Car A costs $5k less to manufacture than car B because it uses castings. Car A would be wiser to build because you can get better margins, or lower prices. It'll take a lot longer for buyers to catch on to the fact that the car costs a lot more to repair.

The question is really if the castings result in more cars being written off as total loss. Any collision severe enough to damage them would likely be severe enough to also total out a car without them as well.

TBH, the repairability concerns seem to be overstated so far. There are still conventional crash structures in front of and behind them. It takes a lot to damage the casting beyond repair.

You are right, though. The jury is still out in that they haven't really been used in the real world for long.

> Audi did in 2016 with the SQ7 TDI, no?

I didn't know about that one, but it was still a dual architecture. Going full 48V is a bit different, assuming Tesla really did that.

Clearly no MGB fans at Tesla. The unibody is cool unless you live somewhere with snow, and then rust doesn’t just make your car ugly, it makes it unsafe. And expensive to fix.

Which is why I was always more of a Triumph fan.