Tesla last November ended an unusual policy that prohibited U.S. leasing customers from buying their cars at lease-end.
The policy started in 2019, when Tesla announced that customers could lease its mass-market Model 3 sedans but would have to return them, at the end of the lease, for use in Tesla’s planned “robotaxi” network.
“Next year, for sure,” he added, “we’ll have over 1 million robotaxis on the road.”
None of that would prove true. Despite repeated promises, the robotaxis never came. Tesla instead found an unusually lucrative way to make money by flipping many of the off-lease cars to new buyers, according to four people familiar with Tesla’s retail operations.
Rather than storing the used cars – a fast-depreciating asset – Tesla started adding features to them through software upgrades. It then sold the vehicles to new customers who would pay thousands more than lease-end buyers would have, the people said.
Welfare queen Musk wanted to double dip the taxpayer EV rebates.
So technically many Teslas sold first party were refurbs?
So technically many Teslas sold first party were refurbs?
First, screw Musk, but they weren’t selling used cars as new, instead think more like many other brands do with “certified preowned” but sold at from Tesla stores. So for this point, Tesla wasn’t doing anything other car companies don’t already with the nuance that Tesla owns all its stores where “certified preowned” Honda cars, as an example, are owned by a dealership.
Okay I see. I wasn’t sure if they were passing leased cars as new, but it sounds like they didn’t do that and instead were just removing artificial paywalls when they took it back to extract more cash.
So yes.
So yes.
The language isn’t the most clear here because Tesla is both the manufacturer, the first party seller, and the second party customer, then again a first party seller.
For new cars Tesla sells, Tesla would be the first party. For lease returns Tesla sold (aka refurbs), Tesla would be second party, as they were the buyer of the refurb car. So in a new transaction where Tesla is selling the refurb car, Tesla would be the first party of that second sale.
Under none of the cases recorded so far did Tesla sell a used car as a new one.
I think the big issue is they were missing modern features that only took a software update
Those features made them more attractive to buyers so they paid more than straight off lease.
Obviously if what you’re talking about would be a huge issue, I just don’t think it did.
But why aren’t all the old Teslas getting that update?
First, screw Musk. However, I can add some clarity to what they’re doing and why.
I think the big issue is they were missing modern features that only took a software update
Think more, the previous owner had the base game but was missing the DLC addons. There are a couple software services upgrades such their “Full Self Drive” software which they sell for $8000.
Those features made them more attractive to buyers so they paid more than straight off lease.
It cost Tesla nothing to add the software, but they can offer the used Tesla “with free $8k FSD” included.
But why aren’t all the old Teslas getting that update?
Because they sell that $8k Full Self Drive to car owners that bought new.
I agree for the most part but the initial analogy about a game is very poor one. It’s more like your console was missing performance. They patched it, refurbished it, and then resold it as a Pro model and got more money out of it.
You can think of it that way if you want, but I’m not sure its completely honest. To use your console analogy, if you bought a Nintendo Switch, all of the hardware is in your hands to display the graphics, sound, and scripts of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. However, it won’t do that with what you buy in the box. You’ll have to shell out another $60 or so to buy the software that will use that hardware.
I have no interest in Full Self Drive. I’m certainly glad they didn’t include it in the cars and simply increase the price of the car because its there.
I think there’s definitely a slippery slope argument for locking features for physical hardware for anything. Just look at what John Deere for an already proven example.
There’s an argument for your point of view but I think the negatives far outweigh the positives. I doubt there’s a legal or even social argument against the practice stated in the article. I just think it’s worse for the consumer.
John Deere has been doing sketchy stuff especially on blocking the “right to repair” front. Thats an entirely different argument if thats where you were going. Thats preventing repair of functionality that was sold to the buyer but the buyer is prevented from making it work again without paying excessive fees/prices to John Deere to use otherwise perfectly legitimate John Deere salvage parts to restore the original function.
We’re talking about something else here. This is where there is functionality never sold to the buyer, and the buyer is trying to gain that extra functionality.
I just think it’s worse for the consumer.
I can absolutely understand that perspective from the micro point of view, but what would actually be worse for the customer is if a manufacturer had to design, build, and maintain many different versions of something losing the economies of scale that bring costs down of building a whole bunch of one of something and then not enabling parts or use full function of what may be capable.
Consumers would actually be paying more if your method was forced to occur.
Wait- do you think that Tesla taking back leased cars and selling them as new is less important than adding new features via a software update?
You know that scene in Matilda when her dad shows her all the shady shit he does to sell junk cars, like rewinding the odometers and glueing the bumpers on? This is literally the 21st century version of that.
If you buy a car that doesn’t have all the “modern features” you want, that’s on you, even if those features can simply be enabled via software. But it’s literally fraud to advertise a car as new when it was previously leased out.
Wait- do you think that Tesla taking back leased cars and selling them as new
Well…
One is a hypothetical that isn’t happening…
And one is really happening.
Just like, in general, I tend to care about real things more than something someone made up to make me angry at someone else
But looking around these days, I see more and more people disagreeing with me.
And it’s depressing, so I tend to just block people now. Have a nice life tho.
You must have missed this part:
Tesla instead found an unusually lucrative way to make money by flipping many of the off-lease cars to new buyers, according to four people familiar with Tesla’s retail operations.
THEY LITERALLY ARE DOING THAT.
But looking around these days, I see more and more people disagreeing with me.
Yes, clearly everyone else is wrong.
…
The buyers are new
As in they were not the lease holders.
They are not buying cars that they think are new.
But that’s definitely enough, if you want others to help you understand things in the future, my last piece of advice is to be civil when someone tries.
They’re taking up their time to help you
deleted by creator
It would seem that he likes to lie.
