Tesla Motors chief Elon Musk has never been one to shy away from a big stage, so it's only fitting that the California-based electric-vehicle maker puts itself on the world's biggest. The company is making its Model S luxury sedan available in China, confirming to China-based microblogging site Weibo that it's taking reservations for the car, CNN reports.

While Tesla reps declined direct comment, Tesla has been preparing for this move for a while, even changing the Model S for China. China has surpassed the US to become the world's largest automotive market. And while just 22,000 plug-ins were sold in China last year (more than 46,000 plug-ins were sold in the US through the first eight months of the year), that number is expected to almost triple to about 60,000 units in 2014.

Tesla is looking to start building up momentum overseas after boosting its global sales rate to about 1,700 vehicles a month during the second quarter. The car will likely appeal to wealthier Chinese consumers, since the price will be higher than elsewhere due to China's import tariffs. Additionally, the company will be called "Tuosule" (a transliteration of the name Tesla) because the name Tesla was trademarked in 2006. The owner of the Tesla trademark in China is reportedly asking for about $32 million to let Tesla use the name. That's a bit steep, even for Musk's pockets.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 52 Comments
      arcroyal
      • 1 Year Ago
      Is the electric car really the way to go? I still believe that Hydrogen makes the most sense.
      GEORGE
      • 1 Year Ago
      Hope he isn't getting any US tax credits for producing it in China
        jcarguy56
        • 1 Year Ago
        @GEORGE
        Pay attention dude it's not being built in China but just sold in China. It's built here. Go do your negative political trolling on some other website.
      • 1 Year Ago
      They just had another one catch fire....DOH
        smarttechceo
        • 1 Year Ago
        Yes. And nearly 30,000 conventional vehicle fires in the US during month between the two Tesla fires.
      BipDBo
      • 1 Year Ago
      Get ready for a reverse-engineered, Chinese made, POS Tesla knock-off. To put icing on the cake, they'll probably also give the knock-off company the rights to the name, "Tesla."
        j
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        That would be ironic. Years too late to be effective initially, but very ironic.
        Actionable Mango
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        If they wanted to do this, they could have bought one in the US and done the exact same thing already.
          paulwesterberg
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Actionable Mango
          Btw, GM is reportedly studying the Tesla Model S: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2013/07/18/gm-which-killed-the-ev1-plans-to-study-elon-musks-tesla/
        paulwesterberg
        • 1 Year Ago
        @BipDBo
        That would be a fools errand. It would take years of effort to reverse engineer everything and then years of tooling and preparation to begin production, by then Tesla will have improve their technology significantly.
      purrpullberra
      • 1 Year Ago
      I imagine a lot of the folks in China who experience a ModelS are going to be stunned agog by the level of quality and technological innovation. If they've been impressed with the current crop of luxury cars the Tesla will be an absolute shock. I agree with paulwesterberg that there is no threat from a 'reverse engineered' Tesla sold by a Chinese car maker. Who would want that? Only those that can't afford a Tesla so Tesla can't lose them as a customer. Not to mention it would be a pile of crap as is every Chinese attempt at ripping off western luxury.
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @purrpullberra
        @ purrpullberra That's a very good observation. PRC consumers love famous brand names, but they export or sell to tourists cheap copies, they don't buy them for their own families.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 1 Year Ago
        @purrpullberra
        " Not to mention it would be a pile of crap as is every Chinese attempt at ripping off western luxury." That's a very prejudiced remark. The Chinese supply many high-end products that are very desirable and have quite a bit of cachet. Reference Apple, for example: Steve Job's and other Apple Execs comments to the point that Apple products are great *because* they are made in China, with its ability to provide highly-specialized technical design and engineering solutions with incredibly short lead times. The anecdote about Steve Jobs wanting a better glass screen for his iPhone is infamous. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all
          purrpullberra
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          I wasn't saying anything prejudiced or racial or xenophobic. China has never sold a WESTERN luxury product knockoff to the West in place of the actual luxury product. The Apple products are generally quite crap, the scratch, crack, break easily, require a ton of protection covering all the 'great' stuff. Oh and it's all made of the CHEAPEST products of its type, metal or plastic. And they require it be produced as fast and cheaply as possible too meaning things are as flimsy and short term as they can get away with. Apple are ripping off idiots ($8 to put together $40-80 worth of gear and charging $600) just because the lobotomized, closed system they have let stagnate is stupid-proof and Americans are DESPERATE for stupid-proof. I'd probably be under their thumb too if I wasn't with a computer genius. But nothing iPhone or iPad is high-end AND 'desirable' is debatable. Duh, it's WANTED but that hardly makes it a nice product. Also, for the record I expect China to make some unreal things before my time is up, I have no prejudice blinding me to their abilities.
          Electron
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          But what he really meant but did rather not say; *the profit on* Apple products are great because they are made in China. Anyway there is a huge difference between products that are build by western companies with western specifications and quality control in China and the garbage that is turned out by copy cats.
      drakkusshadows
      • 1 Year Ago
      Me no rikey da gas price!!
      Spec
      • 1 Year Ago
      Good place to have such a safe car. ;-)
      nick
      • 1 Year Ago
      who cares
        bluepongo1
        • 1 Year Ago
        @nick
        Certainly not folks who repeatedly click on Tesla Motors articles with something negative to post, because they could never aspire to own one due to the poor way they live their lives {which shows in their posts (*?*)}
      • 1 Year Ago
      ...and it's going to be huge. Don't forget, it's the Chinese who are forward-thinking.
      rjen164497
      • 1 Year Ago
      This will happen with America subsidising Tesla and it's contractors with money the US borrowed from China. Thanks Obama.
        • 1 Year Ago
        @rjen164497
        You mean borrowed as in fully paid back and now seeing profit, right? Back to the sandbox Skippy. You're not ready for the grown up table.
        The Toad
        • 1 Year Ago
        @rjen164497
        They got a loan its been repayed with interest. This was months ago. If you are talking subsidies you better start with big oil.
        Chris M
        • 1 Year Ago
        @rjen164497
        Wrong on so many levels. There was no subsidy, but there was a loan - from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program - signed into law by President G. W. Bush. Moreover, Tesla has already paid back the loan in full - 5 years early.
      Jack Manning
      • 1 Year Ago
      Musk looking to sell Tesla's to the Chinese. Doesn't he have enough U.S. car sales? From what I understand, Tesla hasn't turned a nickel in profit to date. Tesla is one of those way-out speculative investments. Absolutely no evidence that it will ever make the cut years down the road. Starting out with a new car company regardless of whether it involves new technology is iffy at best especially when you are competing against a "battery" of established car companies who command the money for R&D that Musk does not have. Right now he selling batteries to the other car companies but it is just current battery technology. Musk says he is going to invest in advanced battery research, but he will not be able to compete with the research facilities of the competing car companies.
      m_2012
      • 1 Year Ago
      They will have it copied in a week.
        Koenigsegg
        • 1 Year Ago
        @m_2012
        *in a never
        bluepongo1
        • 1 Year Ago
        @m_2012
        With little "extras" like lead in the paint & plastic for cheap bid idiots.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @bluepongo1
          @ bluepongo1 Good point ! Cheap copies can contain nasty surprises !
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @m_2012
        @ Joeviocoe It's not my fault if you make statements, you later seek to disavow ! What's the point of raising an historical example, critical of 'Western values' unless you intend some form of useful comparison ? As for 'capitalism', you mistakenly attempt to compare a economic phenomenon, to a contrived economic model derived from a philosophy. No 'moral philosophy' created 'capitalism' . Capitalism was best described by Adam Smith as an economic phenomenon that developed as the economic system for every organized civilization sufficiently advanced to enjoy a economic surplus. Socialism, is group of economic theories, based on a moral philosophy. In it's most popular form, socialism is designed to control the economic activities of individuals in a society, in accordance to the tenets of a certain political/moral/economic doctrine. You are quite correct, that some remote tribal societies lack a concept of personal land ownership. (but they do understand territorial possession). Even primitive collectives believe in personal property. (try 'borrowing' the chief's best hunting knife, spear, horse etc and see what happens ! ) It's also inevitable that more advanced societies will overwhelm less advanced societies. To pretend otherwise, is absurd. The European's did indeed overwhelm and render the lifestyle of the Plains Indians obsolete, just as the hunting Plains Indians overwhelmed earlier tribes lacking horses. The irony is that the great Indian nations of the plains would have never have developed their culture had it not been for horses brought by Europeans ! International patent law allows for patents to have a lifetime, before becoming in the public domain. Patents must also be actively pursued within a reasonable time frame, or an application can be made for them to be returned to the public domain. This is and old principle based on serendipitous discovery, or the principle that just because some thought of something first, it doesn't necessary follow that no-one else would have ever thought of the idea.
        Val
        • 1 Year Ago
        @m_2012
        So nobody in the entire chinese givernment and army couldn't ship one Model S to china for study? Really? Because it's been on the market in the US for a year now, so if they could copy it in a week, it should have been ready and on sale by now. GM have admitted they know everything about the tesla, yet do you see a tesla clone from GM? They sure went after the 3-series with the ATS, but don't expect them to make a tesla competitor anytime soon. Mercedes has been selling and even manufacturing cars in china for many years. How many chinese mercedes clones are sold in china, and how many are exported to ther markets? Any guesses?
        Letstakeawalk
        • 1 Year Ago
        @m_2012
        If they can make a less-expensive version, we'll all benefit.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "Intellectual property is a valuable asset, just like real estate, artistic copyright, or any other asset. It's the product of someones investment, in time, research, money etc. How is the result any different from any other possession? All assets belong to the creator/owner." But Marco, where would we be if we here in the US didn't steal Britain's textile machinery designs? I'm not saying it's right, or ethical - I'm just saying that the consumer ultimately benefits.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ Letstakeawalk, I'm not sure that the consumer always benefits. Often the copies, or counterfeits lack the quality of the original. In addition, the originator is often deterred or put out of business by the intellectual property thief. This deters others with innovative concepts. It also destroys the brand, and all the hard work to create product price and quality. Everyone loses, from these theives. By your reasoning, the thief who breaks into your home and steals your possessions is performing a 'public consumer service' when his fence sells your valuables at a discount !
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "By your reasoning, the thief who breaks into your home and steals your possessions is performing a 'public consumer service' when his fence sells your valuables at a discount !" In a sense, he does. Especially if what he takes is something that is needed that otherwise can't be gotten anywhere else. Remember Robin Hood? But there *is* a difference between theft of physical property (which deprives the owner of the use of property), and the theft of intellectual property (the original owner still maintains the ability to benefit from their property). "Often the copies, or counterfeits lack the quality of the original." Perhaps, but when there is a reduced cost, the consumer might decide that the trade-off is acceptable. Thousands of counterfeit purses are sold to housewives who know they are fakes, but just want a stylish bag at a fraction of the price. "This deters others with innovative concepts. It also destroys the brand, and all the hard work to create product price and quality." I'm not so sure. Typically, the originators of an innovative design are already working on the next step anyway, in order to stay ahead of the curve. Handbag designers are already putting together next season's prints, and colors, and cuts - just like Tesla is already working on new batteries, motors, etc. A company that stops innovating just because they're being copied is wrong to blame the copycats for their failure. I'd also argue that counterfeiters *increase* the recognition of a brand. I certainly wouldn't know some designers if I didn't see those knock-offs hanging around in market stalls. Likewise, when those fakes are being lugged around the streets, at a passing glance it is impossible to tell if they're real or not - but the original's name is the one that gets the public exposure. I have a fake Patek Philippe that I bought a long time ago, and I'll wear it for fun every now and then. When people ask what it is, I do tell them it's a fake, but they all agree it's an attractive watch (and being quartz, keeps excellent time). Will it last as long as a real Patek? Most likely not, but it's done fine service by anyone's standard. It also cost a tiny fraction of what a real one would, and only my horologist really knows the difference. For sake of argument, could you give me a few examples of companies that shut down because of copycats?
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ Letstakeawalk I think we may have got lost in our terminology. The name "Tesla" and the exact design and unique technology of the shouldn't be copied, but the concept of a high quality, long range EV can't be restricted. ( A patent or copyright can be granted for a unique mouse-trap design, but not the idea of catching mice !). The Republic of China, like Japan, is already producing EV's with very advanced technology. Joint venture projects with South Korea, should yield mass production export models within the next four years. Several ROC automakers have expanded to the PRC, taking over, or managing, formerly moribund state-owned factories. I would expect serious competition to develop among established PRC EV manufacturers such as Geely, BYD, etc. Competition always breeds rapid development. The PRC market is difficult for premium local manufacture, since every PRC citizen want a foreign vehicle for status, and local manufactures are held in low esteem. But, times change.....
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          --"all forms of property ownership, is a form of oppression of older, more noble societies." Way to take my historical context and make an absolute statement Are you trying to appear smart by misconstruing other people's argument? --"All socialist societies, stagnate and fail" And now who is being the Capitalism Idealist?
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          For the record... I am FOR patents. But of reasonable length. Just long enough to encourage innovation, but not too long as to stifle progress from initial innovation. We have countless examples of folks that innovate an initial idea... but nobody will improve on the idea for fear of law suits. The original innovator will sit as long as possible knowing that he/she has an intellectual monopoly.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Intellectual property is generally a Western concept. When conquistadors and European settlers came to the 'New World' and encountered many native tribes, several of them had ZERO CONCEPT of "land ownership". And when we forced upon them Western notions of "property" it only served to oppress them. True "Capitalism" should not reward "Intellectual Property. It denies fair competition manufacturing. Intellectual Property misuses like Monsanto are a new low. Patenting the very genetic structure of nature.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ Letstakeawalk I agree with BipDBo. LTAW, you seem to be advocating that only some forms of private asset ownership should be protected ? Intellectual property is a valuable asset, just like real estate, artistic copyright, or any other asset. It's the product of someones investment, in time, research, money etc. How is the result any different from any other possession? All assets belong to the creator/owner. Joeviocoe argues that all forms of property ownership, is a form of oppression of older, more noble societies. This romanticized utopian concept, is often held by idealists with no knowledge of history, or social economics. All socialist societies, stagnate and fail (or fall into oppressive dictatorships) due to fundamental flaws in the economic model. The fact that the PRC ignores Western intellectual property rights, is not the result of a noble philosophic tradition, but a much older desire for self advancement, and enrichment ! There is a simplistic view, that stealing from the wealthy, is not really stealing. Somehow, there is a moral justification for dishonesty if you don't like the victim. I would argue that this is a very dangerous concept, the practice of which leads to an erosion of public respect and trust. Like individuals, nations,must be taught the principle of honest conduct, and have respect for the laws that protect private property.
          BipDBo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Piracy of intellectual property has limited benefit to a few and heavy detriment to all.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Market success encourages innovation. People who innovate, and innovate in a fashion the market demands, succeed. There will always be imitators - but imitators who can imitate success by producing an identical product at a lower price are a benefit to the consumer. Protection of the status quo encourages stagnation. Stagnation results when a technical detail is made secret, because some entity can afford to keep it a secret. Tesla isn't a success because they have a secret. Tesla is a success because they did something nobody else was doing.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ Joeviocoe Curious, how can you disagree with something, that by your own confession, you didn't bother to read ? If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you may discover that no one can be "slavishly devoted to capitalism " ! Capitalism requires no belief system, it's not a 'moral', or 'political' philosophy ! Capitalism can't " trample human rights, personal economic freedom, and oppress an entire people.", because it's simply an economic phenomenon. It's a product of organized human activity. There are no carefree, 'noble savages', blissfully simple hunter gather societies, these are the misconceived delusions and romanticized dreams of western idealists. Communism, is just State capitalism, as opposed to private capitalism. All organized societies have capitalist economic systems, the only difference is who's in control of the 'capital'. You are confusing political philosophy with economic activity. Property is property, theft is theft ! French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon may have made himself famous by coining the phrase, "Property is Theft", so beloved of the counter-culture movement of the '60's, but as Max Stirner pointed out, "Is the concept 'theft' at all possible unless one allows validity to the concept 'property'? How can one steal if property is not already extant?... Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property." !
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ Joeviocoe It's not my fault if you make statements, you later seek to disavow ! What's the point of raising an historical example critical of 'Western values', unless you intended a comparison ? As for 'capitalism', you mistakenly attempt to compare a economic phenomenon, to a contrived economic model derived from a philosophy. No 'moral philosophy' created 'capitalism' . Capitalism was best described by Adam Smith as an economic phenomenon that developed as the economic system for every organized civilization sufficiently advanced to enjoy a economic surplus. Socialism, is group of economic theories, based on a moral philosophy. In it's most popular form, socialism is designed to control the economic activities of individuals in a society, in accordance to the tenets of a certain political/moral/economic doctrine. You are quite correct, that some remote tribal societies lack a concept of personal land ownership. (but they do understand territorial possession). Even primitive collectives believe in personal property. (try 'borrowing' the chief's best hunting knife, spear, horse etc and see what happens ! ) It's inevitable more advanced societies will overwhelm less advanced societies. To pretend otherwise, is absurd. The European's did indeed overwhelm, and render the lifestyle of the Plains Indians obsolete, just as the hunting Plains Indians overwhelmed earlier tribes lacking horses. It's ironic that the great Indian nations of the plains could have never have developed their unique culture without the introduction of horses to North America by the Spanish. International patent law allows for patents to have a lifetime, before becoming in the public domain. Patents must also be actively pursued within a reasonable time frame, or an application can be made for them to be returned to the public domain. This is based on the old principle of serendipitous discovery, and the more practical principle that just because someone thought of something first, it doesn't necessary follow that no-one else would have ever thought of the idea !
          BipDBo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Protection of intellectual property encourages innovation. Without it, there is no reward to innovate and progress will stagnate. If a person or a company spends the time and money to develop or invent a product has a competitor who copies their product, the innovator is at a disadvantage. The innovator now has to compete on price while paying off the debt of the R&D cost. The "robbing" company will thrive in the short term and the innovating company will die. Innovation therefore becomes a liability rather than an asset. If that company that develops a product can have anyone manufacture it. Therefore, manufacturing competition still thrives under protection of intellectual property. It boggles me that this concept isn't immediately obvious.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          You've got that the wrong way around.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          I think we're veering off-topic here, Marco. I accept your public shaming for my faux-pas. ;) I'd also like to separate my comments; I was making two different points, and didn't mean to give the idea that I thought counterfeiters were comparable to the myth of Robin Hood. He stole from the rich, and gave to the poor without thought to his own benefit. Counterfeiters are indeed criminals, and should be required to pay taxes, etc. as regular business entities do. If the Chinese can duplicate a Tesla Model S, and provide it at a lower price, I think that's a good thing. Tesla does not have the scale to completely serve the market, and so any potential Chinese manufacturer that can deliver product will - in the larger scheme of things - benefit us all. More BEVs on the roads - BEVs that Tesla is otherwise incapable of building at this time.
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          @ Letstakeawalk Thieves and criminals who are involved in the counterfeit goods trade are not "Robin Hood " type heroes, but unscrupulous criminals motivated solely by greed ! Counterfeit goods are not a victimless crime. You may think that your individual purchase of a fake Patek watch is a harmless bit of fun, but counterfeiting is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world. Over 2 million jobs has been lost in the US alone due to the activities of these criminals. It's a very strong possibility that your watch was produced in a factory that uses virtual slave, (including child) labour. www.cnbc.com/id/37824347‎ www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/counterfeit-goods.html‎ Your watch is part of a $250 billion per year, global organized crime network that far from being "Robin Hood" sells fake medicines to children. It's estimated that one third of malaria medicines used in East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa alone, are fraudulent. As the IACC rightly points out: Counterfeiting is illegal and purchasing counterfeit products supports illegal activity. Counterfeiters do not pay taxes meaning less money for your city's schools, hospitals, parks and other social programs. Counterfeiters do not pay their employees fair wages or benefits, have poor working conditions, and often use forced child labor. Counterfeit goods are made using cheap, substandard, and dangerous components that put the health and safety of consumers at risk. The profits from counterfeiting fund organized crime, drug trafficking and terrorist activity. When you purchase a fake, you become part of the cycle of counterfeiting and your money directly support these things you would never want to support. Is that an industry you really want to support ? Is that the type of compromised morality you would teach your children ?
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Marco... Too Long, Didn't Read. Because the first statement is laughably pathetic. --"It's not my fault if you make statements, you later seek to disavow " I haven't "disavowed" any statement here, am clarifying after you misinterpreted (I am starting to believe, on purpose) my statement. Your fanatical love and worship of capitalism is blinding you... and causing you to see my moderate point as the opposite extreme. Here is the moderate point that my 'historical context' of the Native Americans that I was trying to make. Capitalism can trample human rights, personal economic freedom, and oppress an entire people... just as easily as socialism. These "isms" are tools in the hands of people. Any "ism" can be used for good or bad. There are countless examples where strong Intellectual Property law is GOOD. But there are countless examples where they are abused. Any extreme viewpoint, either for socialism, or for capitalism... is bad way to go.
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @m_2012
        Sorry about the unintended double post ....
    • Load More Comments