Car and Driver Model 3 Test - Not Great

[cella]

...and then squandered that opportunity by being reluctant to press the advantage, and fail to make mass sales.

Maybe so, but it appears to me the car disproves the notion that Tesla has some unique competitive advantage in EV technology.

Besides, it remains to be seen how successful Tesla will be in the mass market. I don't think they will make much of a dent with a $50K+ car, reservations or not.

 

[voip-ninja]

...and then squandered that opportunity by being reluctant to press the advantage, and fail to make mass sales.

If the car is selling at a loss until they can lower costs then what have they squandered exactly?

Bolt hit 20K US sales at the end of 2017 and we have to assume sales are continuing at a faster pace in 2018 as GM recently announced they are increasing production of the Bolt.

 

[voip-ninja]

If the car is selling at a loss until they can lower costs then what have they squandered exactly?

Bolt hit 20K US sales at the end of 2017 and we have to assume sales are continuing at a faster pace in 2018 as GM recently announced they are increasing production of the Bolt.

Tesla have booked FAR more orders than Chevy but the problem is if someone sees a Model 3 today on the road and decides they want one it is highly unlikely they will have it until late next year. The Chevy can be driven off the lot pretty much anywhere in the US immediately.

We also don't yet know how many of the Model 3 pre-orders will translate into sales, Tesla probably does based on how many order delays they have from those who are waiting for a currently unavailable configuration. Tesla also knows how many cancellations they've had and they haven't shared that info with the public.

 

[hacer]

So what about the Bolt battery? It uses pouch cells and appears to be absolutely competitive with Tesla's in terms of cost, weight and density. In fact, Chevy beat Tesla to the market with an affordable long-range EV.

I don't think we know if the Bolt battery is actually cost competitive with Tesla. The car is priced competitively because GM is using it as a compliance car (willing to lose money on the EV sales to enable their profitable ICE offerings). As I said, time will tell. Let's check back in a few years and see how Tesla vs GM electric vehicle business is doing.

 

[cella]

I don't think we know if the Bolt battery is actually cost competitive with Tesla. The car is priced competitively because GM is using it as a compliance car (willing to lose money on the EV sales to enable their profitable ICE offerings).

I don't think that's the whole story. If they just wanted a compliance car, they could have had this much easier than developing the Bolt (by making a cheap conversion of one of their ICE models). The fact remains that they brought an affordable 200+ mile EV to the market at least two years before Tesla is able to do so. The Volt was also quite a technical achievement when it was introduced. I think they deserve more credit for their efforts than they are getting in some parts of the EV community.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Tesla have booked FAR more orders than Chevy but the problem is if someone sees a Model 3 today on the road and decides they want one it is highly unlikely they will have it until late next year. The Chevy can be driven off the lot pretty much anywhere in the US immediately.

We also don't yet know how many of the Model 3 pre-orders will translate into sales, Tesla probably does based on how many order delays they have from those who are waiting for a currently unavailable configuration. Tesla also knows how many cancellations they've had and they haven't shared that info with the public.

We can get a reasonable idea of net reservations based on the cash they have on their 10-K under customer deposits. The amount from last quarter, plus a reasonable estimate for additional semi deposits, less however many deposits turned into cars in the quarter, will provide a rough figure for how many reservations they've gained or lost.

 

[S'toon]

If the car is selling at a loss until they can lower costs then what have they squandered exactly?

Bolt hit 20K US sales at the end of 2017 and we have to assume sales are continuing at a faster pace in 2018 as GM recently announced they are increasing production of the Bolt.

It is well known that GM gets CARB credits that more than offset the production loss.

 

[hacer]

I don't think that's the whole story. If they just wanted a compliance car, they could have had this much easier than developing the Bolt (by making a cheap conversion of one of their ICE models). The fact remains that they brought an affordable 200+ mile EV to the market at least two years before Tesla is able to do so. The Volt was also quite a technical achievement when it was introduced. I think they deserve more credit for their efforts than they are getting in some parts of the EV community.

I have nothing against the Bolt except that it's ugly. It is a nice commuter car. Similarly the Volt was indeed a significant achievement (and it has reasonable looks too). But both are compliance vehicles. That's been great for some EV/environmental enthusiasts. They got a decent car at a good price.

However GM doesn't promote these vehicles and so they sell in small numbers (given their value proposition). This leads me to conclude that GM isn't really serious about electric vehicles. Also if they were serious they would be working on charging infrastructure which they want no part of. I think they believe there will never be a real market for such cars. I think that's partly because they think that they will always be too expensive because they haven't been able to make them cost competitive (from a manufacturer's perspective) with their own offerings. I think they decided to engineer competent performing cars mostly as a just-in-case hedge, but then anti-sell them. That GM is so active in trying to thwart Tesla every way they can think of except actually trying to take more of the EV market also speaks volumes about their mission view.

 

[voip-ninja]

It is well known that GM gets CARB credits that more than offset the production loss.

And??

Does it matter if their reasons are supposedly less altruistic than Tesla's as long as they are proving that relatively affordable EVs can also be fun to drive and practical?

 

[Brando]

I don't think that's the whole story. If they just wanted a compliance car, they could have had this much easier than developing the Bolt (by making a cheap conversion of one of their ICE models). The fact remains that they brought an affordable 200+ mile EV to the market at least two years before Tesla is able to do so. The Volt was also quite a technical achievement when it was introduced. I think they deserve more credit for their efforts than they are getting in some parts of the EV community.

EV1 - only GM product (perhaps the only car??) where owners held a candle light vigil when GM "killed the Electric Car" by calling them back from leases [refusing to allow owners to buy] and crush them.

Who Killed the Electric Car? - Wikipedia
and
Revenge of the Electric Car - Wikipedia

side note: Links | TeslaTap has some great EV1 clips - impressive.

Just not sure which is more impressive. Engineers or clueless [maximize profits] Management

 

[hacer]

...
C&D weren't the only ones who have had high praise of the Bolt. The Business Weekly reviewer got weeklong access to Bolt and Model 3 and still called it a tie. ...

Here's what CD said about Bolt handling:

The Bolt rides firmly without introducing harsh impacts into the cabin. Steering is quick and accurate, but we’d prefer more feedback from the road. Because the battery pack is mounted beneath the floor, the Bolt has a low center of gravity that makes for secure handling with minimal body roll. This is one EV that’s fun to drive.

This is what they said about Bolt braking:

The Bolt’s brake pedal is firm and provides above-average stopping power, but the regenerative braking system that recharges the battery when you lift off the accelerator means you can drive in most scenarios without ever touching the left pedal...

Here's their intro about it:

With a taut chassis and plenty of power, the Bolt will challenge your negative preconceived notions of electric cars. It’s fast, responsive, and comfortable, measuring up well against some of our favorite conventional gasoline hatchbacks in terms of driving dynamics.

compare to Tesla model 3 (quoting from other's since I haven't seen the CD review): "As such, the chassis test numbers—a 176-foot stop from 70 mph and 0.84 g around the skidpad—were unremarkable, even by mainstream-family-sedan standards."

Now the model 3 demolished the Bolt in handling and beat it significantly in braking yet all the adjectives C&D can find are negative for the model 3. And the model 3 is way faster than the Bolt but C&D would tell you that model 3 will reinforce your preconceived (bad) notions of electric cars. So yeah, C&D are biased against Tesla.

 

[30seconds]

I don't think that's the whole story. If they just wanted a compliance car, they could have had this much easier than developing the Bolt (by making a cheap conversion of one of their ICE models). The fact remains that they brought an affordable 200+ mile EV to the market at least two years before Tesla is able to do so. The Volt was also quite a technical achievement when it was introduced. I think they deserve more credit for their efforts than they are getting in some parts of the EV community.

I’m not sure how much easier GM could have made it for themselves. Much of the design and manufacturing was done by LG.

Also if this wasn’t a compliance car they would be selling it outside of compliance states.

I think they did the Bolt as a bit of EV hedge and saw an opportunity to get some attention by launching first.

Plus no charging infrastructure, follow up vehicle or vision for the future.

It’s OK, after all the lobbying to gut the CAFE standards GM will be plenty busy building trucks and SUVs that get 20mpg

 

[Krugerrand]

I think some of us have a different definition of ‘fun’.

 

[RobStark]

And??

Does it matter if their reasons are supposedly less altruistic than Tesla's as long as they are proving that relatively affordable EVs can also be fun to drive and practical?

It makes a massive difference.

GM is prepared to make 24k to 30k Bolts per year and set the program accordingly.

Tesla plans to sell at least 500k M3s per year and set up the supply chain,cost and profitability targets accordingly.

Economies of scale makes a massive difference.

 

[voip-ninja]

Here's what CD said about Bolt handling:
This is what they said about Bolt braking:
Here's their intro about it:

compare to Tesla model 3 (quoting from other's since I haven't seen the CD review): "As such, the chassis test numbers—a 176-foot stop from 70 mph and 0.84 g around the skidpad—were unremarkable, even by mainstream-family-sedan standards."

Now the model 3 demolished the Bolt in handling and beat it significantly in braking yet all the adjectives C&D can find are negative for the model 3. And the model 3 is way faster than the Bolt but C&D would tell you that model 3 will reinforce your preconceived (bad) notions of electric cars. So yeah, C&D are biased against Tesla.

Let’s talk about this further when the $35,000 Model 3 is available to trounce the Bolt. Right now the only Tesla available costs $12,000 more than a base Bolt.

 

[voip-ninja]

It makes a massive difference.

GM is prepared to make 24k to 30k Bolts per year and set the program accordingly.

Tesla plans to sell at least 500k M3s per year and set up the supply chain,cost and profitability targets accordingly.

Economies of scale makes a massive difference.

You are comparing Bolt US only production with Model 3 planned global production. Seems a bit disingenuous to me. As is comparing production numbers GM is getting in Bolt production now with numbers Tesla hopes to get to someday.

Mary Berta indicated early in 2016 that Bolt would be in mass production by late 2016 and by the end of 2016 GM could build 9 per hour. They now build up to 30 per hour. By comparison Elon promised a $35,000 Model 3 by late 2017, with 100,000 cars built in 2017 and 400,000 built in 2018. Tesla barely built less than 2,000 by the end of 2017. They have a ways to go and the $35,000 might not be available to anyone until early 2019.

I don’t even like the Bolt but you guys are making it hard not to defend GM who beat Tesla to market by over a year and is able to fully meet current global demand with their product.

 

[Catman20009]

I can't speak for C&D personally, but I can tell you the automotive establishment, from Detroit to Stuttgart to Tokyo, looks at Tesla with a combination of curiosity and fear. Their outward hostility and derision I think hide an underlying insecurity about their entire business model. If I had to analogize it, I'd put it this way...

They're currently on one side of the canyon, under-girded by 100 years of industrial tradition, and the backing of the "military-industrial complex", including Big Oil. They see the other side, electrical and powered by renewable energy. They know they need to ultimately get to the other side, but they're so heavily invested into the current status quo, that they fear making the leap across the canyon and falling into it.

I'd say it's worse than you say. And that they just don't want to be caught short on something that's selling. With little intent to innovate and embrace it. It's a niche market for GM that offers dozens of brands and cars while only making 30,000 BOLTS a year. When we bailed out the auto industry part of the deal was better MPG but they're not holding up their end of the bargain. Instead they ran to Trump because they can't possibly get this done by 2025. They really do want to make and sell more V8s. And VW is mostly just trying to find a way to crawl out of the diselgate fiasco. Look at us we're going all electric. Right. These are mainly PR statements to keep their share of the marketplace. They will only make as many as it helps them seem to stay competitive and have a group of those EV enthusiast buyers.

Unfortunately most of the people I know who should be embracing EV are happy with the status quo as long as their vehicle gets them 100,000 miles without a problem. They definitely don't want to pay a premium for Electric. Even though many of the car manufacturers don't make very good cars they want to buy from the companies that make millions of them. Because I guess the sheer size of their fleets show how good the car must really be??? And they quickly forget about the SUV's rolling over or the gas tank exploding on rear end collisions. And presumably they don't care about the emissions they breathe every day.

 

[cella]

EV1 - only GM product (perhaps the only car??) where owners held a candle light vigil when GM "killed the Electric Car" by calling them back from leases [refusing to allow owners to buy] and crush them.

Who Killed the Electric Car? - Wikipedia
and
Revenge of the Electric Car - Wikipedia

For the sake of fairness, you should also link:

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

 

[voip-ninja]

For the sake of fairness, you should also link:

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

Wayyyy easier for people to believe nefarious big oil conspiracy theories about why the EV1 was canned.

 

[cella]

I have nothing against the Bolt except that it's ugly. It is a nice commuter car. Similarly the Volt was indeed a significant achievement (and it has reasonable looks too). But both are compliance vehicles.

I don't like this tendency to downplay every vehicle not made by Tesla by branding it a "compliance car". IMO neither the Volt nor the Bolt are "compliance cars", although Chevy is certainly not unhappy to receive ZEV credits.

However GM doesn't promote these vehicles and so they sell in small numbers (given their value proposition).

The Volt was actually heavily advertised when it came out, and I have also seen ads for the Bolt. When EVs or PHEVs don't sell, it isn't always the result of a conspiracy ...

This leads me to conclude that GM isn't really serious about electric vehicles.

And yet they invested billions into these vehicles when they didn't have to.

I think they believe there will never be a real market for such cars. I think that's partly because they think that they will always be too expensive because they haven't been able to make them cost competitive (from a manufacturer's perspective) with their own offerings.

That's not a GM problem, but a general EV problem. At this point in time they simply aren't price competitive with conventional cars. Everyone is making losses on them, and as long as that is the case there will not be a mass market. You can't run an industry on huge losses like the ones Tesla is incurring. Hopefully the inflection point where EVs become price competitive isn't too far away.