News
(Op-ed) A neutral look at Tesla’s upcoming Q1 2025 vehicle deliveries
Elon Musk affects Tesla, but his impact on the company’s raw vehicle sales may not be as notable as critics would suggest.
Tesla is such a volatile topic for many that it’s difficult to get a neutral image of the company and its fundamentals today. A look at Tesla news coverage shows this, as even dedicated electric vehicle blogs and tech publications seem to find it difficult to separate Tesla from Elon Musk, who is more polarizing than ever.
This is what I aim to cover in this op-ed. I will be exploring Tesla’s first quarter vehicle deliveries, why they might be underwhelming, the reasons behind them, and why I believe the sky is not necessarily falling.
A likely miss
Analyst consensus for Tesla’s Q1 2025 deliveries currently stands at 418,000 vehicles. That would suggest a year-over-year improvement of 8.06% from the 386,810 vehicles that Tesla was able to deliver in the first quarter of 2024. Considering Tesla’s sales in China and Europe over January and February, 418,000 deliveries seem to be a long shot for the first quarter of 2025.
It would not be surprising at all if Tesla ends up missing Wall Street’s consensus estimates, and by a pretty wide margin. Such is expected considering Tesla’s focus in the first quarter. But what is this focus, really? Elon Musk’s politics? Not necessarily.
A Model Y-shaped hole
Critics and negative Tesla news coverage would argue that the company’s steep drop in sales in several European markets and China is a sign that the company is finished, or that Elon Musk is doing global damage to the Tesla brand. However, Tesla’s sales decline this Q1 may actually be affected in no small part by the company’s transition from the Model Y classic to the new Model Y, which was launched across the United States, China, and Germany.
The Model Y is Tesla’s strongest seller, and it comprises a huge portion of the company’s deliveries every quarter. Considering that the Model Y classic quite literally became the world’s best-selling vehicle by volume in 2023 and 2024, it would not be an exaggeration to state that Tesla’s deliveries have been greatly carried by the all-electric crossover. What would happen then if Tesla implements a transition to the Model Y’s new version across its factories worldwide? Raw Model Y deliveries will go down, at least until Tesla starts deliveries of the revamped all-electric crossover. This is exactly what seems to be happening in China.
A look at Tesla China’s numbers from January and February will show that the company saw fewer registrations this year compared to last year. However, vehicle registrations have since picked up with the start of the new Model Y’s domestic deliveries. Similar trends may emerge in the United States and Europe, as well as territories supplied by Giga Shanghai, Giga Texas, the Fremont Factory, and Giga Berlin.
The Elon Musk factor
There is no doubt that Elon Musk is at his most polarizing today, but to credit Tesla’s low deliveries to the CEO’s political antics is very shortsighted. Yes, Elon Musk affects Tesla, but his impact on the company’s raw vehicle sales may not be as notable as critics would suggest. This could be seen in the results of a poll from German publication t-online, which initially concluded that 94% of Germans won’t buy a Tesla anymore. As it turned out, the survey would end up painting the complete opposite picture once more respondents took the poll. With more than 467,000 respondents on the survey, over 70% stated that they would buy a Tesla.
To state that Elon Musk’s political actions are not adversely affecting Tesla’s appeal to some consumers would not be accurate. There are evidently people who will not be purchasing a Tesla due to Elon Musk and his work with the Trump administration. The impact of the Musk factor, however, may not be as drastic as Tesla critics would suggest. It would not, for example, result in 94% of car buyers suddenly swearing off Tesla. The vast majority of consumers, after all, generally gravitate to the best products in the market, period. Assuming that this is true for most consumers today, Tesla’s vehicles definitely still have a fighting chance this year.
In conclusion
Considering Wall Street’s 418,000 vehicle delivery consensus, it almost seems certain that Tesla will miss this estimate by a notable margin. This would likely result in a wave of reports alleging that demand is drying up worldwide or Musk has completely tanked the brand’s appeal to consumers. With the new Model Y now starting its deliveries across the globe, however, Tesla’s real performance and a clearer view of Musk’s effect on the company’s demand, would likely become more evident in the coming quarters.
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
