Tesla's Biggest Cheerleader Thinks Model X May Be Overpriced

Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas issued a lower target for Tesla on Wednesday, saying the automaker’s SUV price tag is too hefty for the carmaker to meet its production volume goal for 2016.

Jonas wrote that the $130,000 SUV is just too pricey (via Business Insider):

Even allowing the Model X (average transaction price) to decline over time through the introduction of lower-spec models leaves what we believe to be a higher-priced vehicle than we expected that may struggle to meet the volume expectations of the market and our forecasts.

If you remember correctly, Jonas was the analyst that called for Tesla’s stock to effectively double because he had a good idea for the automaker, which he said was the world’s most important.

Read more
Jaguar Needs to Get It Together

So I’m reading through Autoblog (Motto: All the recall stories that are fit to print!), and I come across an article about how Jaguar is now developing an even higher performance version of the F-Type sports car.

That’s right, folks: soon, Jaguar dealers across the country will be graced with yet another six-figure car that nobody wants to buy.

If you’re an F-Type fan ( who isn’t?), then you might be surprised to hear me say this — but it’s true. Cars.com does a monthly list of the slowest selling cars on the market — not by sales volume, but by actual days each car spends on the lot — and some version the F-Type is always near the top. It’s often stopped from being the true number one vehicle by only more overpriced cars, like the BMW 6 Series and the Kia K900.

So why are they developing a high-performance version? Because Jaguar remains convinced that this is the way to attract younger, hipper car shoppers: by offering the same old thing with more power at an even higher price tag. The main problem with the F-Type, Jaguar apparently believes, is that it isn’t expensive enough.

Read more
  • Brandon I would vote for my 23 Escape ST-Line with the 2.0L turbo and a normal 8 speed transmission instead of CVT. 250 HP, I average 28 MPG and get much higher on trips and get a nice 13" sync4 touchscreen. It leaves these 2 in my dust literally
  • JLGOLDEN When this and Hornet were revealed, I expected BOTH to quickly become best-sellers for their brands. They look great, and seem like interesting and fun alternatives in a crowded market. Alas, ambitious pricing is a bridge too far...
  • Zerofoo Modifications are funny things. I like the smoked side marker look - however having seen too many cars with butchered wire harnesses, I don't buy cars with ANY modifications. Pro-tip - put the car back to stock before you try and sell it.
  • JLGOLDEN I disagree with the author's comment on the current Murano's "annoying CVT". Murano's CVT does not fake shifts like some CVTs attempt, therefore does not cause shift shock or driveline harshness while fumbling between set ratios. Murano's CVT feels genuinely smooth and lets the (great-sounding V6) engine sing and zing along pleasantly.
  • JLGOLDEN Our family bought a 2012 Murano AWD new, and enjoyed it for 280K before we sold it last month. CVT began slipping at 230K but it was worth fixing a clean, well-cared for car. As soon as we sold the 2012, I grabbed a new 2024 Murano before the body style and powertrain changes for 2025, and (as rumored) goes to 4-cyl turbo. Sure, the current Murano feels old-school, with interior switchgear and finishes akin to a 2010 Infiniti. That's not a bad thing! Feels solid, V6 sounds awesome, and the whole platform has been around long enough that future parts & service wont be an issue.