Virginia Allows Tesla To Establish Traditional Dealership

Virgil Hilts
by Virgil Hilts

One week after we mused that electric carmaker Tesla would never be able to defeat current state laws prohibiting factory direct automobile sales and thus must join the franchised dealer model, the company proved us wrong thanks to the Commonwealth of Virginia.


According to Automotive News, the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and, amazingly, the Virginia Automobile Dealer Association have come to an agreement to allow Tesla to open one dealership in the state. Tesla currently operates a order-taking outlet in a mall in Tysons Corner, a suburb of Washington, D.C., while their nearest service center is in Rockville, Maryland. Although details of the agreement are sealed, it is likely that Tesla will be allowed to build a full service store in the Tysons Corner area.

Tesla has been wrangling with the state for some time. Their request to open a dealership had previously been denied by the state’s DMV and the company was appealing the ruling in a county court. The next step is for the Virginia Motor Dealer Vehicle board to grant Tesla a business license.

Tesla had previously won approval to sell its vehicles in the state of New Hampshire but having a point near the nation’s capital is huge for the company’s exposure. Besides having near-perfect client demographics for the product, it affords CEO Elon Musk the opportunity to showcase his dealership to members of Congress, whom he is considering lobbying to pass a federal law allowing factory direct car sales to customers.

As this agreement has been in the works for some time, we cannot say if our editorial had any influence on the Virginia entities, but we cannot help but wonder if TTAC commenter and dealer apologist Ruggles, who posted a remarkable one hundred and seventy-four comments on our story last week, might have been in Richmond this week, wearing the lawmakers down until they caved.

Virgil Hilts
Virgil Hilts

More by Virgil Hilts

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 310 comments
  • Ruggles Ruggles on Oct 11, 2013

    RE: "Author: doctor olds Comment: @Vulpine- "BUYERS are saying GM needs to shut down one of those brands..." Absurd!! GMC is strong and profitable, Sierra represents plus business at higher unit profit. The fact the GM production system builds Sierra as s trim level of a Silverado is one element of why this is a good business plan. Your notions about the cost elements are disconnected from business reality." Good points. Another small detail is that GMC is the brand handled by Buick dealers, who have lost Olds and Pontiac. In a market with Chevrolet, the GMC dealer provides a competitor that can work in the consumer's favor.

  • Ruggles Ruggles on Nov 30, 2013

    Has the irrational exuberance flamed out here?

  • Jeff Not bad just oil changes and tire rotations. Most of the recalls on my Maverick have been fixed with programming. Did have to buy 1 new tire for my Maverick got a nail in the sidewall.
  • Carson D Some of my friends used to drive Tacomas. They bought them new about fifteen years ago, and they kept them for at least a decade. While it is true that they replaced their Tacomas with full-sized pickups that cost a fair amount of money, I don't think they'd have been Tacoma buyers in 2008 if a well-equipped 4x4 Tacoma cost the equivalent of $65K today. Call it a theory.
  • Eliyahu A fine sedan made even nicer with the turbo. Honda could take a lesson in seat comfort.
  • MaintenanceCosts Seems like a good way to combine the worst attributes of a roadster and a body-on-frame truck. But an LS always sounds nice.
  • MRF 95 T-Bird I recently saw, in Florida no less an SSR parked in someone’s driveway next to a Cadillac XLR. All that was needed to complete the Lutz era retractable roof trifecta was a Pontiac G6 retractable. I’ve had a soft spot for these an other retro styled vehicles of the era but did Lutz really have to drop the Camaro and Firebird for the SSR halo vehicle?
Next