I post this for a chuckle, do not shoot me. The infamous wall street cheat sheet. What planet are they from. If they were 6 years ahead the car would have been out for 3 years already.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Gm six years ahead of tesla in developing gen 3
- Thread starter Chickenlittle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
Rifleman
Now owns 2 Model S's!!!
I read this article over on GM-Volt.com. As someone who currently drives a Volt, I can say with authority that the Volt is NOT the equivalent of what Gen III will be. I still use my gas engine every single say, and dont have enough passenger space to comfortable move move than two adults. The Volt is a great car, but it is not the EV for the masses, and it had to make serious compromises to meet their price point with the technology available to GM at the time it was released. If there was an option I could have afforded, I would have chosen a 5 passenger 150 mile range EV in a heartbeat instead of settling for a Volt (I still think Tesla needs to give the 40 kWh Model S another shot for this reason). Every Volt owner I have talked to says the same thing, they love their Volt, but if they could afford it, they would be driving a Model S instead, and they are all waiting for Gen III.
You forgot the link. GM: Six Years Ahead of Tesla | Business News
Anywho, the title is just misleading again as usual. The correct title should read, "GM Releases Hybrid Volt 6 years before Tesla releases Gen III EV". That would at least be more accurate. But it's apples and oranges.
As far as practical EV technology is concerned (no compliance cars, which doesn't matter anyway since compliance EVs still dont get much in range), the titles should read the other way around. As the roadster was in production back in 2008 and no other manufacturer has yet been able to mass produce a 200+ mi range EV to date, the title should actually read "Tesla technology is ahead of all other EV competition by at least 6 years".
Anywho, the title is just misleading again as usual. The correct title should read, "GM Releases Hybrid Volt 6 years before Tesla releases Gen III EV". That would at least be more accurate. But it's apples and oranges.
As far as practical EV technology is concerned (no compliance cars, which doesn't matter anyway since compliance EVs still dont get much in range), the titles should read the other way around. As the roadster was in production back in 2008 and no other manufacturer has yet been able to mass produce a 200+ mi range EV to date, the title should actually read "Tesla technology is ahead of all other EV competition by at least 6 years".
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm waiting for the exact same type of vehicle too. The Volt is nice for what it is, but it's not a Gen III equivalent (same with i3 unfortunately).
You can tell the author really had to stretch to make the point. The concluding line is: "Come 2016 or 2017, who do you think will have delivered on the most interesting, and best-selling, $40,000 car with an electric motor -- GM or Tesla?"
What does that make the Prius (which sold way more than the Volt and is cheaper)?
StapleGun
Member
Thanks for the link yobigd20. The article actually was alright if you forgive the misleading title. There is room for both Gen III and the Volt right now, but I think everyone here realizes that all-electric is the inevitable future. So in a decade I suspect to see the article "Tesla 6 years ahead of GM on affordable and compelling all-electric vehicle".
Actually, 6 years might be a bit generous.
Actually, 6 years might be a bit generous.
scottf200
Well-Known Member
I think you are being naive. See:
Title: InsideEVs Exclusive Interview with General Motors EV1 Marketing Director John Dabels
Part1: http://insideevs.com/insideevs-excl...rs-ev1-marketing-director-john-dabels-part-1/
Part2: http://insideevs.com/insideevs-excl...rs-ev1-marketing-director-john-dabels-part-2/
- - - Updated - - -
Overall I thought the article had merit in the right context. If you drive < 40 per day in a fair weather state or < 30 miles per day in a moderately cold weather state then you can use electric driving 99% of the time with minimal ICE maint. (I've done 1 oil change in 2.7 years and only have 9K on my ICE! Significant gas usage drop from previous years!)
I have 27.5K grid electric miles on my 2011 Volt. **SAME** electricity/fuel if I owned a Model S or LEAF or other BEV.
I do have 36.4K total miles so I obviously take road trips and drive farther than 30 miles on a couple days a week. (Bought in NY and drove to IL as well).
Still I have a Sig deposit on a Model X and am looking forward to all electric driving. Then my wife will drive our Volt 95%+ of the time on electricity only.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yes, if you fit the use case (where 90% of your driving can be electric) then it's good, but there's plenty that's just beyond the border that a "200 mile" EV will be what they need to accomplish that.
I've read a lot about the EV1. I don't understand what part of this interview makes you call me naive.
From part2:
Mark Hovis: What would the EV1 program look like today had GM stayed the course?
John Dabels: EV1 would be the number #1 electric vehicle. GM would be miles ahead. There would be a lot more people in EV's. GM would have more overall market share... and might have avoided bankruptcy.
I'm not saying that the EV1 was ready to be a viable mass market car for everyone. I'm saying that they were 15 years ahead and then destroyed it all, discarded their lead, lost all the people and expertise, and wasted all that effort.
Also from part 2:
John Dabels: The mistake GM made was not to lease the EV1's again and even a 3rd time.
If they had done that, they could have kept learning and building their lead.
No, it really wasn't. It had no valuable content or analysis. As I wrote on the thread over at gm-volt.com
- it failed to understand that there is no lead unless there's profit and that having one car with limited appeal doesn't constitute a lead when atthis stage development is far more important.
- it underplayed the performance capability of the Tesla large-battery model as "sports car performance", not understanding that Tesla is currently workig on a 4WD system and that when you put the two together you have the capability to cover the entire light vehicle market, mainstream and luxury.
- it missed the importance of cell capacity purchases in lowering costs.
The Volt is a nice car, but it's Gen 1 and Gen 2 is where the test comes,
Similar threads
