Connect with us
tesla-10000-superchargers-europe tesla-10000-superchargers-europe

News

European EV market expected to slow as buyers await affordable models

(Credit:@lourencovc/Instagram)

Published

on

Several parties are echoing concerns about the European electric vehicle (EV) market as some buyers await new, more affordable models that are just a few years out — and as significant economic uncertainty remains.

Sales of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) jumped 47 percent in Europe throughout the first nine months of this year, according to Reuters. However, automakers including Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen and Tesla have aired concerns about high interest rates putting off consumers and slowing EV growth.

According to AutoTrader, EVs in Britain are still roughly 33 percent more costly than their fossil fuel alternatives. Last week, Tesla announced plans to produce its next model, a €25,000/$25,000 EV, at its Gigafactory outside of Berlin, Germany. With the long-anticipated “affordable EV” on its way, some customers may be inclined to wait to buy, along with holding out for what they expect to be better products.

Volkswagen’s EV orders, as one example, were just half of what they were in 2022 during the same nine-month period. On Thursday, Volkswagen announced hopes to build a sub-$35,000 EV in the U.S. within the next three to four years.

Advertisement

Like many automakers, Tesla reported a slight delivery miss in Q3 compared to analyst expectations. However, the company had warned about sales slowing during the third quarter in its Q2 earnings call, and the company has still maintained its lofty delivery goal for Q4, which seems like a good sign.

Even beyond the economic environment and hopes for an affordable EV, data analysis firms and dealerships warn that buyers are holding off until they feel convinced that the technology meets their needs. Thomas Niedermayer, owner of a Bavarian dealership that has been in business for 45 years, notes that the fast-moving technology advancements may have some holding out for more future-proof EV options.

Credit: Reuters

“The main problem is uncertainty,” Niedermayer said. “Many assume that the technology will improve and would rather wait three years for the next model than buy a vehicle now that will quickly lose value.”

Flavia Garcia and Tom Carvell in Edinburgh, Scotland, are in the market for a new vehicle as their 15-year-old Toyota Auris requires replacement. Ahead of gas car sales bans, the couple says they would consider purchasing an EV if it weren’t for fears of charging infrastructure deficiency, battery life and sticker price.

“You want to do the right thing for the environment, but it feels like you’re setting yourself up for a very expensive investment that will make your life that bit more complicated,” Garcia told Reuters. “We’ll probably get a hybrid first.”

Advertisement

EV sales also slowed in September, and Felipe Munoz of JATO Dynamics says the slowdown will remain until affordable EVs are released.

Meanwhile, Tesla’s Model Y was the top-selling vehicle across Europe in September, and the company last month announced it had delivered one million vehicles across the continent. The U.S. EV maker is also rolling out its Model 3 Highland in Europe, set to continue over the next couple of quarters.

Other U.S. automakers, including Ford and General Motors (GM), have recently announced plans to delay the launch of more affordable EVs and to cut back on EV spending as they cite low demand. Over the weekend, it was reported that Ford will no longer build a plant with LG in Turkey, with the slowed pace of EV adoption being the main reason for the canceled plans.

“From a regulatory standpoint, they don’t have to push product out right now – they can afford to focus on profitability,” says Alistair Bedwell, GlobalData’s head of powertrain forecasting. “But they need to have an eye on Tesla and the Chinese brands, because they don’t want to get too far behind.”

Advertisement

Credit: Reuters

According to a poll from the consumer research firm The Langston Co, hopes to buy an EV in Germany have remained steady in the past year, though rising sales suggest that some automakers have finally caught up to supply chain bottlenecks, according to Insights Manager Ben DuCharme.

Philip Nothard, insight director at dealer services firm Cox Automotive, says that concerns around low residual values have also lowered customer sentiment, with many choosing vehicle purchases based on what they think they can resell in a few years.

“We call it the valley of death, which we will be going through in 2024 to 2027: low residual values, high supply, and low demand,” Nothard said.

Tesla Model 3 and Y still dominating U.S. EV market, shows data

What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says

Published

on

tesla model 3 first generation headlight
Credit: Tesla Asia/Twitter

Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.

The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.

Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:

“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”

Advertisement

The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:

“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”

Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Lifestyle

NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story

The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.

Published

on

By

The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.

Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot

Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.

The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Lucid CEO dispels any rumors of bankruptcy: ‘So far from the facts’

Published

on

Credit: Lucid

Lucid CEO Silvio Napoli responded to rumors of an imminent bankruptcy that was reportedly being mulled after a report stated the automaker was working with the firm AlixPartners to iron out its next steps.

The company felt a massive loss on Wall Street yesterday, as the report essentially pushed the stock down as much as 55 percent on Tuesday.

The report, published initially by Eletric-Vehicles.com, claimed Lucid was essentially in dire straits and was told by AlixPartners, a commonly used restructuring advisor, to either take shares private or file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Lucid denies rumors of bankruptcy after over 40% stock drop

Advertisement

Lucid’s head of Communications, Nick Twork, immediately challenged the report and stated the company “has sufficient liquidity to carry its operations well into next year.”

Now, the company’s CEO is chiming in as well, stating that the report is “so far from the facts that they require a direct response.”

Napoli said:

“Lucid is not considering bankruptcy or a transaction to take the company private. Those reports are false. The Board did not explore either scenario. Period.

Advertisement

As disclosed in our most recent quarterly filing, Lucid has sufficient liquidity to fund its operations well into next year.

We work with outside advisors to improve operational performance and execution. They are not advising Lucid on a take-private transaction or bankruptcy, and any suggestion that they have recommended either course of action to management or the Board is false.

My priority is clear: turn this company around. That is where the leadership team and I are focused.

I look forward to providing a full update during our quarterly earnings call on August 4th.”

Advertisement

It seems pretty clear that Lucid is confident things will be okay, and, to be honest, they should not have much to worry about, especially considering the company has been backed by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) for years. It has solid financial backing, and its sales, while weak, are pretty much right on par with a company of this age.

Advertisement

Lucid also sent a Cease & Desist letter to the publication for their report.

Lucid shares have rebounded nicely and are up nearly 21 percent at the time of publication. As soon as the company dispelled the rumors of bankruptcy yesterday, the stock began to climb back toward more reasonable levels.

Continue Reading