benefits as well to 800-900v architecture.

So, get rid of Musk, 900v architecture across the line, put the psuedo-FSD on the back burner, build a $25k car, and a Model Y based pickup. Above all, tell Elmo to go play with his other toys and to leave Tesla alone.

1 Reply
- See 2 previous
- EBFlex on Apr 08, 2024
  
  lol at the people that think Musk is the problem with Tesla
  
  2
- Alan on Apr 09, 2024
  
  EB, you are correct to a degree Musk is having a negative influence on Tesla. X is a problem for him and his right wing agenda.
  
  Like
- EBFlex on Apr 09, 2024
  
  "EB, you are correct to a degree Musk is having a negative influence on Tesla. X is a problem for him and his right wing agenda."
  You can't read. That's not what I said. And he doesn't have a "right-wing agenda".
  Why do you lie so much?
  
  1
Dartman on Apr 08, 2024

Musk is not the only problem, but certainly the biggest…

CEOs job is not to generate “likes” and followers on social media and certainly is not to alienate a large percentage of your customers and potential customers. A CEOs job is to legally generate profits and shareholder value.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Wolfwagen I expect Renault to be less popular than Fiat
ToolGuy Helium-3, baby!
Roman Our 1999 Pontiac Sunfire Gt is still running without any issues. 25 years and counting.
28-Cars-Later I thought today's young people weren't even getting licenses to drive, so which is it?
28-Cars-Later Either last year or the year before I was discussing how The Dytopia™'s BEV schemes do not scale simply because the existing grid cannot generate enough power to replace ICE and the gigantic investment necessary in the grid was not forthcoming (Zelensky needed another house in Miami Beach after all you b!gots). So it struck me the only path to sort of do it is natural gas which became abundantly cheap 15 years ago because of fracking. Fast forward to more recently and surprise surprise we're attacking civilian use of natural gas out of nowhere for very little benefit. I couldn't find any good data to break down natural gas consumption between industrial use and civilian use, but spitballing I'd say the two largest chunks would be power generation and heating followed by small slices for other industrial use and home appliances- the latter probably being 5% or less (on my own gas bill its about 3-10% for the non furnace gas use depending on laundry loads). Some argued The Dystopia wanted to take away any energy freedom the proles have outside of electricity which they control on their whims, but I'm thinking that small number is optimal for them to take back because it doesn't force any additional infrastructure cost to gain (i.e. the low hanging fruit). As more power plants are spun up I expect a slow consolidation away from civilian nat gas because ManBearPig or whatever other fairy tale, but its really to power the gilded electronic cage they are constructing out of this once great nation. Seriously, break this down:Self lubricating Diesel engine with conventional OTS components, built for more than a ten year lifespan and 1m or more miles of use which can quickly be refueled at hundreds of locations (or fuel be brought to them). Pure BEV with some large amount of rare earths with a ten (?) year lifespan and perhaps 1m miles use but which has an avg daily downtime of 2 hours (?) to refuel and must be powered by a limited number of natural gas stations at static points (theoretically you could put a diesel fuel depot anywhere must faster and refill it with trucks). Other than ManBearPig fiction, your only savings in emissions is whatever the DEF isn't catching now (which is up to 90% in civilian diesel use per JLR) minus whatever emissions sins the nat gas burning creates. Think about how ridiculous all of this is to save 10-20% of emissions of only heavy trucks (BEV ships aren't ever going to be a thing) and you still have to frack like mad to have the natural gas to do it which would create the diesel in the first place. What is the nonsense?