Swampgator
Active Member
Yes but as I'm sure you know Chevy loses 9-10 K on every bolt they sell. Only a compliance car to get ZEV credits and allow them to operate in the ZEV states.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Car and Driver Model 3 Test - Not Great
- Thread starter igotzzoom
- Start date
- Status
Well, first of all we don't know if Tesla will be able to sell the short-range Model 3 at a profit. And second I don't believe that Chevy loses significant (if any) money on the Bolt. If that were the case, they wouldn't sell the car in Canada and Europe, where they are not getting ZEV credits for them.
Totally not a coincidence! And by the way we see the same thing on a tesla side for instance with Ben Sullins who pushes for the Model S over a Model 3 (I believe others are doing the same thing), just to get more referral revenue. Total conflict of interest.
I think they can. Remember they will do a ton of volume and they do direct sales. They don't need to turn a profit anyway just look at Amazon, if you keep growing and keep your losses minimal you do better than a company that makes a lot of profit and doesn't grow.
I wish I had realized than 5 years ago with Amazon when I criticized them over Apple and google for having a PE ratio that was much higher.
Again I am assuming losses kept in check.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Quebec, where most Bolts in Canada are sold, also has a ZEV requirement patterned on CARB regulations.
Chevy doesn't sell the car in Europe.
GM only sells Cadillac Camaro and Corvette in Europe.
GM sells a limited amount to Peugeot which sells them as Ampera-e and they are switching to Corsa EV ASAP.
When GM did sell in Europe it was to lower the CO2 emissions per kilometer. They sold a bunch of ICEv that were way behind the competition and made up for it by selling the zero emission Ampera-e. In other words a compliance play and a compliance vehicle.
BTW Tesla is not selling the $35k Model 3 this year. It will next year when the economies of scale will be at least 8k per week. Its cost will be at least 20% lower than Bolt at ~600 per week.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I find it hard to accept any review by a publication that relies for its existence on the thing it has reviewed not succeeding since it will be fatal to itself. I guess that's just me.
Car and Driver | Media Kit
C&D's great revelation: "we’re still left waiting—along with all those hopeful would-be owners—for the Model 3 to change the world." No, you're shaking in your boots but if not, you should be. In another couple of decades, the only people filling out the form at the link above will be those who make tires and wipers and you can't keep afloat without all those other adds for the junk needed or helpful to run an ice.
Car and Driver | Media Kit
C&D's great revelation: "we’re still left waiting—along with all those hopeful would-be owners—for the Model 3 to change the world." No, you're shaking in your boots but if not, you should be. In another couple of decades, the only people filling out the form at the link above will be those who make tires and wipers and you can't keep afloat without all those other adds for the junk needed or helpful to run an ice.
Swampgator
Active Member
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
OMG give it a rest. If C&D ceases to exist it won't be because it was killed by the electric car. It will be because of the inevitable trudge away from legacy print media towards sensationalized online blogs.
C&D serves a valuable purpose, they employ people with thousands of hours of time driving virtually everything being built who attend every press junket and track day for every new product.
They approach their car reviews foremost from the position of automotive enthusiasts who would happily give up creature comforts in exchange for a manual transmission.
Even in a world with nothing but electric cars that is still a valuable function for those of us who can't drive every single product on a perfect road in order to do a direct comparison.
Amazon made no major losses though, so they were not amassing debt that needs to be serviced. They managed their expenses in a way that kept their profits/losses near zero.
They do, as you note yourself.
They also sold them under the Opel brand in Germany and Norway (where it actually sold quite well).
I doubt that. In any case, it doesn't say anything about the cost of pouch cells vs. cylindrical cells. From all we know the Tesla batteries are more difficult to assemble, so if anything they'll probably be more expensive with everything else being equal.
These are all just analyst estimates. There is also the question how you define losses. If you include amortization of R&D cost, they are probably making a loss (but so is Tesla). But I doubt that the variable manufacturing costs of the car are higher than what they sell it for, so it's not like they incur a loss for every car sold.
I totally agree. The review although not thru Tesla rose colored glasses seems very balanced and accurate. I am on the verge of buying an EV and everything I have learned so far seems to be summarized in this review.
I don't believe this to be true. At the price point of the model 3 the bar is a little higher than an entry level EV. The review seems very balanced and factual. I suspect they will have the same expectations of the Jaguar I-pace when reviewed.
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
The biggest fault with the C&D review is that they didn't look at the current financial situation, a.k.a, tax credits and how it affects the purchasing equation.
If you are an environmentalist then the biggest criticism with the review is that it does not take the opportunity to extol the virtues of green technology and how it will (supposedly) save the planet.
I didn't see anything in the review that I haven't seen criticized by actual owners in this and other forums.
Honestly I think people just have a really thin skin about any criticism of Tesla, any criticism of Musk, and to a lesser degree any criticism of EVs and their value proposition. That is probably amplified ten fold by the frustration of people who desperately want this car but have to wait their turn in line for months if not a year or more depending on the configuration they want and when they placed their order.
I have until September for the lease on my current ride to expire. I can possibly extend that lease another couple of months to drag things out and give Tesla more time to deliver the config I want (LR AWD).
However, after the C&D review there is zero question that I must drive this car before owning it. If that means waiting until Tesla is willing to deign those of us who have given them an interest free loan with a test drive or if it means I will have to delay until I can rent a Model 3 locally, that's just the way it's going to be for ME.
Swampgator
Active Member
Cella,
I'm not sure why your angle is always so anti-Tesla, or more accurately pro GM.
If GM was making money selling Bolts they would:
#1 advertise nationally (TV)
#2 drastically ramp up production
What kind of fool runs a company and doesn't want to sell profitable items? Even Mary Barra herself has said GM's aim is to be profitable making electric cars by 2021. GM races to build a formula for profitable electric cars
So her statement is obviously an admission that in 2017 and 2018 GM is NOT profitable making electric cars. And they will will continue to not be profitable for at least another 3 years. By that time Tesla will have destroyed them and thy will run to congress for another bailout.
But we are getting a little off topic here. What I am waiting for is Car and Driver, or Motortrend to do a BMW 3 series vs Model 3 head to head shoot out, like they used to do in the old days. And I want it done fairly as well. 330i vs Model 3 LR AWD. With similar tech like Autopilot, premium sound etc.
Don't put an Alfa Romeo Quatrofoglio in the same test as a Model 3 LR RWD and gush about how awesome the Alfa is, as was done in Motortrends COY awards.
I'm not sure why your angle is always so anti-Tesla, or more accurately pro GM.
If GM was making money selling Bolts they would:
#1 advertise nationally (TV)
#2 drastically ramp up production
What kind of fool runs a company and doesn't want to sell profitable items? Even Mary Barra herself has said GM's aim is to be profitable making electric cars by 2021. GM races to build a formula for profitable electric cars
So her statement is obviously an admission that in 2017 and 2018 GM is NOT profitable making electric cars. And they will will continue to not be profitable for at least another 3 years. By that time Tesla will have destroyed them and thy will run to congress for another bailout.
But we are getting a little off topic here. What I am waiting for is Car and Driver, or Motortrend to do a BMW 3 series vs Model 3 head to head shoot out, like they used to do in the old days. And I want it done fairly as well. 330i vs Model 3 LR AWD. With similar tech like Autopilot, premium sound etc.
Don't put an Alfa Romeo Quatrofoglio in the same test as a Model 3 LR RWD and gush about how awesome the Alfa is, as was done in Motortrends COY awards.
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
It doesn't matter if GM is profitable making electric cars today or not. GM is profitable making cars period full stop end of story. GM builds over 3 million cars globally last year and made a profit of over $1 billion dollars.
Get back to me when Tesla actually starts making a quarterly profit, and isn't leveraged to the hilt.
I don't even like GM but this bizarre pissing match in which Tesla fans want to crap all over them for building an EV and willing to do so at an initial loss is mind boggling.
If one sports car is $150k and other is $75k, Car & Driver seldom cuts any slack for the price differential. They will document it, but a car that is 95% as capable for 50% the money does not win the shootout. Sometimes if it's 105% as capable but the interior is not equal to the $150k car, it would still lose, even though the goal of the automaker was to make a better handling car, not make a more luxurious one.
In other words, historically C&D has put very little emphasis on price.
I'd rather see a warm test of the car as compared to other cars in its family, which is mid-sized sedans. It's not a performance variant. It has the smallest motor option that is available. Is it better than the Camry in handling, comfort, economy?
If you add Telsa's development cost and financing to the cost as GM does I doubt there will be any net profit. You seem to comparing GM's net profit with Tesla's gross profit per car. Just the debt servicing for Tesla would eat any net profit on the model 3.
One interesting thought is if there will be a market for 300,000-500,000 model 3's per year if Tesla gets to that production volume. EV's still have some challenges compared to ICS cars. How many environmentalist are there that buy an EV? Does the savings of $1000-$1500 per year in fuel cost justify the inconvenience of charging, higher purchase price?
I believe the last couple of posts in this thread were the first where I ever even mentioned GM.
It doesn't make sense to "ramp up production" if the demand isn't there. And some advertising alone cannot create demand.
Neither is Tesla or anyone else. Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Oh my. At this point I'll leave it to you.
Swampgator
Active Member
Well as an N of 1, I think AGW is a crock of **** but I am buying a Tesla.
Tesla will sell every car they can make.
Tesla will sell every car they can make.
$1 billion is a drop in a bucket when you have $100 billion + in assets. They would make more money parking their money in treasuries and going to the beach.
I am not mad at them for making an EV. I just can't understand why that EV has to look ugly. GM knows how to make pickup trucks. Why not make a nice EV pickup truck ? That is something that could easily sell for $40k. Of course they won't do that because they don't want to hurt the sales of their V8s. Instead they will just do à compliance car.
Another example: why not make the bolt looks like a sport or sport sedan and decrease 0 to 60 to sub 6 seconds. That would for sure increase sales and I am not sure it would increase cost all that much. Of course they don't do it and why? What would happen to their other car sales like the focus or Fiesta ST or Chevy camaros?
In a way I think the non Tesla electric cars have been very negative overall, giving electric cars a bad reputation. A lot of people started making fun of them, mocking their ranges and seeing being electric as a huge negative. There are still a lot of people who have these views. I tried to convince my dad the other day that he could easily travel to his retirement home that is 350 miles away in a model 3, he just doesn't understand it.
But I am not disagreeing you on the fact that GM is doing a lot more than other traditional car companies and they deserve credit for that.
John Lamoureux
l Parzival l
Agree on the truck. And that's why they wouldn't make a sedan (and why TSLA has taken some grief for making the 3 over the Y first).
- Status
