GM Electric Vehicles Stole Significant Sales Away From Tesla In 2024

EV sales in the U.S. market increased during the 2024 calendar year, hitting 1.3 million units sold, an increase of 7.3 percent compared to 2023. Those numbers included a 15.2-percent year-over-year increase during the final quarter of the year, reaching 365,824 units. Notably, Tesla sales fell during 2024, while GM EV sales increased.

Cadillac Lyriq

According to data reported by Cox Automotive and Kelley Blue Book, Tesla sales dropped by nearly 37,000 units year-over-year in the United States during 2024. Meanwhile, GM EV sales increased by more than 37,000 units year-over-year.

“The EV market in the U.S., as it is in China and Europe, is hypercompetitive,” Cox Automotive states. “Of the 68 mainstream EV models tracked by Kelley Blue Book, 24 models posted year-over-year sales increases; 17 models were all-new to the market; and 27 decreased in volume, including models being discontinued such as the Chevrolet Bolt and Mazda MX-30.”

Tesla Model Y

Notably, the Tesla Model Y and Tesla Model 3 remained the best-selling EVs in the U.S. by a considerable margin, making up 40 percent of all U.S. EV sales in 2024. The Ford Mustang Mach-E took the honor of best-selling non-Tesla EV, while the Hyundai Ioniq 5 was the fourth best-selling EV model. The Tesla Cybertruck was the fifth best-selling EV.

Ford managed to snag a second spot on the top 10 list at number six with the F-150 Lighting, while the Honda Prologue, Chevy Equinox EV, Cadillac Lyriq, and Rivian R1S round out the list at seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth, respectively.

Interestingly, if we consider that the Honda Prologue and Acura ZDX as GM-developed and built EVs, it could be argued that GM was a leader in the EV sales increase during the 2024 calendar year.

Honda Prologue

“Overall, EV sales in the U.S. continue to grow, with more than 2.5 million EVs sold in the past 48 months,” Cox Automotive states. “In the latest analysis, sales in 2023 were revised upward to 1,212,758 units, a 49-percent gain from 2022. Sales in 2024 (1,301,411) were higher by 7.3 percent and accounted for 8.1 percent of total sales, up from 7.8 percent share in 2023.”

Cox Automotive also states that although the EV growth rate has slowed, EV model volume is growing, with over 700,000 EVs sold during the second half of 2024. Further EV sales growth is expected in 2025, with over 15 new EV products set to hit the market.

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Jonathan Lopez

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

View Comments

  • 37K units in a 15 MILLION sales year, and we're discussing this? More proof of unsubstantiated media EV infatuation.

    • Thanks Beachy29579 as I totally agree with your comment. Like many, too often one will sugarcoat their unforeseen costly mistakes. I say to you, Welcome to today's World; most unfortunate.

  • I thank citizens of the world transitioning to less carbon emissions from ICE vehicles. I realize they may not be suitable for very cold winters, but this is a start to slow the warming of our planet.
    You do realize we need to take care our home right???

    • @ Tom
      SMFH!!!!! Do some research on how harmful the electric batteries are to our planet. Let's not even mention how bad for the environment the fracking is to get the minerals for these EV's. Wake up!

      • TNTSIERRA, just research where the fracking technology is used. For oil and gas extraction. Pumping salt water to force out the crude oil and gas. And you are right, it is very damaging for the environment.

        • @ Belo
          Thank you for correcting my error. The damage that mining causes is really quite interesting. I am not against EV's, but you environmental fruit cakes think it's the solution for everything.

          Here is a little research:
          the mining process for electric vehicle (EV) minerals can harm the environment. The process can:
          Pollute water: Mining can contaminate streams, crops, and wildlife with toxic chemicals and runoff
          Degrade air quality: Mining can release toxic fumes into the air
          Disrupt habitats: Mining can destroy ecosystems and habitats
          Contribute to human rights abuses: Mining can involve child labor, worker poisonings, and violations of indigenous communities' rights
          Cause social issues: Mining can cause people to move off their land and lose their homes, livelihoods, and culture

        • Proven to not be damaging. Fake news and lies. Fracking clears out gunk in our water auquifiers for better long term water quality. No lawsuit has ever been successful proving fracking hurt water quality or caused soil erosion. Only thing that was proven was the bozo who rigged gas in his sink before setting it on fire was a fake.

    • Warming? Its going to be 9 degrees (F) Tuesday here in the Northeast. Where exactly is this “warming of the planet?” Maybe use the term Climate Change since the elites pushing this EV agenda is being made to look like fools by the weather and temperatures when using the term “Global Warming” so they needed to drop the term in favor of the former.

      • And there it is. There's the stupidity that keeps us from advancing in society.

        You can't even understand the most simple part of climate change. This is why they had to stop calling it global warming (although that accurately describes it) and had to start calling it climate change.

        • @ Sparky
          There is no global warming/climate change. If there was such a thing, then why have all the billionaires and millionaires bought up the entire east and west coastlines in the United States, built homes, condos, and hotels?? It's feel mongering at it's finest and you "sheep" eat it up like grass.

          • @TNTSIERRA: Oh, ok. That clears it all up. You just set all the scientists and researchers and record keepers straight. Thank you for letting the world know that you know more than those working on this global issue.

            Since I don't think you are smart enough to catch that, it's my comment oozing in sarcasm. Now go back to your anti-truth podcast and drink some more of that sweat red drink.

        • Last I saw, the artic and antarctic have clawed back all their ICE losses from the 90's. Do you have a greenie mother ship that keeps beaming you lies that say otherwise? Also, last I saw, that massive Iceland volcano that released 10+ years of C02 caused exactly 0 climate related changes temperature wise. We had respiratory issues in immediately downwind areas, but you'd think the initial dust cloud would have stopped temporary photosynthesis+ 10 years of C02 would add up to 3-4degrees, but nada. We're still debating 1/2 a degree because it's small enough that nobody can measure.

    • I engine swapped my Fiero so it's engine is 20 years newer than factory, and drive it instead of my truck when I don't need to haul material or tools.
      I'm looking out for the planet.
      You're welcome!!

  • There is no comparison between the overall damage caused by oil and gas versus electric. Oil and gas are far more destructive, in every regard - end use pollution, carbon emissions, mining and extraction, transportation of the fuel, etc. And fracking is for natural gas and oil.

    • You do realize that for thousands of years, oil just oozed out and ruined everything in its path right? Most of it got converted to methane by bacteria (which if your an environmentalist, is worse for the environment, I really don't care as the PPM for methane to be smelled is almost 1:10 million, so if you can't smell it it's insignificant) farmers used to hit it with plows, or earthquakes used to fissure it out in the open all the time. Now because we get to it first and convert it strait to just CO2 with no tar vapors or methane, the world is much cleaner for it. Please do numbers research, and not just spit the poison of your favorite PAC.

    • Let's not forget we were killing whales for oil before, and cutting down trees unsustainably for paper goods. Petroleum has saved the whales, and the trees. We should be grateful for petroleum and not chastise it while we find a way to use alternatives that improve overall earth health, not just co2 emissions. Batteries for EV's and Solar panel manufacturing are catastrophic to underground water supplies.
      We need to make sure the "solution" doesn't just create a different problem we'll need to fix (probably expensively) later.
      Hydrogen fuel cell and Hydrogen ICE show great promise to drastically reduce both oil consumption and the required size of batteries. Hydrogen manufacturing is a power hungry process so isn't always the best option. Need to look for balance before mandating a flawed option.

      • Batteries and solar panels are not remotely as "catastrophic" as oil and gas exploration, extraction and transportation. In Alberta alone there are thousands upon thousands of abandoned oil wells that need cleaning up, and the cost to do so is in the billions. Not to mention the leaked methane from drilling and transporting fossil fuels. The damage caused by green energy (which do exist; no one is denying it) is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage caused by oil and gas.

          • So by “cleaning up” the oil wells, do they mean start them back up to remove whats left of the dirty oil that’s contaminating the ground?
            You know the info they’re using comes from mainstream media when they mention Alberta’s oil and not Californias. (Which has significantly higher emissions)

  • TNT Sierra - I don't want to be picking on you, but I have done my research, from actual reputable sources. "Research" does not mean dodgy non-science based websites and shouty pundits. I mean, the broad, almost 100% universal understanding by climate scientists.
    I often hear from those opposed to climate science that the scientists are in it for the money, grants, etc. What is missing in this argument is that studies are reviewed extensively for flaws and errors. Also, why is it OK to think that scientists are all on the take, while not questioning the motivations of those on the other side, such as oil companies and social media types who monetize the anger of their followers by spewing misinformation to get them roused up and keep on clicking?

    • The research from "credible" scientists show results in favor of whomever is paying them. It's tested for flaws yes, but the tests are sponsored by the same funding.
      The fact that you say any contrary evidence is "dodgy non-science based" is telling.
      That's like trusting CNN or FOX as the "unbiased truth because they are "accredited legacy media" lol.
      If one expert says one thing, another says the opposite, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
      If you can't question the science, you can't trust the science.

      • No, it is not remotely the same thing. The whole scientific system has checks, balances and reviews built in. Sometimes a flawed study gets through, but it is eventually called out. The fact that I said "Dodgy non-science based" is indeed telling. It is telling that I understand how science works, and how these non-science based anti-climate change commenters work, and they are not credible.

        • Yeah right, just like the "science" behind covid. Or all the studies when you look at who ultimately funds them (sometimes you have to follow a trail of organizations/companies) usually end at the same people. Or the scientific journals run by the same people w/ very little (or sometimes no) actual peer review.

          The scientific "community" is no less prone to corruption and/or being used by politicians (on both sides) than any other large group of people.

    • I Don't believe any "climate scientist." That's like going to GM and saying, "hey, are Hondas more reliable?" Doesn't matter what the truth is, course their going to give the answer that gives them money.

      Now, what have you "lying eyes" that everyone is telling you not to believe saying? Now I don't like in a communist run area like Canada or California, but past 20 years, no real climate difference here in the Midwest. I know Canada and California are burning down, but that's because they banned logging and cut fire budgets. You go to Florida, and it would either, 1, seem that hurricanes are getting smaller or Desantis is just so damn good at his job that hurricanes have no effect, because they just took a cat 4 and had less losses than LA county.

      • Wow, the lack of understanding of how science works is breathtaking. And calling Canada and California communist? Do you have the slightest idea of what communism actually is? Neither one is remotely communist. barely even democratic socialism. Both places are robustly capitalist, for good or bad.

  • More specific to gm's success here. Tesla has a basic design that has not evolved much to the non-enthusiast. An outsider to the EV space probably could not tell the difference between 2020 and 2025 years of the same model. gm's EV models do look fresher.

    More significantly, at least recently, is that Musk went from being a right-leaning businessman to the face of what half the electorate despises. For some, his business/engineering/innovation success comes second to his new political face. There is a lot of joking here about woke gm yada, yada, but that is only to part of the readership here and not the larger EV market audience. To outsiders/newcomers to the EV space, gm looks apolitical and more worthy of consideration as a result.

  • Musk has alienated his traditional target market in the US - democrats. Further, the updated Model Y won't be available until Q2. The Cybertruck is a bust. The updated Model 3 is great but most eyes are on the Model Y. New GM and other EV models are entering the marketplace creating more choice. I think Tesla is going to underperform in Q1.

    • Ditto, not to mention one of the main reasons Tesla is in the black is they have almost no engineering team, so their product is ancient compared to GM.

      • At least until “Optimus Engineer” gets released. He’ll spend $10M to develop a bot to replace 1 person.

  • Imagine siding with gm, Blackrock (controls over $11.5 TRILLION) , Vanguard (over $10 TRILLION) , State Street (over $4.3 TRILLION), George Soros, and Klaus Schwab because you think Elon is the "bad guy", LOL!

    • Those same groups are also responsible for BYDs growth. So you can blame them for the C.C.P. growth in power.

    • Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street are not holding it for themselves but literally on behalf of tens of millions of 401k owners. Also, I don't care who else holds the stock. FWIW I hold both stocks from time to time, I used to work for Tesla but I drive a GM EV.

      • I do, as Blackrock has those 401K dollars because they used coercion to get the accounts. I've divested because I'd rather my portfolio grow naturally, not on the back of force. I believe it will benefit me long term as force never ends up well.

      • Don't how "not holding it for themselves" leads to SO MUCH control over every company that matters in every industry and so much politics.

  • Not everyone wants an iPad on wheels with weird ways to turn it on and off. I know when I transition to electric, I want the car to feel like a car not something I need an entire science project on how to shut it off. The Nox to me would be the perfect transition car.

    • GM EVs (like my Sierra) literally turn on by themselves when you enter and turn off by themselves when you leave. Doesn't get simpler than that.

      • Yes I know they are going down this same route too unfortunately. I don’t know at what point as humans did we start finding the simple task of pushing a button so grueling and painful that this needed to be a thing. But atleast the rest of the car, feels familiar still. I sat in the Lyriq, drove it, and aside from the obvious differences in how it feels driving the car was still largely familiar to operate.

        So now I have to ask, how do you turn the Sierra off? I test drove a Model Y and when I came back to its parking spot I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how or if the car was off. There was no indication other than the iPad was still on. I had to get the guy from the Tesla store to ask him if the car was off and it turned out it wasn’t. There needed to be a setting activated for the car to shut off when locking it. Had I landed up with this car as a rental I may have depleted the battery without knowing. Why did we need to re-engineer pushing a button.

    • Then rip out everything electric, including all the electric motors switches, relays, battery, radio, etc.! Your gasoline cars has more motors in it that an electric!

      • I'm sorry but everything in a screen is about cost cutting. Tesla plays it off as simplicity and futuristic but to me it kills the character and identity of the vehicle. Atleast with cars like the Lyriq, Equinox, Ioniq5, and EV6 have character and identity inside and out.

  • And more of Tesla decline to come just because of his antics! So be it... #boycottTESLA until he plays nicely for the good of the industry.

  • I would consider an Equinox EV for my next new car just because it's basic layout inside is like a traditional car. I would never consider a Tesla because it's not. Simple as that. Musk's personality has nothing to do with it, I just don't want everything accessed by a large center screen that isn't driver focused.

Recent Posts