JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Seriously. If the 3 looks anything like that I won't buy it, and I'll probably sell all my shares of TSLA since they clearly won't be the company I thought they were.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
Seriously. If the 3 looks anything like that I won't buy it, and I'll probably sell all my shares of TSLA since they clearly won't be the company I thought they were.
I don't know what it will look like exactly, but they've promised a 3 series competitor, so if they come out with some mini-MPV instead of a sporty car I will also be dumping all my shares and not buying it.
SmartElectric
Active Member
The trouble with a smaller sporty car will be reduced interior volume. I have found the Model S to be barely adequate in those terms, as the shoulder room is massive, but the head room is not, nor the seating position for rear seat passengers. At 20% smaller, with similar "sporty" proportions, things get tight.
Personally, I'd like to see something in an "estate" form (aka station wagon) that has sporty feel for driver, and room for passengers and cargo.
Ref:
Model S Wagon?
Ref: (BMW 3 series wagon)
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
My question is, so what? Let's be real, rear seats are generally unused except for children. How many people buy a BMW 3 series type vehicle because of the rear seat room? Besides I think the S headroom is compromised because of the thick steel beam across the back that's required because of the aluminum construction. Steel bodied vehicles don't normally have that.
bluenation
Member
lol u just made my day
ehhhh sorry but the Bolt is no more of a vaporware than the 3. So GM doesn't have a GF, and are relying on LG CHem and the Asians in general. THat doesn't make them "More vaporware" than our 3.
that said, seeing as how BOlt's real base price is at least 37k, and even if we are conservative and assume the 3 misses the 35k mark and ends up at 40k....why the **** would anyone buy the BOlt over the 3? and that's before we talk about SpC's.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
In the just-about-four-years that the Volt has been around, GM has sold 72,000 units. If the 2016+ Volt sells well in the next couple of years, GM may be well on their way to the 200k mark at which point the federal tax credit will start phasing out so, not too many Bolt buyers may get the credit. The Tesla Model 3 may be in the same boat though if the S and then X keep going strong.
Vger
Active Member
I think the difference is that Tesla has delivered EV's with greater than 200 mile range for 5 years. GM has no track record of doing that. All of us here know that high performance EV's are not as easy as they look. GM may well do it, and I hope they do, but skepticism is not entirely out of line.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Wagons sell horribly in the USA. The closest it'll get is a hatchback, and might end up as a "sedan-like" hatchback like the Model S. They can improve headroom depending on how they shape the rear slope.
Personally I would be perfectly happy with a sporty hatchback design (similar to Mazda 3, for example). You don't really sacrifice any headroom with such a design.
Yes it is more "vaporware" then the Model 3. Tesla is committed to build this Model 3, GM told everybody on Monday that they not committed to build this car. If you disagree, please reference where GM said "we will build this car!", or where they told "it will hit the road in model year X", or "we expect to sell Y Bolts by year X".
Yes, we have not yet seen the Model 3, and we do not yet know all the specification on that car. But we know Tesla is committed to build it, and we know that Tesla is targeting 2017 to hit the marked, and we know it's expected to sell in the well above 100k in 2020. May Tesla have to delay it? Maybe. But GM can't delay the Bolt, because it have no dates to miss....
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
GM showed "a car" that likely has little resemblance to what the "Bolt" will eventually be. They even admitted that the name itself may not be used. A random vehicle with a Volt drive train stuck in it has almost no relation to what they may or may not actually produce two years from now. Reference the original Volt concept as an example.
I think it is more vaporware than a Model 3. The Model 3 could launch with the Model S cell with just price reductions, as it already has a sufficient energy density level. The Bolt cannot ship with the current LG Chem NCM cells in the 2016 Volt as shown. Tesla's battery pricing is already 25-40% cheaper than the GM's current batteries. To hit the mid $30k price point, Tesla needs to drop the price another 30%. LG Chem/GM has not shown that they can hit even Tesla's current price point. GM has not shown a 200 mile EPA range BEV product ever. That's all fine and dandy so far. But the what really gets me is what they did show. The Bolt concept as shown is *not* a 200 mile EPA range BEV. There is no way with that body shape and size, based on a Gamma G2SC platform. No claimed aerodynamics breakthrough in order to take that vehicle shape to a low enough Cd to make the kind of range given the rest of what we know. Take a look at the lengths that BMW went through with the i3 in lowering the chassis weight. No such evidence, especially basing it on the Gamma G2SC that it will have that kind of weight reduction. Further, it isn't a skateboard platform like the Model S. So where did they stick 55-60 kWh of batteries? They certainly didn't tell us.
GM did not show any of the relevant technologies necessary to build a 200 mile EPA range BEV for $37k in 2017. Literally zero of technologies required were shown.
So if they build cars people want, why did they need tens of BILLIONS of dollars from taxpayers?
The same thing is going to happen to the bolt. It will be a half azzed EV, that a few desperate chaps will buy, and then it will hit a wall like the volt. They have the money to build a better EV than tesla, but won't because they are run by morons. That's why GM WILL fail again.
You can't draw that conclusion (a statistician would say "Correlation does not imply causation"). There's lots of potential reasons why gen 2 and later outsold gen 1. You can't assume it's the exterior design.
I don't put any bumper stickers on my cars, including pro-environmental ones. I don't want a car whose design is an implicit pro-environmental bumper sticker (one of the many reasons I won't buy a Leaf).
There are lots of reasons why these cars haven't sold well. You can't assume it because they don't have whacky Leaf looks.
The FFE is often panned for lack of cargo space, making it less useful as a grocery getter. The Energis are ~$8k more expensive than the non-plugin versions, for a whopping 20 miles of electric range - that's a hard sell for all but the most hard core EV fan. The eGolf hasn't been on sale long enough to call it a "sales disappointment". The e-Up! isn't available in the States, and is quirky enough that I'm not even sure it's worth discussing.
The First Gen Prius sold despite very low gas prices and was a subcompact.
For some context, in the USA the Toyota Echo had 42.4k sales in 2001. The Toyota Prius had 17.7k sales.
The 2nd generation was now a small mid-size and better than the classic Prius.
Gas prices were increasing when the sales jumped in 2004.
Toyota had also introduced and expanded production of its 2nd generation battery, which allowed for increased production.
Moral of the story for automakers is that green car shoppers like efficiency, utility and reliability and they'll pick the best car that fits their criteria. More pragmatic buyers turn to other options, . As hybrid options have increased, so have hybrid sales. When presented with BEV options these green car buyers might also opt for BEVs.
Honda Civic sales were initial pretty good, but dropped away with incentives and with the improved Prius. And then when confronted with battery problems due to excessive cycling Honda treated its customers like crap and sales tanked.
For their next generations:
The Insight Hybrid has comparable real-world efficiency to the Gen 3 Prius but it's a subcompact with worse EPA ratings, worse performance, and less engine-off time, and Honda introduced it with joke pricing by only putting cruise on the EX, which had a price within $1k of the larger 2010 Prius II.
The Honda Civic hybrid doesn't drive as well as a regular Civic with a CVT that spends a lot of time hunting gear, is a sedan, is EX spec, is less efficient than the Prius and is around the same price as a Prius. Its low take rate is not because it looks like a normal Civic.
PHEVs in popular form factors have a larger potential market than short-range BEVs.
Would that be the limited-range Leaf, that's sold in all US states by a company that is clearly interested in making the car sell, rather than just making a compliance car, with limited marketing and in limited states?
Would that be the BMW i3 with both BEV and range-extender options?
I really wish marketing people would get over themselves and understand that sometimes it's not about their created image: a product can sell because it's a good product.
I really wish automotive journalists would get over themselves and understand that people buying hybrids and electric aren't always looking at is as a way to lower TCO.
If they did, then they'd stop spouting bull about showing off green cred or saying that people are making financial mistakes. I'm a "green buyer" and I bought my Prius because it was the most efficient car I could get and is a hatchback and I really hate the stupid impracticality of sedans, and I bought the Volt because my wife liked it and it was the most electric acceptable car. If distinctive looks make any major difference it's because it increases visibility of the car which is good for the manufacturers because it increases brand awareness. That benefit of distinctiveness is somehow never mentioned because too many prefer confirmation bias over logic.
Last edited:
If your post was written to be funny, then kudos to you as I have been laughing since reading. If you are serious, I am sorry to say that your "battery" is bricked and that you have no idea how Franz, Elon, and Team Tesla operate.
- - - Updated - - -
Hmm...try 30 M I L L I O N recalls in the first 10 months of '14. However, "things" are looking much brighter at GM these days as they started the '15 New Year with a bang by recalling ONLY 92,221 trucks on New Years Day! Jus' sayin'...
- - - Updated - - -
+ 1
The styling is laughable
The amount of money GM will loose/unit is laughable
The notion that dealers will "push" to sell this car with little to zero maintance revenue stream is laughable
The idea that it will be able to attain a 200-mile range is laughable
The idea that GM is somehow serious this time about BEVs and that it's not just another GM half-baked fantasy P.R. stunt is even more laughable
- - - Updated - - -
Last edited:
dandelot
Member
Hydrogen? Battery?
GM's built many concept cars. Hydrogen powered and more.
Means little. Corporate culture (meaning ICE and
much else) means much and strongly suggests
GM will never make or sell a single Bolt-like car
to the public.
Now if GM set up a separate company in a separate
location and funded it and stood back...that
might mean something. What are the chances?
GM's built many concept cars. Hydrogen powered and more.
Means little. Corporate culture (meaning ICE and
much else) means much and strongly suggests
GM will never make or sell a single Bolt-like car
to the public.
Now if GM set up a separate company in a separate
location and funded it and stood back...that
might mean something. What are the chances?
Last edited:
MassModel3
Member
Sooo.... You're saying you DON'T want to buy a Chevy Volt?
I'm not defending GM, they definitely have their issues. And yes, they have their recalls, and they also have cost analysis teams to decide whether it's cheaper to pay off customer medical or death benefits, or cheaper to have a recall. It's ridiculous, and they're guilty. But their engineers aren't clueless idiots. I think it's just their senior management making millions per year who are the incompetent morons. So I partially agree with you.
Last edited:
Similar threads
