Tesla, specifically the Model Y, has held the European best-selling EV title for years now. But with the scars of the events that occurred eighty years ago resurfacing after “that” incident, Tesla as a brand has been sinking faster than the Bismarck. Even with the launch of the new Model Y, which looks like it has undergone botched plastic surgery to impersonate the Cybertruck, sales have flopped, and for the first quarter of 2025, Tesla lost their spot as the best-selling EV in Europe. What is telling is which EV has replaced the Model Y at the top. You would think it would be a similar EV, like the VW ID. 4, Ford Mustang Mach-E, or the Hyundai Ioniq 5, but no. It is the tiny Renault 5. And its success shows just how badly Musk has fumbled the bag, because he was warned of this well in advance.
If you live across the pond, you can’t buy the new Renault 5, which is a shame because it is utterly brilliant. At just £26,995 (that is £12,995 cheaper than the cheapest Tesla) for the top-spec 52 kWh version, it is a steal. That gives you a WLTP range of 256 miles, a 10% to 80% charge time of 33 minutes, and a 0–60 mph time of eight seconds. But don’t let that comparatively slow acceleration figure fool you — this car, like most Renaults, handles incredibly. It’s fun, lively, and chuckable, perfect for exuberant city driving. Yet with a reasonable range, an impressive efficiency at highway speeds, and decent 326-litre boot space, the Renault 5 can also handle long trips with ease.
In short, it is more of an EV than most people will need, as well as being a highly desirable object that doesn’t break the bank.
But, hang on, the Renault 5 sounds almost identical to another EV that was supposed to have launched already: the Tesla “Model 2”.
This $25,000 EV (which would work out to roughly £25,000 for an on-the-road price in the UK) was reported to be the same size as the Renault 5 and come with a 53 kWh BYD Blade battery, giving it a 250-mile range and a 10% to 80% charge time of around 30 minutes. In other words, it was going to be nearly identical to the Renault 5.
The 5 does have this cheap, compact EV section of the European market mostly cornered. The Peugeot e-208 has similar specs but is £5,000 more expensive. The Citroën E-C3 has a little less range for a little less money, and the MG4 has the same specs and price, but the quality and design aren’t up to scratch. The 5 is a perfect Goldilocks EV, which is why it is selling so well.
But the Model 2 was pitched to have an almost identical design, price and specs to the Renault 5. The 5 shows the Model 2 could have been Tesla’s saving grace in Europe, and had it been launched when it was supposed to, Tesla might still be the best-selling EV here. Especially because the backlash to Musk’s love of all things from 1930s Germany wasn’t the sole reason for Tesla’s rapid demise. Tesla’s sales in Europe began to decline months before “that” incident because there were better EVs entering the market. The VW ID.3, Kia EV3, Renault Scenic, and BYD Seal were all scooping up huge numbers of potential customers. In short, for Tesla to keep its sales figures up, it needed to expand into sections of the market with high demand and no supply. Like cheaper, compact, but still long-range EVs.
Tesla’s global sales have dipped so low that the company is now functionally unprofitable, with only emissions credits keeping the books positive. The Renault 5 shows that even with Musk goose-stepping into the White House, that nosedive didn’t have to be the case. The European market was desperate for the Model 2, and if Tesla had launched it as promised, sales could have been boosted by several hundred thousand, keeping Tesla firmly in the black.
So, why did Tesla give up on the Model 2?
In Musk’s infinite wisdom, he thought that autonomous robotaxis would be so cheap that the affordable end of the EV market would be made obsolete. So, he shelved the project and shifted the time, effort and funds towards FSD, the Cybercab and Robotaxis, effectively betting the entire company’s future on their success. And, it’s fair to say, those projects are not doing well at all and are, in fact, a million miles away from making a dime in profits or even offering a functional robotaxi service (read more here).
I mean, it’s not like Tesla’s head of business, the guy responsible for getting Tesla so wildly profitable in 2020, warned Musk of this years ago…
Well, Rohan Patel, Tesla’s former head of business development and policy, who left the company last year, saw all of this coming. His internal analysis of Musk’s robotaxi plans was leaked a few months ago. Patel found that even if Tesla could get their FSD-powered robotaxis to work (and that is a big if), they wouldn’t make any profit for years to come. He essentially concluded that the venture was a dead end and advised Musk against heavily investing in it. Instead, he recommended focusing on developing cheaper, mass-market EVs, such as the proposed Model 2, and keeping Tesla at the top of the EV niche.
Patel wasn’t some unqualified lackey. He was crucial in turning Elon’s mess into a seriously profitable company in just a few years. This man knows what he is talking about and has saved Musk’s arse before.
But no, Elon had to let his insecure ego get in the way and override someone far more qualified than him in their area of expertise. In fact, he does that an awful lot at Tesla, with wildly dangerous results (read more here). And now, Tesla’s future is based on an AI that drives a car worse than my blind, narcoleptic aunt, and legacy automakers are dominating EV market sections that Tesla should have swept up years ago.
Tesla is dying, and it is Musk who killed it. Not because of the double Sieg Heil he performed on national television (though it didn’t really make you want to splash your cash at Tesla), but because of him letting his pathetic ego run the company.
People accuse me of hating Elon Musk, and politically speaking, they are bang on. I believe in boycotting it to hurt Musk’s damaging political ends. But I don’t hate Tesla because it is controlled by Musk. I recognise that Tesla isn’t just an analogy for Musk. After all, his overworked and unpaid workers have just as much of a claim to the company as he does, given that they are the ones that actually make it run. And, if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat, as they did with the Model S, X, 3 and Y, we should praise them, as I did when those vehicles came out. But Musk is stepping all over the talent that made Tesla work. He is quashing their genius and forcing Tesla down a deranged and moronic path. In a way, he wants Tesla to become an analogy of himself, to quell his spiralling insecurities. That is what I hate, because Tesla could have been brilliant in spite of Musk. Now it’s going down the drain because of Musk.
Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to check out my YouTube channel for more from me, or Subscribe. Oh, and don’t forget to hit the share button below to get the word out!
Sources: Notebook Check, EV Database, Will Lockett, Will Lockett, Will Lockett, Will Lockett, Will Lockett, Will Lockett
We can disagree here. On this side of the pond, Musk is Tesla and Tesla is Musk. It is an identification that Musk has used to further his career. Musk is strictly a materialist. He’s out of touch with reality.
Teslas are unsafe, and if the things I read about drunks driving Teslas are true, then Tesla drivers are to be avoided, unless you are a drunk, i.e. a member of the club.
The argument that Tesla is part of the economy, that workers depend on Tesla, is part of an ongoing debate about materialism. I am not of the party of strict materialism. Material needs must be met, and no society can remain healthy unless these needs are met. But the aspect of life that values truth, justice, and social good is not materialism; it’s separate from all that can be turned into cash.
This isn’t a position everyone can embrace, but I was fortunate enough to be able to resign from two jobs in my lifetime, because I learned that my employer was in one sense or another corrupt and dishonest. I accepted the temporary pain of economic stagnation and social challenges between careers.
But one can’t just say to others, “Then quit your job.” I’m not like Teddy Roosevelt in my convictions. I wouldn’t push this on anyone else, but it remains an option that I practice, and I hope others who are in a frame of mind to do so, will weigh materialism against truth and social good.