You are right. I looked at 2012, not 2013. The Cayenne is outselling the Panamera 3 to 1.
Thank you for acknowledging this.
The Cayenne is significantly cheaper than a Panamera, so the comparison is not very meaningful.
My comparison was not based on price, but product placement.
Porsche does not have a full model line of choices, they have no sedan options in the price range of the Cayenne.
Porsche offers sports cars, convertibles, sedans and crossovers. They range in price from $49,900
(Macan) to $929,000
(918 Spyder Weissach). That's a pretty
'full line' by my estimation. The company apparently has an overall average margin of 50% on their sales -- a considerable markup as compared to Tesla Motors.
The base price of the Cayenne
($61,700) is significantly lower than the base price of the Panamera
($78,100), true. That's a 26.5% difference in price. But there is also a significant overlap in pricing between the two, over their trim levels. There are versions of the Panamera that go up to $180,300 for the Turbo S and $200,500 for the Turbo S Executive. Meanwhile the aforementioned Cayenne Turbo starts at $113,600. So there is a $35,500 overlap between base pricing of these vehicles -- before you get to adding options. That puts them firmly in the same
'class' from my point of view.
All the comparisons should be to the same price range.
This is a very good point. It could be made a lot easier if sales listings were by specific trim level. It is not the point I was making though. I said
'comparable', meaning
'top-of-the-line' offering. So I was comparing the top model/series for Crossovers with the top model/series for Sedans within product lines. I was
NOT comparing the top
selling cars within product lines.
That also means compare the X5 to the 5 series - not the 7 series. 5 series sales in 2013 were 56863 vs the X5: 39818 ... And the Q7 to the A6, not the A8. A6 sales in 2013 were 22428 vs the Q7: 15978
I guess for BMW the top-of-the-line Crossover might be the X6 instead, from your point of view. I forgot it existed -- as has the buying public as well, it seems...
But the top-of-the-line Porsche Crossover is definitely the Cayenne -- not the Macan.
The top-of-the-line Crossover for AUDI is the Q7.
Mercedes...? Who cares? ;-)
The greater SUV to sedan model does not hold.
Sure it does. It just matters which end of the telescope you use to look at the data. :-D From a pricing standpoint, it gets rather convoluted, and serves no purpose. From a units sold by body type perspective, it is plainly obvious that Crossovers are far more popular than either Sedans or Sports Coupes.
Yes the Model X is going to sell very very well.
I concur.
There were only 100,000 sales of large luxury SUVs in the US last year. I am sure the Model X will make some people reach beyond their normal category, just not that many.
This presumes a few things that I take issue with... First, that there is not
'enough room' or
'demand' in the market for another player. Second, that Tesla Motors sells
'luxury' cars. Third, that the Model X will be an SUV.
1) I get
SO tired of people claiming that demand for expensive electric cars is
'limited'. That's total [BORSHT]. In 2013 the Mercedes-Benz S-Class had a very good year of sales. They exceeded their 2012 numbers by over 12%. But they were still outsold by 37% by the Tesla Model S. Tesla Motors exposed a completely different market that was
NOT being exploited by their competitors by offering a product that was in demand. The Model X will perform similarly in the market. Tesla won't have to
'find Customers' for their electric cars -- the Customers will find
them. Just. Watch.
2) Tesla Motors does
NOT sell luxury cars. Check their promotional materials, website, YouTube, Vimeo, twitter, Facebook... They never mention the word
'luxury' anywhere. You can hardly visit any page of the AUDI, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, Infiniti, or Lexus websites without seeing
'luxury' all over the place. Tesla sells Expensive Performance Economy cars. They cost a lot to buy
(so far), are fun to drive, and don't burn any gas. The Model ≡ will be an Affordable Performance Economy car series. It won't break the bank to buy, will be fun to drive, and won't burn any gas. We can only hope that the price of batteries comes down to the point where Tesla can offer an Inexpensive Performance Economy car as well. I'd like that -- Generation
IV, perhaps?
3) The Tesla Model X will have the cargo capacity of an SUV -- thanks to the electric drivetrain and frunk up front. But the vehicle is a Crossover instead. It is not meant for spelunking over rocks, crevasses, and craters. You won't see video of it fjording rivers and streams. It won't be captured bounding over whoop-dee-doos in Baja. It will not be an off-road wonder, splashing through mud, muck, and mire in the Congo. The Model X
WILL perform just fine on actual roads: concrete, asphalt, gravel, dirt, clay, and compacted sand. You will probably be able to traverse lawns and pastures with it -- but do
NOT confuse it with a
'large SUV' because that isn't what it will be built for at all. It will be a Crossover Utility Vehicle
(CUV), if anything. Besides, the posers in Los Angeles that buy it will never see off-road action in it anyway, no more so than they do in their Range Rover or HUMVEE.
I predict 30,000 Model X in 2016.
My presumption is that ~20,000 of the Model S would be sold in North America, out of the ~50,000 that would be built, during 2016. Your estimate of Model X sales is certainly fair at 30,000 -- but I see that as a bare minimum instead. It would certainly be acceptable if 75,000 Model X were built in 2016, and 30,000 of those were sold in the US. Stockholders would be rather happy with that. But I don't think it will be that low, amounting to only a 50% bump over Model S. I also don't think that Model S will
'lose sales' to the Model X either, though plenty have predicted that. So if 20,000 Model S are sold here, I would expect a 3:1 ratio, or 60,000 or so of the Model X to find buyers as well -- no matter the price.