Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) took a steep dive on the heels of the company’s Q4 and FY 2023 earnings call, dropping over 9% as of writing. With the company stating that volume growth would be tempered this year due to its focus on the next-generation platform and executives being quite vague about its guidance for 2024, analysts, including some TSLA bulls, are not happy.
Tesla actually had a record 2023, with vehicle sales growing nearly 40% year-over-year in 2023 to over 1.8 million units worldwide. Wall Street currently expects Tesla to post about 2.1 to 2.2 million vehicle sales for 2024, which would translate to a growth of about 20%. This number seems conservative and attainable enough, but Tesla simply maintained that its volume growth would be substantially lower than 2023’s ~40%.
Wedbush analyst Dan Ives shared his sentiments about Tesla’s earnings call, in a post on X. Ives described the call, which provided some high-level long-term views on the company, as another “train wreck” conference call. Following the earnings call, Ives adjusted his price target for Tesla from $350 to $315 per share, though he also noted that Wedbush remains bullish on the company.
Great to join @bsurveillance discussing another train wreck conf call in our view from Tesla and Musk lacking margin outlook and firm guidance for 24. Remain bullish for long term EV/AI vision but near term headwinds @lisaabramowicz1 @FerroTV @annmarie @BloombergTV https://t.co/E40CMG2Mg0— Dan Ives (@DivesTech) January 25, 2024
“We were dead wrong expecting Musk and team to step up like adults in the room on the call and give a strategic and financial overview of the ongoing price cuts, margin structure, and fluctuating demand. Instead, we got a high-level Tesla long-term view with another train wreck conference call,” Ives noted.
RBC analyst Tom Narayan also maintained his “Buy” rating on Tesla, though he lowered his price target from $300 to $297 per share. “We leave our delivery estimates unchanged after the vague guide, but lower our car gross margin expectations on less robust cost down opportunity,” he noted in a report. Narayan also pointed out that Tesla’s next-generation vehicle platform is still “many quarters away” from impacting the company’s numbers.
-->New $TSLA report from Adam Jonas: 5 thoughts post earnings call
“We reiterate our OW $TSLA rating ($345 price target) which offers over 80% upside from current levels which we believe is compelling in proportion to the investment level within our US auto coverage.” pic.twitter.com/TdZ2cLavdc— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 25, 2024
Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas, for his part, pointed out that Tesla almost did not provide any guidance during the call. He also observed that there were no “AI rabbits” pulled out of Tesla’s hat during the call, which was highlighted by Musk’s conservative comments about Dojo. Despite this, Morgan Stanley opted to maintain its “Overweight” rating and $345 price target on Tesla, with a bear case PT of $100 and a bull case PT of $500 per share.
While the sentiments surrounding Tesla’s Q4 and FY 2023 earnings call seem generally negative, some analysts opted to take a more optimistic stance on the company. Canaccord lowered its price target for Tesla from $267 to $234 per share, though the firm also noted that it is time for investors to be patient about the company. The firm noted that it remains bullish about Tesla’s long-term prospects.
NEWS: Canaccord Genuity has lowered its $TSLA price target to $234 (from $267), maintains a BUY rating.
They put out a good note:
“It’s time to be patient. The next-generation vehicle, FSD upgrades, margin improvement, and Optimus will likely bring an acceleration in revenue…— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) January 25, 2024
“It’s time to be patient. The next-generation vehicle, FSD upgrades, margin improvement, and Optimus will likely bring an acceleration in revenue growth. But not this year — 2024 will be subdued; probably a trough, but still relatively slow (we model ~18% y\y revenue growth). Growth curves are seldom smooth, and Tesla is no different.
“We are still quite bullish on Tesla’s long-term growth prospects. We think EVs will replace ICE vehicles despite recent countervailing narratives. We see vehicle autonomy as one of the highest value-creating technologies to be deployed. Ever. And Tesla, with its razor/ razorblade approach, is a leader in this real-world AI. We think Tesla is Apple on steroids as it focuses on manufacturing and a higher level of vertical integration. Tesla is THE sustainability behemoth, in our opinion,” the firm noted.
The critical metric, auto gross margins ex credits, came in at 17%, compared to the Street at 17.3%. I was expecting 16.7%.
While this missed the Street, it marks the end of four consecutive quarters of margin decline, up from 16.3% in the Sep-23.
Over this is a positive.— Gene Munster (@munster_gene) January 24, 2024
Longtime Tesla bull Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management also pointed out that Tesla’s auto gross margins for the past quarter ended a streak of dropping margins. “The critical metric, auto gross margins ex credits, came in at 17%, compared to the Street at 17.3%. I was expecting 16.7%. While this missed the Street, it marks the end of four consecutive quarters of margin decline, up from 16.3% in the Sep-23. Over, this is a positive,” Munster wrote on X.
-->Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Tesla recently released Full Self-Driving (FSD) v14.2.1, its latest version, but the tinkering with Speed Profiles has perhaps gone too far.
We try to keep it as real as possible with Full Self-Driving operation, and we are well aware that with the new versions, some things get better, but others get worse. It is all part of the process with FSD, and refinements are usually available within a week or so.
However, the latest v14.2.1 update has brought out some major complaints with Speed Profiles, at least on my end. It seems the adjustments have gone a tad too far, and there is a sizeable gap between Profiles that are next to one another.
Tesla FSD v14.2.1 first impressions:
✅ Smooth, stress-free highway operation
✅ Speed Profiles are refined — Hurry seems to be limited to 10 MPH over on highways. Switching from Mad Max to Hurry results in an abrupt braking pattern. Nothing of concern but do feel as if Speed…— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) November 29, 2025
The gap is so large that changing between them presents a bit of an unwelcome and drastic reduction in speed, which is perhaps a tad too fast for my liking. Additionally, Speed Profiles seem to have a set Speed Limit offset, which makes it less functional in live traffic situations.
Before I go any further, I’d like to remind everyone reading this that what I am about to write is purely my opinion; it is not right or wrong, or how everyone might feel. I am well aware that driving behaviors are widely subjective; what is acceptable to one might be unacceptable to another.
Speed Profiles are ‘Set’ to a Speed
From what I’ve experienced on v14.2.1, Tesla has chosen to go with somewhat of a preset max speed for each Speed Profile. With ‘Hurry,’ it appears to be 10 MPH over the speed limit, and it will not go even a single MPH faster than that. In a 55 MPH zone, it will only travel 65 MPH. Meanwhile, ‘Standard’ seems to be fixed at between 4-5 MPH over.
This is sort of a tough thing to have fixed, in my opinion. The speed at which the car travels should not be fixed; it should be more dependent on how traffic around it is traveling.
It almost seems as if the Speed Profile chosen should be more of a Behavior Profile. Standard should perform passes only to traffic that is slower than the traffic. If traffic is traveling at 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone, the car should travel at 75 MPH. It should pass traffic that travels slower than this.
Hurry should be more willing to overtake cars, travel more than 10 MPH over the limit, and act as if someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, hence the name. Setting strict limits on how fast it will travel seems to be a real damper on its capabilities. It did much better in previous versions.
Some Speed Profiles are Too Distant from Others
This is specifically about Hurry and Mad Max, which are neighbors in the Speed Profiles menu. Hurry will only go 10 MPH over the limit, but Mad Max will travel similarly to traffic around it. I’ve seen some people say Mad Max is too slow, but I have not had that opinion when using it.
In a 55 MPH zone during Black Friday and Small Business Saturday, it is not unusual for traffic around me to travel in the low to mid-80s. Mad Max was very suitable for some traffic situations yesterday, especially as cars were traveling very fast. However, sometimes it required me to “gear down” into Hurry, especially as, at times, it would try to pass slower traffic in the right lane, a move I’m not super fond of.
We had some readers also mention this to us:
The abrupt speed reduction when switching to a slower speed profile is definitely an issue that should be improved upon.
— David Klem (@daklem) November 29, 2025
After switching from Mad Max to Hurry, there is a very abrupt drop in speed. It is not violent by any means, but it does shift your body forward, and it seems as if it is a tad drastic and could be refined further.
News
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
Tesla is preparing to introduce the Model 3 Standard to the Netherlands this December, as per information obtained by AutoWeek. The trim is expected to launch at €36,990, making it the most affordable Model 3 the Dutch market has seen in years.
While Tesla has not formally confirmed the vehicle’s arrival, pricing reportedly comes from a reliable source, the publication noted.
Model 3 Standard lands in NL
The U.S. version of the Model 3 Standard provides a clear preview of what Dutch buyers can expect, such as a no-frills configuration that maintains the recognizable Model 3 look without stripping the car down to a bare interior. The panoramic glass roof is still there, the exterior design is unchanged, and Tesla’s central touchscreen-driven cabin layout stays intact.
Cost reductions come from targeted equipment cuts. The American variant uses fewer speakers, lacks ventilated front seats and heated rear seats, and swaps premium materials for cloth and textile-heavy surfaces. Performance is modest compared with the Premium models, with a 0–100 km/h sprint of about six seconds and an estimated WLTP range near 550 kilometers.
Despite the smaller battery and simpler suspension, the Standard maintains the long-distance capability drivers have come to expect in a Tesla.
-->Pricing strategy aligns with Dutch EV demand and taxation shifts
At €36,990, the Model 3 Standard fits neatly into Tesla’s ongoing lineup reshuffle. The current Model 3 RWD has crept toward €42,000, creating space for a more competitive entry-level option, and positioning the new Model 3 Standard comfortably below the €39,990 Model Y Standard.
The timing aligns with rising Dutch demand for affordable EVs as subsidies like SEPP fade and tax advantages for electric cars continue to wind down, EVUpdate noted. Buyers seeking a no-frills EV with solid range are then likely to see the new trim as a compelling alternative.
With the U.S. variant long established and the Model Y Standard already available in the Netherlands, the appearance of an entry-level Model 3 in the Dutch configurator seems like a logical next step.
News
Tesla Model Y is still China’s best-selling premium EV through October
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Tesla Model Y led China’s top-selling pure electric vehicles in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment through October 2025, as per Yiche data compiled from China Passenger Car Association (CPCA) figures.
The premium-priced SUV outpaced rivals despite a competitive field, while the Model 3 also secured an impressive position.
The Model Y is still unrivaled
The Model Y’s dominance shines in Yiche’s October report, topping the chart for vehicles priced between 200,000 and 300,000 RMB. With 312,331 units retailed from January through October, the all-electric crossover was China’s best-selling EV in the 200,000–300,000 RMB segment.
The Xiaomi SU7 is a strong challenger at No. 2 with 234,521 units, followed by the Tesla Model 3, which achieved 146,379 retail sales through October. The Model Y’s potentially biggest rival, the Xiaomi YU7, is currently at No. 4 with 80,855 retail units sold.
Efficiency kings
The Model 3 and Model Y recently claimed the top two spots in Autohome’s latest real-world energy-consumption test, outperforming a broad field of Chinese-market EVs under identical 120 km/h cruising conditions with 375 kg payload and fixed 24 °C cabin temperature. The Model 3 achieved 20.8 kWh/100 km while the Model Y recorded 21.8 kWh/100 km, reaffirming Tesla’s efficiency lead.
The results drew immediate attention from Xiaomi CEO Lei Jun, who publicly recognized Tesla’s advantage while pledging continued refinement for his brand’s lineup.
-->“The Xiaomi SU7’s energy consumption performance is also very good; you can take a closer look. The fact that its test results are weaker than Tesla’s is partly due to objective reasons: the Xiaomi SU7 is a C-segment car, larger and with higher specifications, making it heavier and naturally increasing energy consumption. Of course, we will continue to learn from Tesla and further optimize its energy consumption performance!” Lei Jun wrote in a post on Weibo.
Tesla tinkering with Speed Profiles on FSD v14.2.1 has gone too far
Tesla’s most affordable car is coming to the Netherlands
