AD #2774 – GM Drops Holden; Kia Unveils New Sorento; Why Detroit Automakers Lack Entry Level Vehicles

February 17th, 2020 at 11:56am

Audio-only version:
Listen to “AD #2774 – GM Drops Holden; Kia Unveils New Sorento; Why Detroit Automakers Lack Entry Level Vehicles” on Spreaker.

Follow us on social media:

Instagram Twitter Facebook

Runtime: 9:40

0:08 GM Shuts Down More International Operations
0:52 Australia Is a Tiny Car Market
1:28 Tesla’s Sales Up in Germany
2:29 Ford Using VR To Train Mustang Mach-E Techs
3:26 Kia Unveils New Sorento
4:12 U.S. Sales Expected to Remain Strong Through 2023
4:57 VW Offers €830 Million To Compensate Diesel Owners
5:25 Volkswagen Cuts CO2 Emissions 60% At Wolfsburg Plant
5:49 Why Detroit Automakers Lack Entry Level Vehicles
6:55 How GM’s OTA Updates Work

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone and BorgWarner.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

65 Comments to “AD #2774 – GM Drops Holden; Kia Unveils New Sorento; Why Detroit Automakers Lack Entry Level Vehicles”

  1. Kit Gerhart Says:

    To me, it would make sense for GM, Ford, and FCA to sell entry level vehicles, but import them from low cost countries, so they don’t lose money on them, but tariff wars, New NAFTA, etc., make that difficult or impossible. Also, unless the cars are competitive with what Asian car companies are selling, they might do more harm than good, as far as keeping customers who are ready to “move up” to more expensive vehicles.

  2. Ron Paris Says:

    “…imagine you’re a program manager and you go to the board of directors and ask them to give you hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new car. And then you tell them they’ll never see any return on that investment. Detroit’s automakers destroyed tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value in the last three decades by investing in products that never returned a dime.”
    Gee, sounds like a perfect description of the BEV mandate!

  3. George Ricci Says:

    On the topic of “LACK ENTRY LEVEL VEHICLES”, I would make them in South Korea, or China, or Mexico. I would team up with Honda or Mazda and make a clone of Civic/Model 3. You could even make the same car in the same plant and share the cost.

  4. Brett Cammack Says:

    I see a lot of Mitsubishi Mirages running around here in central Florida. I believe those are manufactured in either Indonesia or in Malaysia.

    I feel like they’ve done a good job playing the hand they’ve been dealt the past five years. Shedding models and factories. I am not confident in their association with Nissan given it’s problems, but do hold out hope that raiding Nissan’s platforms to replace the 20+ year old Outlander platform will be beneficial.

  5. Bob Nogueira Says:

    ‘ Not with UAW labor’, Is a trite comment. Come on they were building those small cars in Mexico! Your management bias is showing.
    How about Attributing to the real reason,
    management is to lazy to figure out how to build small cars cheaply and want only to go for the easy pickings.

  6. ChuckGrenci Says:

    The pickup shown in the Thailand segment (closing down sales) appears just the size I’m and other here have been looking for. I would be a serious buyer for a ‘that’ sized pickup.

    I used to be fairly critical about Kia (and Hyundai) styling as stealing designs practically verbatim from other manufacturers, but I have to admit, the new Kia (Sorrento) definitely looks good and stands on it own. I’m not a buyer but I will admit that my earlier comments no longer hold true. Kudos to the new styling.

  7. Albemarle Says:

    So instead of wasting money on product that could build loyalty and the customer base, we invest in virtual taxi companies (Uber, Lyft) that are decades away from profitability. Then if we haven’t wasted enough, let’s invest in helicopter taxis and level5 self-driving cars.
    When these technologies become a working profitable market, then is the time to add them, using the supplier industry. In the meantime, stick to the knitting and do R&D that is currently useful.

  8. Dave Says:

    Australia – not to mention the newer, used cars that are right hand drive coming in from Japan

  9. Albemarle Says:

    Japan has very vigorous safety checks on 3 year old cars and it’s often cheaper to export them. There are lots of interesting 3 year old cars in Australia & NZ as a result.

  10. Brett Cammack Says:

    8

    Good point. I recall there is some stigma in Japanese culture regarding buying a “used” car. I know they’d cut them in half, shove the pieces in containers and sell them to American JDM parts resellers here in the USA.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    8 I just read an article saying that a majority of cars sold in New Zealand are used ones from Japan. Yeah, a lot of them would be going to Australia too.

    4 The Mirage is made in Thailand and the Philippines, and the US market ones are from Thailand.

  12. Drew Says:

    @7 – I agree.

    @5 – Entry level cars can be made profitably in NA. But it requires a lot of discipline to keep focus on the basics (simple design; avoid “attribute creep”; high quality to avoid warranty costs) and a labor force that is aligned to be efficient (little or no absenteeism; flexible work rules). Also, the vehicle program cannot be burdened with fat allocated corporate costs.

    Overall, if an OEM cannot make a profit on sub-$20k vehicle’s, then it is not making as much profit as it should on its other vehicles. In other words, I believe executives are running away from systemic problems and are spinelessly seeking short-term profits.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    5 The US market Fiestas were from Mexico, but the Focus was from the US. Chevy Sonic is made in the US. I guess the Sonic is still sold. Spark is from South Korea.

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    12 Honda and Toyota assemble the highest volume versions of Civic and Corolla in the US, using engines from the US and Canada. Using designs that are sold globally in significant numbers helps keep cost down, but they also need to run the plants efficiently. Yeah, the “transplants” are not UAW, but the difference per car in actual labor cost is not great.

  15. Steve Servison Says:

    I have a novel idea for GM. Since they’re shutting down their unprofitable operations, why don’t they spend that money on development of the gas engine cars they Can sell, instead of the electrics they Can’t sell?

  16. Larry D. Says:

    “WHY DETROIT AUTOMAKERS LACK ENTRY LEVEL VEHICLES
    We keep hearing complaints in the media about a lack of entry level vehicles in the U.S. market, especially from GM, Ford and FCA.”

    I have been hearing them for over 30 YEARS, and the late and infamous Roger Smith, ex CEO of GM, replied that an entry level Buick is a 2 or 3 year old Regal or something”

    Your insight should be required reading to not just the clueless media that keep complaining about this, but also to the regulars here who put their own selfish satisfaction above the survival of a domestic industry that not only has poor, inbred and incompetent CEOs and division VPs, but also, as you say, is hampered by the UAW.

    ” Here’s our Autoline Insight: they can’t make money on cars that cost less than $20,000–not with UAW labor, that is. Some say they should just bite the bullet and sell entry level cars at a loss because they need to bring new buyers to their brands. But imagine you’re a program manager and you go to the board of directors and ask them to give you hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new car. And then you tell them they’ll never see any return on that investment. They’ll throw you out of the meeting. Detroit’s automakers destroyed tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value in the last three decades by investing in products that never returned a dime. That’s a key reason why two of them went bankrupt, and why they will never do that again. So if you ran a car company what would you do? Invest in a money loser, or abandon the segment?”

    Kudos! Outstanfing analysis. I dare anybody who finds the least bit of an issue above to speak up.

  17. Larry D. Says:

    “Tesla sales up (168%) in Germany”.

    This is utterly insiginifant and means nothing.

    a. The temporary drop in the Netherands and Norway: These tiny nations are the BEV Giants of Europe, by far. This will NOT continue long, because the European Union is going whole hog on BEVs, just as it supported Diesels 20 and 30 years ago, and tens of millions of Diesels replaced their gas cars. Tesla alone will, in one, tops two short years, churn out 500,000 units PER YEAR from their Berlin Factory.

    b. Did you know that last Dec, in the Netherlands alone, 13,000 Model 3s were sold? This is NOT a typo. Can you grasp the ENORMITY of this? (of course there was a reason, some government credits expired in 2020, or were reduced). So OF COURSE there would be a drop from this insane high in January 2020!

    So it is really easy to predict what will happen in Europe: the number of BEVs will keep increasing EXPONENTIALLY until the whole continent is one big Norway or Netherlands. It is, as in China, official policy, and no amount of questioning by the Tesla deniers will change it ONE BIT.

  18. Larry D. Says:

    The New Sorento:

    It looks really good, inside and out. If you take out the KIA logo and replace it with LINCOLN, nobody would know the difference. EXCEPT that the Kia would go for HALF the price of the Ford clone Lincoln.

    I predict it will be a second hit for Kia, after the Telluride.

    I would not be caught dead driving those breadvans, but my point of view is NOT of the consumer but of the COMPANY who makes them.

  19. Larry D. Says:

    “…But imagine you’re a program manager and you go to the board of directors and ask them to give you hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new car. And then you tell them they’ll never see any return on that investment. They’ll throw you out of the meeting. …”

    Sure. But then how do you explain that OPEL lost GM twenty million $ over decades (I bet the amount it TWICE that if the econ illiterates that did the math took care to convert all the amounts in 2020 $)? WHY did it take so many years to shut it down?

  20. Larry D. Says:

    18 SORRY! OPEL Lost GM twenty BILLION $, NOT Million. In fact, if not for OPEL, maybe GM would not have gone bankrupt in 2008!!!

  21. Larry D. Says:

    2 NO IT DOES NOT. NOT FOR TESLA, definitely. Maybe for the LOSER BEV makers!

  22. Larry D. Says:

    7 Absolutely agree. Excellent point!

  23. Larry D. Says:

    An “entry level vehicle” could be some lousy, unsafe at any speed, subcompact made in Malaysia or Vietnam, OR, if you have ONE ounce of brains and economic literacy, could be, much, much better, an excellent used vehicle, CPO or not.

    Maybe 60 years ago when 90% of all cars were crappy domestics designed for 60k miles, it still made sense to buy new for an ENTRY level vehicle. Not today.

  24. Drew Says:

    45-60 years ago, the imports were “crappy”, too.

  25. ChuckGrenci Says:

    With new car averages closing in at $40k, the entry buyer must look at the scale sliding higher (than the suggest $20k); if they can’t pony up that much then they should be looking at used in the first place (I was in the used car market for quite a while when first entering the purchase of transportation). I don’t know whether even that would get the manufacturers back in the game of small cars though.

  26. Larry D. Says:

    Also, the Holden interiors you showed in the video were really poor. I always found the fake metal silvery plastics disgusting, and in the Holdens they looked particularly crudely made.

  27. Larry D. Says:

    23 as usual, you MISSED MY POINT.

    I was comparing buying a crappy (Mary Barra’s words, not mine) domestic entry level vehicle 50 years ago vs a Used Crappy Domestic, which was a BIGGER risk because back then domestics (NOT the Imports!) were designed to last barely 60k miles, as the STUPID buyers bought a new car almost every year, and the automakers encouraged that wasteful practice with their infamous “annual model changes”.

    PS you are WRONG. Imports were NOT crappy as well. Neither Mercedeses (which in the 50s had far better and more luxurious interiors than later) NOR the well made VW Original Beetle were crappy. Your rustbucket Fiat 128 was sure crappy.

  28. Larry D. Says:

    24 As I have often said in the past, unless the new car you want does not exist in used form (has new features not avail in the used copies), regardless of your budget, be it 20, 40 or $80k, you are far better off buying used.

    I could buy a pimped up new Genesis G90 or Lexus LS (not any more) with $80k, but with the same $ I could buy a light years better previously owned ROlls or Bentley.

    In fact, for some legendary Rolls models, their owners see themselves only as “custodians” of the car until its next owner takes the keys.

  29. Brett Cammack Says:

    The used car market is optimal if you’re a cash customer, but if you’re paying on time, there’s usually a 20% down payment and higher interest rates than buying new where there are commonly lowball down payments possible on a new vehicle.

    What’s the annual maintenance cost on used Roller or Bentley? Compared to a Genesis G90, of course.

    Bottom line, really, is that owning a car costs something no matter how you go at it. Public transportation is cheaper. It’s all trade-offs.

  30. Dave Foley Says:

    @6 I totally agree with you. The scapegoating of labour costs, as the only reason that domestics don’t build entry level cars, is a management kissup. If the people that build something, have zero chance of ever being able to buy it, (see Mexican auto workers) the whole system is broken. Workers don’t OWE their labour to someone, just because they throw them a few spare pennies.

    Maybe we need another nice big fat depression, to take the horns of these ultra rich people, and return the balance to where a regular guy can get ahead.

    Or maybe, elect someone who isn’t in the pocket of those ultra rich folks, and get some equity back into the system. What is going on now, is completely not sustainable.

  31. Kit Gerhart Says:

    26 ’50s and ’60s Mercedeses rusted even worse than American cars of the time. Also, they were not that dependable either. Air cooled Beetles were very nicely made, but they rusted, of course had crappy heaters, dropped valves, and by the mid ’60s were way past their prime. In 1970, my father replaced a 1965 Beetle that he had bought new with a used 1964 Dodge Dart, which was a better car in most ways.

  32. Carl Says:

    If the Detroit Big Three got rid of the unions and the OUTRAGOUS and REDICULOUS pay structure they could sell vehicles for prices the average person could actually afford. So many of those jobs are unskilled labor [attach part 'A' to part 'B'] that a 16 year old high school dropout could do just as well.

  33. Joe G Says:

    2 – Good analysis point on the BEV sector. If Tesla continues at the current market share of BEV’s the other manufacturers will be hard pressed to ever make a profit on them due to the low volumes.

    18 – I also thought that the interior of the new Kia looks on par with the new Lincoln, very well done, and if at a much lower price point it will be a hit.

  34. Kit Gerhart Says:

    28,29 Somehow, I think any Rolls is more ostentatious for me to want to drive on a regular basis, regardless of expense. S-class, A8, or 7 series, no problem, but a Rolls is just too “out there” for me.

  35. Kit Gerhart Says:

    33 Compared to Tesla, other BEVs have a lot of catching up to do in powertrain efficiency and charging infrastructure. Also, the Model 3 is a good value. The most elusive thing of all, though, may be the elusive cool/cult factor that Tesla has, and others would love to acquire.

  36. Drew Says:

    @27 – I got your point. We all get your point. No need to yell. But you too conveniently define imports within a narrow sample. Most imports in the late 60s/early 70s had rust issues. And quite a number burned oil… visibly. And yes, we know the domestics had problems. But a true professor of the auto business/history has a broader, open-minded perspective. I didn’t deny what you said, but I have learned efforts to try to expand your knowledge are met with rude replies.

  37. cwolf Says:

    I think AL piece on the lack of entry level vehicles doesn’t hold water; Many of the comments made today ring real truth. As history has shown, the biggest problem was/is with management, the lack of incentive to keep cars updated and, lastly, not allowing buyers to choose options without having to purchase high cost packages that no one wants/ needs or can afford.

  38. Kit Gerhart Says:

    37 For the most part, the “Detroit 3″ entry level cars have not been very good. The ST versions of Fiesta and Focus drive well, but the mainstrem versions of both were underwhelming in multiple ways. The Sonic is a gas hog, for its class, and has few redeeming virtues. The Spark is roomy, for being so tiny, but is slie and noisy.

  39. cwolf Says:

    Placing blame on UAW worker costs is complete bologna!
    Considering the small percentage of labor cost per car, the difference between union and non-union wages doesn’t add enough cost to even blink at. So often the media references the total average annual union worker wage which includes forced OT. The picture becomes more clear when looking at a 40 hour work week.
    And let us all not forget; If one cannot earn a livable wage they can’t afford to buy the vehicles they make. After all, THEY are the majority of the U.S. GDP.

  40. cwolf Says:

    The base Fusion is close to an entry level car and it continued to sell very well. Entry level cars, IMO, are family sized cars without all the bull crap added.

  41. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Ford is keeping the Fusion through at least part of the 2020 model year, but plans to kill it, rather than sell the newer generation now sold in the rest of the world. Even though 8-9 years old, Fusion sold 160-some thousand in the US in 2019.

  42. Bobby T Says:

    27: “23, as usual, you missed my point”. Hey Larry, you are 23. Did you miss your own point.

  43. FSTFWRD Says:

    I had a little extra time today so I read all the comments.

    Larry D !!! No one here is a “Tesla Hater”. I believe we all just think they are nice cars, but a BEV just doesn’t fit for most of us. So please grow up a bit and quite calling names. Thanks.

  44. XA351GT Says:

    Sad to see the end of Holden. What I’ve read is GM is completely abandoning the RHD markets. They are not going to invest in RHD architechure . Could this lead to Australia and New Zealand eventually converting to LHD ? I know it happened in Europe years ago .

  45. Kit Gerhart Says:

    44 They’re going to make RHD C8 Corvettes, but with Opel/Vauxhall gone, and now Holden, that may be the only one.

    Sweden switched in around 1970, and the rest of continental Europe was already LHD. Of course, the UK never switched.

  46. Kit Gerhart Says:

    44 I’d be surprised if Aus or NZ switched, with the big RHD manufacturing base in Japan and, to a lesser extent, in Thailand. There will remain good sources of RHD csrs. I can’t imagine Japan ever switching with their very high traffic density.

  47. Roger T Says:

    Small cars made in US
    If I were to propose a high risk and possibly money losing proposition to the board I would not propose a new small car, but instead an appealing electric car such as the Mach E. Ford is right for betting on that car, if the market flips everyone who doesn’t solve this electric car puzzle will be in deep trouble. And Ford’s offering seems more interesting than anything this side of Tesla. ANYTHING.

  48. Jeffrey Woodin Says:

    The premise you base your statement of “That’s a key reason why two of them went bankrupt” on is entirely FALSE. The “key reason” “two of them” had to file for bankruptcy 11 years ago had nothing to do with product and being able to sell it, especially in GM’s case. It was because after the 2008 “sub-prime” banking and financial collapse banks were not lending money to people to buy cars with. If people can’t borrow money to buy new cars with, then they won’t or can’t buy them. THAT was no fault of the car companies. If Ford had not just refinanced it debt just months earlier it would have had to have filed for bankruptcy too (and did in fact get government loan guarantees too at the time). But yes, car companies should not invest in products that have no prospect of a return.

  49. ChuckGrenci Says:

    For TFL followers: 2020 C8 review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47A0TgfLJWY

  50. wmb Says:

    Sean/John, I’m a little slow on the draw this week and maybe someone has already answered this question. Yet, I thought OEM’s addressed segments that were important, but made them little to no money, by sharing the cost with platforms that were? For example, lastest Ford Fusion was built from the bones of the previous Focus, like the previous Escape and MKC. I know that Ford is no longer building cars for the US market, but the components still come from these vehicles that are made around the world. Why couldn’t they just start smaller and design the next Fiesta and its SUV derivatives, to also include the bones for the next Focus/Escape and the next Mondeo/Edge, along with their derivatives. Both VW Group and Toyota each have one set of platform/architecture/components that span multi vehicle segment sizes and vehicle types. This way the segments that make little to no money for the automaker, are off set by the ones higher profit margins, as well as their company’s cash cows!

  51. Kit Gerhart Says:

    49 The recent US market Fiesta and Focus were “world” versions of those cars, but without the wide choice of powertrains most of the world gets. Ford just decided to quit selling them, even though was little special “development” for the North American market.

  52. Larry D. Says:

    I was recycling some old mags and paperwork last evening and came across a folder with about 20 ads from the 70s in NGM. The good thing about that mag is you can throw away all the ads that are mostly in the front and a few in the back of each issue, and save an issue that is about 3/4ths the size.

    Most ads were about Caddillacs of the time, but there were five about tiny Japanese imports.

    EPA MPG numbers were inflated at the time (since then EPA has reduced them 4 times) so they were high. Cars were very tiny and lightweight as well.

    A Corolla in 1973 or so went for only $1,798, but by 1981 it cost $4,958 or something, almost $5k!

    There was a cheapo Datsun (later Nissan)

    but the best ads (far better than any ad of today) were for the Honda CVCC, informative, had the numbers, no clowns jumping up and down, AND they were prophetic that their engines and vehicles would become legendary.

  53. Larry D. Says:

    50 I remember in the 80s when Ford tried to sell the “Escort” as a “World Car” and realize the obvious cost reductions and econs of scale.

    It was a total failure and it abandoned it. The car was not much, but, far more important, you cannot dictate to the consumers what is best for them, AND in different nations, with different cities and gas prices, very different cars make sense.

  54. Larry D. Says:

    49, 50 I remember when Ford tried really hard to sell the Fiesta in the US, and I was sick and tired by the literal Avalanche of Commercials everywhere I looked, TV, Web, mags, the works.

    It must have wasted billions in those ads, for a little miserable car which is NOT suited to US driving conditions, has no redeeming virtues, and would make it NO profit EVEN if it sold OK and not 5 measly k units a month. (True of far better cars in this unprofitable segment, such as the intelligent Honda Fit, the very cheap Versa (Renault Megane clone) and the Yaris. I bet not 1 person in 1,000 knows what the helll a “Yaris” is. Even the wiseguys on “Jeopardy”, their auto knowledge is dismal.

    So is there any reason Ford blundered to impose the FIesta on the US market?

    I guess the rationale with the entry level vehicle is, you barely make any $ on them, BUT the young kids (hopefully) who buy them will like them (and even if they are not thrilled by them, they will know no better) and will buy a bigger, more profitable vehicle in 5 years.

    You can accomplish the exact same effect and MORE if they buy a used Focus or Fusion and in 5 years they get a new one.

  55. Kit Gerhart Says:

    52 I remember the first generation Escort from when I was in Scotland in 1970-71. It was rear drive, and never sold in the US, except a fancier version, Capri. The first Escorts sold in the US were front drive, and sold well for a number of years in the ’80s. They were similar to the European Escorts. Later US market Escorts were Mazda-based. Escort was replaced with Focus.

    Fiesta was first sold in the US in around 1980, only as a two door hatch. It was “sporty,” but not very reliable, at least based on one a friend had. There was a ~25 year hiatus before the Fiesta returned to the US market.

  56. Kit Gerhart Says:

    53 By the way, the Fiesta ST is a great driving “hot hatch,” competitive with, or better than a 2nd generation Mini S, in how it drives. Neither has a useful back seat, though.

  57. Kit Gerhart Says:

    52 Escort “total failure” in the 80s? It sold 420K in 1985, the earliest year I can find data for, and sold more than that a few earlier years.

    http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/ford/ford-escort/

  58. MERKUR DRIVER Says:

    The problem with Global platforms, at least for Ford/GM/Chrysler is that they are based around a particular segment. I.E. the Fiesta is a global platform but it is a global Fiesta platform so all development costs are shared only with the Fiesta thus making it expensive overall.

    VW on the other hand has the UP! all the way through the Atlas on the same platform (MQB) and it is a global platform. In that way VW is sharing the high chassis cost across almost every vehicle that they sell around the globe(except for their commercial trucks). As a result they can sell and make their cars and SUVs cheap even when splurging on better components/features than their competitors. A side benefit is that the Passatt and Golf have to be a good car to drive and cannot drive like a entry level penalty box. Since the lesser UP! entry car shares the platform guess what…It isn’t a penalty box and can be sold on the cheap. Thusly it sells very well in those markets where it is offered.

    VW is laughing all the way to the bank at the other OEMs who have individual global platforms for specific market segments. GM/Ford/FCA need to catch up in this platform sharing business or simply embrace their low positions on the Global sales chart and never expect anymore then what they have today.

  59. Kit Gerhart Says:

    57 Isn’t MQB a “modular system” more than a “platform,” being used for cars from UP! to Atlas, when they have different width, wheelbase, and more. They are all transverse engine, FWD/4WD, but beyond that? I guess it’s that there are “modules” that can be welded together different ways to make this wide range of vehicles. In any case, I guess it’s efficient, and it will be interesting to see how VW’s modular system for EVs works out.

  60. Larry D. Says:

    57 Lots of terrible cars (also Buicks and Oldses and Chevys and of course Plymouth-Dodges) sold half a million copies in the 70s and even in the 80s.

    I was clearly referring to Ford’s failure to sell the Escort as a “World Car” ( I even remember the commercials with the 100 different flags around it) with the same specs to all kinds of very different markets, an idiotic idea that they should have expected it would FAIL.

    As I said many times, Failure is good IF you learn from it.

  61. Kit Gerhart Says:

    60 Ford DID successfully sell the Escort as a world car for a number of years in the ’80s. It was the best selling car in the US for 3 years, and was selling well in Europe at the time. You have some strange ideas of the meaning of “failure.”

  62. Larry D. Says:

    2013 – 22,442

    2014 – 31,655

    2015 – 50,678

    2016 – 76,243 units

    2017 – 103,181

    2018 – 245,162

    2019 – 367,386

    (calculated by adding the quarterly numbers from Wiki article)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Sales

    For 2020, Musk has said Tesla will ‘comfortably’ exceed 500,000 units.

    How many will it actually make?

    a. 475,000
    b.500,000
    c.525,000
    d.550,000
    e.600,000

    the answer in the next link

  63. Larry D. Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1_-WfUmg2I

    e. 600,000.

  64. Larry D. Says:

    61 You keep pretending you do not understand things that I have EXPLICITLY stated, and I repeat for the third time:

    Little Ugly ESCORT Failed, I repeat FAILED, in Ford’s ALL IMPORTANT drive to sell it as a WORLD CAR. This is NOT Debatable, it is in the HISTORY BOOKS. I will NOT waste any more time on this.

    Now move on to predict how many Units Tesla will sell in 2020.

  65. Kit Gerhart Says:

    64 You still don’t understand the meaning of the word failed. I suspect most others here do understand the meaning. You are so full of it. Yeah, you explicitly state a lot of nonsense here.