MY will dampen MX sales, primarily because of lower cost and no FWD. But thats not a bad thing, as MY sales will be many times that of MX anyway, and I suspect even more than M3
I'd note here that M3 hasn't seemed to dampen MS sales much at all, despite the same aspects at play.
Likewise, MY will increase MX sales because of brand (and next level technology) awareness. Unlike BMW X3 to X5 sales.
I think if one is in the market for a 150k suv, the 40-50k version is not generally an acceptable alternative - not true for all, but for most
Our X was 90k. Maybe both happens, some lower optioned model X sales are siphoned off to the cheaper Y but the increased overall exposure of Tesla brings in enough new buyers that X sales remain the same. This is most likely what has happened with the S/3. I vote no falcon on the Y, that would not be a smart move. I’m leaning towards buying extended warranty when the time comes for the doors (all 5) alone.
The X is tight with the third row. It's unlikely the Y would have a third row. The Y doesn't need a third row to sell either. Anything is possible, of course.
Reminder: it's Tesla's plan that S and X lose market share. Remember that the EV market grows dramatically every year, yet S+X is limited to a max ~100k vehicles per year due to 18650 cell supply - and neither Tesla nor Panasonic have any interest in investing in more 18650 capacity. A constant number of vehicles per year in a rapidly growing market equals a rapidly declining fraction of said market. This is something that the bears frequently forget, but we shouldn't forget it here.
I've integrated this understanding into my own outlook towards the bears. I really did lean toward it being largely a coordinated conspiracy attack by big oil, and in part it is, but there's a lot of wisdom in what you're saying here.
I only expect the Y to be slightly smaller than the X (internal volume), and almost as long (reducing length increases, not decreases, aero drag). ~20% less cargo space than the X = Rav4 sized (Rav4 = highest selling SUV in the US). In varying markets / generations, Rav4 has been offered in 7-seat configs. As I expect Y to be longer than the Rav4 (but more tapered in the rear), it makes a 7-seat config easier. Hard to say what Tesla will do; time will tell. But 7-seat configs are both A) possible, and B) have market appeal. Remember, Tesla doesn't sell dozens of different vehicle models, each to its own niche; it needs to fill in as many niches with each model as it can if it wants to move 500k 3 / 700k Y per year. (The easiest 7-seat config, IMHO, would be rear-facing seats in the back. That way you maximize hip/shoulder room despite the rear taper)
Complete speculation but I believe the X in the future gets reworked from the current vehicle. - Seating for 8 with dual rows of 3. Production sure would be simplified if you reuse the S rear row. It would be be able to compete with vehicles like the Toyota Highlander. - It would be controversial but.... no more FWD. I can name a lot of the pros of the FWD, but I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I would factor in cons that Tesla manufacturing and Tesla shareholders would consider, but not the consumer.
7 seat config of the S doesn't work -that well- so the Y would have the same issue. IMHO, the Y should aim to seat 5 and store a lot of cargo. The X I would suggest is redesigned to seat 8 with dual triple rows. Y takes on midsized SUV market. X takes on larger SUV/minivan market.
My 2¢. I was super impressed on first use of Drive-ON-Nav implementation in our M3. I found the lane change seemed too delayed unless I used Mad Max. With the ongoing switchover to smart meters, there should be lots of old dumb meters available to use in apartments and condos to accurately charge users for their EV charging. Thoughts? When will we see a stretch X with two or more falcon wing doors per side? Has to be the baddest possible red-carpet mobile!
The media are now acutely aware that Tesla has proven themselves and won public approval, and that publishing FUD stories is embarrassingly transparent and damages the credibility of their masthead and the reputation of any journalists with byline attached. Readers will already be questioning how the recent news of a smashingly successful quarter can possibly align with all the negative press they previously read. The journos also come across as damned unpatriotic if they now dare to throw mud on this home grown success story. There's a grotesque double standard where these publications are happy to wave the flag to enlist your sons/daughters to fight for oil in Iraq, but then pooh pooh a company which builds an unbelievably good product that removes the need for oil in the first place. There's only one place such a double standard can exist - in the boardrooms of big oil and big auto. If more FUD is published, it's pretty clear to readers who's funding it, directly or indirectly.
This could be an option, replacement of cargo space for extra $, definitely does not need to be a standard config.
GM offers buyouts to 18,000 employees - CNN GM share price up 9% today on the backs of their latest earnings report, so they are doing well, right? Perhaps not well enough. GM offers buy-outs to 18,000 US White Collar workers.