Tesla to end Cybertruck production as sales stall at ~10% of plan

Tesla plans to gradually reduce and end Cybertruck manufacturing at Gigafactory Texas around the middle of 2027. The company has not described the exact shutdown schedule. It also has not said how long it will keep selling trucks already built.

The timing comes roughly three and a half years after the first Cybertruck deliveries. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the production space would be used for more Cybercab manufacturing. However, the Cybertruck line is operating far below its intended volume.

The end of production does not automatically mean existing trucks stop working. Tesla has not explained what will happen to unsold inventory, replacement parts, repairs, or service support. Those details remain open. The planned wind-down reflects weak sales and the high cost of maintaining a specialized vehicle program at low volume.

Tesla’s Cybertruck business is running far below its original plan. The company designed its production line to make 250,000 vehicles each year, but recent estimates put sales at about 30,000 trucks annually. That is roughly 12% of the planned output.

Tesla does not report Cybertruck deliveries separately. It combines them with Model S, Model X, and Semi deliveries in an “Other Models” category. In the third quarter of 2026, that category totaled 8,295 vehicles. With Model S and Model X production over, the article estimates that 7,000 to 8,000 were Cybertrucks.

Tesla’s installed capacity is still listed at more than 125,000 vehicles. So the truck is using only about a quarter of the capacity already built. US sales estimates also fell sharply, from 14,416 in the third quarter of 2024 to 3,744 in the second quarter of 2026.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said Cybertruck production will wind down so Gigafactory Texas can support more Cybercab production. The explanation presents the change as a move toward Tesla’s future autonomous vehicle program. It also gives Tesla a clear reason for reallocating factory resources.

The article challenges whether physical space is the real constraint. Gigafactory Texas has more than 10 million square feet of factory floor. The Cybertruck line is operating at about one-quarter of its installed capacity, leaving much of that equipment and space idle. Tesla also built a separate line for the Cybercab’s “unboxed” manufacturing process.

The Cybercab itself was not yet being produced at a scale that obviously displaced Cybertruck manufacturing. Texas had 463 Cybercabs registered by late October. The article therefore suggests Tesla may be ending an expensive, low-volume truck program, while using Cybercab expansion as the public explanation.

Several figures point to weak demand rather than a factory-space shortage. Tesla planned to build 250,000 Cybertrucks annually, but estimated sales are only about 30,000 a year. Its latest shareholder letter still lists more than 125,000 units of installed capacity, meaning most available capacity is unused.

US sales data shows the decline clearly. Cox Automotive estimated 14,416 Cybertruck sales in the third quarter of 2024, compared with 3,519 in the first quarter of 2026 and 3,744 in the second quarter. Tesla also tried cheaper versions, then raised the dual-motor truck’s price by $5,000 to $74,990.

Factory conditions reinforce the demand evidence. Gigafactory Texas has more than 10 million square feet, and Cybercab has a separate production line. The article says Tesla is likely ending the Cybertruck because supporting its unique body, castings, and supply chain is expensive at low volume.

The article does not provide Tesla’s plan for Cybertruck inventory after manufacturing winds down. It is unclear how long Tesla will continue selling trucks already built, or whether deliveries will continue until remaining stock is exhausted. Tesla has not announced a specific timetable.

The same uncertainty applies to ownership support. The article says Tesla has not explained what will happen to parts and service for existing Cybertruck owners. That leaves unanswered questions about replacement components, repair availability, and long-term support for the vehicle’s specialized systems.

The lack of detail matters because Cybertruck production uses its own stainless steel body, castings, and supply chain. A low-volume program can make those parts more expensive to maintain. Existing owners may continue receiving support, but the article does not confirm how Tesla will organize or fund it. Any further inventory or service policy would need to come from Tesla.

The Cybertruck’s market is limited because the article says it cannot be sold in Europe or most right-hand-drive markets. Those restrictions remove large groups of potential customers, leaving Tesla with fewer regions in which to sell the truck. That makes high-volume production harder to justify.

The article gives Australia and New Zealand as a recent example. Tesla cancelled the Cybertruck for both countries two weeks before publication. These cancellations further reduce the truck’s international reach. The vehicle was already aimed at a relatively narrow market because of its design, price, and regulatory limits.

This matters because Tesla built a production line intended for 250,000 trucks annually. With access to fewer markets, the company had less opportunity to fill that capacity. The article estimates only about 30,000 trucks sold per year. It presents the restricted market as another reason the production math was unlikely to work.

Installed production capacity means the number of vehicles a factory’s existing equipment and production systems are capable of making. It is different from actual sales or output. Tesla’s latest shareholder letter lists more than 125,000 units of Cybertruck capacity, while the original line was designed for 250,000 annually.

If only about 30,000 trucks sell each year, much of that investment sits idle. Tesla still has to support the factory, specialized equipment, supplier relationships, stainless steel body production, and unique castings. Those costs are spread across far fewer vehicles, making each truck more expensive to produce.

The article says Tesla invested billions in research and development, supplier preparation, and production capacity. It estimates that roughly 70,000 trucks were delivered in about three years and suggests the program may never have generated positive cash flow. Ending production limits further spending on a low-volume program.