Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Would making 10x as many put GM in pole-position when they bring out their Next Gen BEV?

Or can they achieve that anyway with the volume they are producing?

If the later, and given that apart from Tesla they have no long range BEV competition, perhaps they intended to have minimal risk at this point, and a high-volume killer-nextgen in the pipeline?

Whenever I ponder these things, other than Tesla, the question that pops into my head is "Where are all the BEV car makers going to get the batteries from?" when they ramp up to much higher numbers of cars

I don't think either option necessarily puts them in the "pole position", inasmuch as I don't think thus far they have a "superior offering" on all fronts.

But I'd certainly like them to be a serious competitor. And at his stage of the game that means pushing the fronts on order to drive adoption. So limiting manufacturing, not advertising, adopting a ho-hum attitude about fast charging, etc... doesn't smack of being "serious".

Ask 10 people about the Chevy Bolt, and 7.5 will say "What?" and another 2 will say "You mean the Volt?"

If GM could build 50K but is limiting to something slightly less than 30K then one of three things is likely:

1) Demand isn't there, which is not much of a surprise given the lack of any push

2) This is a compliance effort after all

3) They don't want to lose $$$ on them, as per several reports

If it's #3, then that's truly unfortunate, as the losses on selling another 20K Bolts pales in comparison to the nearly $4billion they spend annually on advertising...

I honestly wish the Bolt was a runaway hit... but it doesn't appear GM is trying very hard to make it so.
 
IMHO, GM did not engineer the Bolt to have a gross margin that would support an arbitrarily large production ramp up. They program only works because of the compliance credits it earns. Elon has even pointed out that the 30k/year production level matches the compliance credits that GM needs. Recent investor presentations make it clear that in the future GM will make EVs with a sustainable profit in high volumes, but the Bolt EV is not that car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnSnowNW
If Panasonic leaves the Reno (Sparks) location they can't simply take their newly trained American workers back to Japan. Or even to a new American facility in the Midwest or South to serve legacy automakers.

I am sure the vast majority would take a Tesla offer of employment.

I would expect most of the Panasonic workers are the GF are Americans who would have a tough time getting similar jobs in Japan, even if Panasonic wanted to offer them. Panasonic does own equipment at the GF and they could take that with them if they pulled out of the partnership, but that's about the worst they could do.

Panasonic would be crazy to break their deal with Tesla though. Tesla has made them the world's largest li-ion battery maker and even though their deal with Tesla has a small profit per cell, they sell to Tesla in such huge volume that it's a very profitable venture for them and that end of their business is likely going to grow significantly tied to Tesla in the coming years.

IMHO, GM did not engineer the Bolt to have a gross margin that would support an arbitrarily large production ramp up. They program only works because of the compliance credits it earns. Elon has even pointed out that the 30k/year production level matches the compliance credits that GM needs. Recent investor presentations make it clear that in the future GM will make EVs with a sustainable profit in high volumes, but the Bolt EV is not that car.

GM is taking a stepping stone approach to the future. They aren't going all in on electric cars like Tesla. They aren't even making that big a bet compared to their other business, but they are hedging against the future.

Most automotive experts who are honest are acknowledging that BEVs are the future. There is a huge debate about exactly when that future will be. The optimists are saying BEVs will dominate the new car market by 2030, and the pessimists more the end of this century. I think demand for BEVs will be high by 2030, but I doubt anybody other than Tesla is going to have access to enough battery production to meet demand.

Whenever that BEV future happens, GM is positioning themselves to be ready for it. With any shift in core technology, there is always a learning curve to get to a point where the new tech can be built profitably, reliably, and usefully for the customer. Engineering and manufacturing mistakes will be made along the way.

Tesla has their own stepping stone approach: Roadster->Model S/X->Model 3/Y. GM is in a fundamentally different starting position so their stepping stone approach is different from Tesla's. GM knows how to mass produce cars, Tesla didn't when they started and they are still learning how to scale up. GM's stumbling blocks have some similarities with Tesla, they do need to develop a reliable and mass producible electric drive train, but unlike Tesla, they also need to convince a lot of gear heads within the company as well as a large customer base and investors that they can make a reliable BEV that people would want to drive.

The Bolt is GM's lob into the market somewhere around the stage of the Model S from Tesla. It's a very different car because GM was aiming for a different market niche, but they are aiming for a car that will be produced in equivalent volumes as the Model S at a lower price point. They aren't ready for a mass produced car yet. They haven't fully won over their critics, and they don't have access to enough batteries to mass produce a BEV anyway.

Solid state batteries are coming at some point in the next decade and most of the car industry is waiting to get serious about BEVs until those are available. Once manufacturing ramps up, solid state batteries will most likely be lighter, safer, cheaper to make, and have higher energy density than current li-ion cells. Most companies are hoping to be able to leap-frog Tesla and start using large numbers of solid state cells when Tesla is tied to li-ion, though I think they underestimate Tesla's ability to change quickly.

Most companies are just fiddling around with BEVs for now, not seriously making them, they are just doing enough to meet regulatory demands. GM is one of the few who is going through the steps to be ready for mass production when solid state cells are available. They want to get to a mass produced BEV as quickly as possible once battery tech changes and the new cells are available in quantity and once the demand is there.
 
I doubt anybody other than Tesla is going to have access to enough battery production to meet demand

Are we therefore stuck with:

Battery price falls a lot
Price of BEV falls, becomes affordable to Nx as many people, but supply is battery-limited
[lack of] Supply-and-Demand drives price up (Tesla too ... :( )
BEV makers have bigger profits

The Lead time for battery factory construction still exists of course, but maybe the economics facilitate something?

GM is positioning themselves to be ready for it

I agree. I think the whole strategy at GM is Win-Win. Compliance, short term, no huge gamble, no huge exposure if they need to retreat, but pole-position (well ... first-row-of-the-grid!!) if it all takes off.

I look at the European car makers promising EV versions of every car in their line up in 5 years time (or whatever) and have two thoughts:

Where are they going to get all the batteries from?
Too-little-too-late.

They are massively over-exposing themselves; they have no BEV experience, so they are making a bet-the-farm that the Tech they stuff into all the models in their range will work right-first-time. Tesla recall cost on early models was a tiny number of vehicles, get that wrong on the all models + large numbers strategy and they will sink without trace.

The one surprise for me is that late-comers are not licencing Tesla tech. Someone like Jaguar is doing the whole thing soup-to-nuts. I understand that a BEV is much easier to do than ICE, but even so: Tesla have solved so many problems, why risk encountering them yourself through inexperience? and why is noone doing deals with Tesla for Supercharger use?
 
Are we therefore stuck with:

Battery price falls a lot
Price of BEV falls, becomes affordable to Nx as many people, but supply is battery-limited
[lack of] Supply-and-Demand drives price up (Tesla too ... :( )
BEV makers have bigger profits

The Lead time for battery factory construction still exists of course, but maybe the economics facilitate something?

Price is a limiting factor with BEVs right now, but at least in the US, public awareness/demand is a bigger limiting factor. In Europe there is a big push on to eliminate ICE from city centers, and Europe is feeling diesel-gate much more than the US.

Diesel cars are sold in the US, but diesel fuel is usually much more expensive than gasoline (petrol). It's a refining problem. The US has done virtually no expansion of refining capacity since the 1970s and demand has increased due to population growth and SUVs have not improved fleet fuel mileage all that much. There has been a lot of resistance to building new refineries.

As a result, the US imports most of its diesel and refines the gasoline domestically. It's safer to transport diesel in tankers than gasoline.

So even though diesel cars get better mileage than equivalent ICE, they cost about the same or more to fuel and not all petrol stations have diesel.

That aside, there has been very little education about electric cars in the US. A poll released in January found 60% of Americans were still pretty much ignorant of electric cars. I've run into a number of people who had heard of Tesla, but didn't know they were electric.

Lack of awareness is surprisingly still the biggest problem for electric vehicle adoption

I suspect the Model 3 is going to change that. Right now most Americans buying electric cars are either super eco buyers, or they have enough money to afford a Model S or X. Soon middle class neighborhoods all over the country will start getting an electric car that doesn't look too weird (especially on the outside), had a range approaching the low end of ICE, and it's superior to everything else out there.

Once the public becomes aware enough of the advantages of electrics, demand will go through the roof and the pressure will be on everyone to start mass producing them. GM will be ahead of the curve with development, but they will be battery limited.

I agree. I think the whole strategy at GM is Win-Win. Compliance, short term, no huge gamble, no huge exposure if they need to retreat, but pole-position (well ... first-row-of-the-grid!!) if it all takes off.

I look at the European car makers promising EV versions of every car in their line up in 5 years time (or whatever) and have two thoughts:

Where are they going to get all the batteries from?
Too-little-too-late.

They are massively over-exposing themselves; they have no BEV experience, so they are making a bet-the-farm that the Tech they stuff into all the models in their range will work right-first-time. Tesla recall cost on early models was a tiny number of vehicles, get that wrong on the all models + large numbers strategy and they will sink without trace.

The one surprise for me is that late-comers are not licencing Tesla tech. Someone like Jaguar is doing the whole thing soup-to-nuts. I understand that a BEV is much easier to do than ICE, but even so: Tesla have solved so many problems, why risk encountering them yourself through inexperience? and why is noone doing deals with Tesla for Supercharger use?

The Europeans are taking Tesla a lot more seriously than American or Japanese auto makers. All the major European brands have a luxury high end that has been hit hard by Tesla's success with the Model S and X. They see the Model 3 as an existential threat to their existence and unlike American brands, they also have a lot of local government pressure to electrify their fleets too.

There have been some noises from European auto makers to build battery factories, but their time scales are fairly long and there has been little spade work on those projects. There was a lot of fanfare of a German auto maker (Daimler I think) expanding a factory to make more battery packs, but the media reported it as a battery plant. They aren't making cells there, they are sourcing them from the same factories in Asia most companies are getting their cells from. VW has said they are building a GigaFactory, but they arne't planning on producing much there until 2025. That's longer than the Model S or Leaf have existed.

I suspect the European brands are expecting the governments to step in and help them build battery plants when the crunch comes. The Japanese and South Korean governments would probably do the same. Though the political atmosphere in the US would allow the Big 3 to sink rather than help them too much if they needed it.

I think the existing car companies don't want to enlist any help from Tesla because they don't want to legitimize them. In the US car dealers for every brand is fighting Tesla in court to oppose selling cars directly to the public. They can't afford to tick off their franchises. They are also all hoping Tesla dies off, but I think that's a pipe dream at this point.
 
Well, someone tried the Ampera-E on a 100 kW EVSE and it appears that 56 kW is the max DCFC limit:

Google Translate

7% SOC 52.6kW
11% SOC 53.7kW
21% SOC 53.8kW
33% SOC 54.6kW
44% SOC 55.2kW
49% SOC 55.5kW

It dropped to 37 kW after that.

160A x 350V = 56000kW.

When the owner's manual text was released some Bolt fanbois and EV fanbois got all excited and thought that the 80kW+ charger reference meant that it could charge at 80kW. More rational people quickly figured out that it probably meant a 160A charging limit ("90 miles in 30 minutes" plus charger ratings at 500V), with an outside chance of a 200A limit meaning maximum 70kW charging. It indeed turned out to be a 160A limit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Earl
160A x 350V = 56000kW.

When the owner's manual text was released some Bolt fanbois and EV fanbois got all excited and thought that the 80kW+ charger reference meant that it could charge at 80kW. More rational people quickly figured out that it probably meant a 160A charging limit ("90 miles in 30 minutes" plus charger ratings at 500V), with an outside chance of a 200A limit meaning maximum 70kW charging. It indeed turned out to be a 160A limit.

Actually, I think the pack voltage is slightly higher at that point... the actual amperage limit is slightly lower, but basically correct. They basically referenced a 500 volt x 160 amp CCS EVSE to get the fastest charge rates, but the car actually negotiates something slightly lower. It means the battery is never charged above 1C... instead, at around 0.9C.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: 2virgule5
160A x 350V = 56000kW.

When the owner's manual text was released some Bolt fanbois and EV fanbois got all excited and thought that the 80kW+ charger reference meant that it could charge at 80kW. More rational people quickly figured out that it probably meant a 160A charging limit ("90 miles in 30 minutes" plus charger ratings at 500V), with an outside chance of a 200A limit meaning maximum 70kW charging. It indeed turned out to be a 160A limit.
As I’ve been saying since at least February:
According to a GM exec I spoke to, the Bolt EV has a peak charging rate of "a little bit over" 50 kW and a peak charging current of around 150A.

This is consistent with a recent Electrek report of a peak rate of 55 kW. A recent Motor Trend article said 60 kW. We won't know precisely until someone plugs a Bolt EV into a next generation DC charging station sometime later this year.

Given this data, the Bolt owner manual reference to 80 kW presumably meant that a theoretical CCS 1.0 rate of 160 kW at 500V would be enough to ensure full charging times.
 
Yeah the styling isn't my cup of tea either. But I do acknowledge that there's a whole market of folks who find the hatch design and styling of vehicles like the Qube, Versa, Fit, Scion Hatch (can't think of the name), etc... worthy of purchase.

I have nothing against hatchbacks. I’ve owned two myself. In fact, I was disappointed when I found out the 3 was a notchback. If they’d have made the Bolt more “normal” looking like the Golf or a Mazda3, I’d probably go for it.
 
Diesel cars are sold in the US, but diesel fuel is usually much more expensive than gasoline (petrol). It's a refining problem. The US has done virtually no expansion of refining capacity since the 1970s and demand has increased due to population growth and SUVs have not improved fleet fuel mileage all that much. There has been a lot of resistance to building new refineries.

As a result, the US imports most of its diesel and refines the gasoline domestically. It's safer to transport diesel in tankers than gasoline.

Federal taxes on diesel are higher than gasoline as it is in many States.


US_diesel_exports_by_destination_1993-2015E.jpg
 
Bolt ends the year with 23 297 US sales, around 2000 EU (branded Ampera-e sold by Opel) and an unknown amount for Canada and GM Cruise. All in all not too far away from the projected 30k. Production was likely higher because of inventory build up.

Not surprising since they really didn't try to sell them and barely rolled them out (if at all) in most places here in the US. The lack of advertising in our area was deafening.
 
is it possible for a company to pay tesla for use of their cars on the SC network? Use the same connectors and batteries but have their own style and tech in cars??? Like diff flashlight designs all can use the same aa batteries? Or is this too simpleminded? If i had a serious car company to do ev now it would be great to just be able to use tesla sc network and connectors for my car too and i would just pay tesla to use this? It would save a huge step for me .Kind like all ice cars can fill up at same gas station.
 
It is possible, and Tesla has opened all his patents up exactly to encourage it. They have stated clearly that they welcome other manufacturers to share the supercharger network as long as they are willing to pay for their share of the use / buildout.
 
It is possible, and Tesla has opened all his patents up exactly to encourage it. They have stated clearly that they welcome other manufacturers to share the supercharger network as long as they are willing to pay for their share of the use / buildout.
thanx.....i thought i read that too...porsche and others would be crazy not to take tesla up on that and BUILD on it.