News
Tesla’s manufacturing advantage lies in legacy auto’s stranded assets
Tesla’s focus on manufacturing has solved a vast number of issues that the electric automaker has encountered in its first few years of mass-scale vehicle production. With only two operational vehicle production facilities and several more on the way, Tesla’s biggest advantage in production doesn’t necessarily come down to efficiencies and solving bottlenecks. Instead, it has to do with something completely out of its control: Legacy Auto’s stranded assets.
Large vehicle manufacturers have pumped out millions of vehicles per year in sometimes between 50 and 100, sometimes more, global facilities. Volkswagen, for example, has 136 production plants across the world. This massive production operation lead to 9.3 million VW cars being delivered in 2020, a slight decrease from the nearly 11 million in 2019. However, the COVID-19 pandemic surely wiped away some of its productivity and sales.
But Volkswagen is also in limbo, much like many other automakers. Despite being one of the world’s top brands, a decline is on the way if the German company can’t figure out its electric car software issues. Even if it does, it still has 136 production plants and only a few of them build electric cars. However, all of the company’s plants will need to be transitioned into EV production facilities, a far cry away from the current gas-powered powertrains it currently builds at 98% of its properties.
It’s not just Volkswagen
Mercedes-Benz has 93 locations in 17 countries. BMW has 31 facilities in 15 countries. Ford has 65 plants all across the world.
These plants have been everything to the world’s largest car brands for decades. While the automotive industry has been powered on petrol for 99% of the auto industry’s history, EVs are slowly but surely making their way into the picture. Eventually, with so many plants for the legacy automakers, they will all build electric powertrains. But unfortunately, what has been a strength for so many car companies in the past will soon become a burden as EVs take over market share, become more appealing and more sought after by consumers, and gas cars are few and far between because electrification has taken over. The biggest, most successful, most popular badges on vehicles worldwide will soon have a serious problem on their hands if they do not think about a plan to transition these facilities into EV manufacturing plants.
Time is of the essence
Volkswagen did complete ICE production at its Zwickau plant in Mosel, Germany, in June 2020. After the company announced that the final gas-powered engine had rolled off production lines at the plant, it then came down to training all technicians, assembly workers, and production engineers on how to deal with electric powertrains.
The company stated that 20,500 total days of training time would be given to those who hold jobs at Zwickau, giving the employees no reservations about the direction the German automaker was headed toward. The entire process of transitioning the plant took six to eight months.
This is great, but when a company has 136 plants, that’s a lot of time, many people to train, and a lot of money to spend. Eventually, the plants that have pumped out billions of dollars worth of ICE cars will be rendered useless unless companies begin to update their hardware, train the employees, and prepare for an electric future.
Is delaying EV projects a result of stranded assets?
Companies are smart; there are plenty of reasons why these car companies have long been at the top of the industry. Knowing that the trillions of dollars that they have pumped into building a global powerhouse of production facilities could all be a waste as ICE cars are slowly being phased out is alarming, but perhaps this is why so many companies have avoided focusing on EVs: the thought of modifying so many plants is terrifying.
Nevertheless, it will need to be done eventually. But right now, especially in such a trying economic time, manufacturers are trying to save their faces and their balance sheets by keeping this narrative that EVs are not that important, that gas cars will still dominate, and that consumers should continue to buy petrol-powered machines. Manufacturers continue to push consumers in a direction, even if they know it doesn’t align with climate issues or sustainability because they know that their plants will need major updating. This takes time and money, and car companies don’t have a lot of that.
Tesla Model Y loses another rival after BMW cancels iX3’s US launch
For these legacy automakers, it makes more sense to push gas cars onto consumers and set aside any notions of an EV being a better option, simply because they haven’t made one that is worth a damn…yet.
How is this Tesla’s Advantage?
Tesla is sitting in a prime position to dominate the EV sector for years to come. It is no secret that the company’s vehicles are the highest quality electric cars on the planet; range and performance and contributed to this for several years. However, EVs are the way of the future, and while Tesla has to build new plants to build EVs, it isn’t building them at the massive scale that ICE manufacturers are building their cars. EVs are still a relatively small portion of the worldwide automotive market, and Tesla’s growth is on par with the industry as a whole, mostly because they are controlling it for the time being.
Tesla won’t have to build 136 plants. It won’t have to transition old factories that are pumping out useless powertrains. It will have to build more, but that won’t halt production altogether, especially considering the two factories it has now are handling demand without much of an issue.
Tesla’s plants are going to be assets for centuries to come. Meanwhile, other automakers have focused on the global scaling of their vehicle fleets, only realizing that their strategically placed production plants will all be useless in a few years unless companies begin transitioning their once high-powered manufacturing facilities to EV-based production lines.
What do you think? Leave a comment down below. Got a tip? Email us at tips@teslarati.com or reach out to me at joey@teslarati.com.
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
