And they can still do that. Adding vehicles to the network adds demand...and presumably a corollary increase in supply. The fee paid by GM would simply be on a per vehicle basis to cover maintenance, electricity, and future build out. Especially with a low volume model, it makes a lot of sense for GM to seriously consider being the first to buy in to the Tesla Supercharging network instead of going it on their own...or worse, not developing any charging network. That is of course if GM is actually serious about becoming a player in the EV market...
-
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
And they can still do that. Adding vehicles to the network adds demand...and presumably a corollary increase in supply. The fee paid by GM would simply be on a per vehicle basis to cover maintenance, electricity, and future build out. Especially with a low volume model, it makes a lot of sense for GM to seriously consider being the first to buy in to the Tesla Supercharging network instead of going it on their own...or worse, not developing any charging network. That is of course if GM is actually serious about becoming a player in the EV market...
Chevy Bolt. 200 mile range for $30k base price
The brake pads are going to last a very long time because the brakes are used so little, and the 12V battery should last as long as in an ICE (yes I know there have been some 12V battery failures but they are replaced under warranty, and I think the percentage of cars effected is very low). The other things you mention are cheap. And the annual $600 service is not required to maintain the warranty, as per Elon. Model S maintenance cost is far far less than my Porsche Cayman was.
The brake pads are going to last a very long time because the brakes are used so little, and the 12V battery should last as long as in an ICE (yes I know there have been some 12V battery failures but they are replaced under warranty, and I think the percentage of cars effected is very low). The other things you mention are cheap. And the annual $600 service is not required to maintain the warranty, as per Elon. Model S maintenance cost is far far less than my Porsche Cayman was.
PokerBroker
Member
Trev Page
Member
If GM wants to participate into the Supercharger infrastructure I'm all for that as long as there's a financial contribution from the sale of each car. However GM will need to make sure they don't suffer from "not invented here" syndrome.
How tolerant will GM's batteries/battery pack be to Supercharging even if GM bought into the SC network? Could their chemistry tolerate the stress of that much juice being poured into the pack without having an incident? Who would be at fault if they occasionally have a failure? I would think it would be important for Tesla to put that into the contract if they allow GM in. "Use our network at your own risk"
Of course there will be car envy when a poor little Bolt is Supercharging next to a gorgeous Model S/X/III don't you think? :redface:
All that aside, I wish the best of luck to GM and I hope they make a great car.
Of course there will be car envy when a poor little Bolt is Supercharging next to a gorgeous Model S/X/III don't you think? :redface:
All that aside, I wish the best of luck to GM and I hope they make a great car.
I belive the NMC chemistry is a bit better when it comes to charging speed and durability than NCA. So it shouldn't be difficult for the car to do supercharging as well as the Model 3 or better. Provided they are willing to pay Tesla for access; otherwise they're stuck with CCS.
Once both sides are mutually satisfied that testing has flushed out compatibility issues, there's no need--the responsibly party should be the responsible party. Failure reviews could get a little complicated, but that's another topic.
The only way that the supercharging network can function and flourish with mutiple brands is to ensure that all users are treated equally.
We're all test pilots, in a way. Lots of learning to catch up with a century of ICE vehicles, and a new company to boot. But Tesla's rapidly driving down the learning curve.
I interpreted that to mean they would pay a certain amount. Probably an joining fee plus a fee for each car produced. I can't see anyone else deploying Tesla Superchargers because of the maintenance problem (e.g. you call Tesla to report an issue and they tell you it's not one of theirs).
- - - Updated - - -
The car tells the charger how much to provide, so it won't be an issue unless there is a problem in the car's charging system.
Do you realize that the Chevy Volt is the only current GM nameplate to never have a recall?
- - - Updated - - -
The Chevy Bolt will be based on the Chevy/Sonic-Trax platform. It's more likely to look like this quick rendering:
Interesting that it's based on Sonic platform. I read somewhere that the Bolt will be bigger in size than Volt. This seems to contradict the use of the sonic platform.
I guess GM's idea is to go vertical to get more room.
I often wonder how things would have been different for GM if GM made the Volt on a Buick Regal/Chevy Impala platform (Buick Electra?) and made Buick into an plug-in vehicle company. I understand that Tesla sells more Model S's in California than all Buicks combined.
The use of the Sonic platform has been rumored for at least a few months but it is not a confirmed fact, just speculation.
Since we are going to get more info tomorrow, I have to get my predictions in today:
-Chevy won't use Supercharging or have any access to the Tesla network. At this point, it's not in either GM or Tesla's interest to do so--GM doesn't want to give Tesla a win on the standard war, and Tesla doesn't want to give up a big competitive advantage.
-The Bolt will have DC quick charging. No car with a battery that big can get away without it. It will use SAE CCS.
-GM will announce at some point before the car debuts the availability of CCS Chargers, at least at those dealers that sell Bolts. This program will be similar to the one Nissan has put together.
-access to CCS Chargers may well be restricted by subscription, potentially tied to OnStar.
These are my guesses only, not based on anything other than my own intuition. And they aren't necessarily what I would do--just what I think GM will do.
Let's see how close I get.
-Chevy won't use Supercharging or have any access to the Tesla network. At this point, it's not in either GM or Tesla's interest to do so--GM doesn't want to give Tesla a win on the standard war, and Tesla doesn't want to give up a big competitive advantage.
-The Bolt will have DC quick charging. No car with a battery that big can get away without it. It will use SAE CCS.
-GM will announce at some point before the car debuts the availability of CCS Chargers, at least at those dealers that sell Bolts. This program will be similar to the one Nissan has put together.
-access to CCS Chargers may well be restricted by subscription, potentially tied to OnStar.
These are my guesses only, not based on anything other than my own intuition. And they aren't necessarily what I would do--just what I think GM will do.
Let's see how close I get.
A slightly different take on the discussion regarding use of Tesla's Superchargers by other manufacturers:
*All of you who have used SpC's should be aware of the moderately confusing number of signs Tesla has at each stall. I'm not going to trawl the SpC threads to lift them into this discussion, but in essence they boil down to "Teslas only" versus "general parking".
*Could it be possible that the purpose of these signs has been Tesla's pre-configuring of the stalls so as to allow other vehicles access to its chargers, while still reserving some for the exclusive use of its own cars? Might it be that "we" have been focusing on the wrong kinds of cars parking there: ICEs vs EVs, whereas down the road it would be EV-them vs EV-us???????
*All of you who have used SpC's should be aware of the moderately confusing number of signs Tesla has at each stall. I'm not going to trawl the SpC threads to lift them into this discussion, but in essence they boil down to "Teslas only" versus "general parking".
*Could it be possible that the purpose of these signs has been Tesla's pre-configuring of the stalls so as to allow other vehicles access to its chargers, while still reserving some for the exclusive use of its own cars? Might it be that "we" have been focusing on the wrong kinds of cars parking there: ICEs vs EVs, whereas down the road it would be EV-them vs EV-us???????
Thanks!
If the Bolt really is based on the Sonic platform, then customers are basically paying $30k for an EV where the gas-equivalent version is $15k (Sonic platform). "Ouch". Consumers aren't stupid. Many posters here at TMC already said the same...
TAKEAWAY FOR THE MEDIA: Bolt is not a competitor to Tesla Model 3 (or to BMW 3 series or Audi A4). Model 3 IS a direct competitor to these fine german sedans.
I'm sure that the media will produce all kinds of "Tesla competitor" stories regardless. It's just Bad Journalism. Especially bad for any "automotive" journalist.
swaltner
Active Member
@AudubonB, I noticed the same thing about the signs. I hadn't really thought about if Tesla was intending a two-tiered hierarchy for SpC access. My thought had always been, "Those dolts! They'll need to swept those *Tesla-Only* signs if someone ever takes them up on SpC access." It will be interesting to see what Tesla does if someone finally takes them up on access to the SpC network.
Presumably GM stations could be GM branded. Not saying it would happen that way, but just pointing out there are simple ways to deal with issues like that.
But for the record... I think it more likely that GM would go with SAE Combo and roll out their own network of stations, which will probably all be at dealerships and therefore half of them will not work at any time, and the other half will not accessible when people need them.
Similar threads
