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

It's a Good Thing that GM unveiled the Bolt nearly 3 months before Model 3 unveiling!

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It's good that GM unveiled the Bolt now, before the Model 3.

Basically free advertising. Yes we all know about it (M3), but most people don't follow/care about a small company like Tesla. Model S and X are basically rich people cars to most people. But when GM and news services come out and basically say, we have the competitor for M3, your average joe/jane will say, "What's this Tesla M3?" Cue March...
 
It's good that GM unveiled the Bolt now, before the Model 3.

Basically free advertising. Yes we all know about it (M3), but most people don't follow/care about a small company like Tesla. Model S and X are basically rich people cars to most people. But when GM and news services come out and basically say, we have the competitor for M3, your average joe/jane will say, "What's this Tesla M3?" Cue March...

haha...you are super funny ! And a bit depthless..... Ok, cue March ! Through 2022, Tesla is only aiming for about 2 pc market share in the US. And about the same in Europe....in each of the target segments. So, MOST people do NOT need to know about it"
 
Last edited:
I think the Bolt will be a sales failure even though it may be a great car. The reason is Value... Can you get the same value in Bolt as you can in a ICE car?

For all the complaining that the Model is expensive; it is a great value compared to it's peers. High performance luxury cars. You can't find ICE cars that are as fast or high tech as Tesla for it's price. The BMW 7 series, Mercedes or even Porsche. They can't match the model S at that price.

If you look at the Bolt what ICE car does it compete with? Is it faster, bigger, more high tech... Does it compete with other $30k cars? Is the branding compelling? Is there anything there except being electric that makes you want to say I got to have that? Unless they can make the Bolt more desirable than other Chevy's it's not going to sell in a meaningful way.

That's the same argument used against all mass market EVs and assumes the EV powertrain has no inherent value. Why buy a Leaf when you can have a Versa? Why buy a Volt when you can have a Cruze? They would have been sales failures if it were true. Instead they're the #1 and #3 (Volt recently passed by Model S in December) best selling EVs in history.

The quietness, smoothness, clean running, and instantaneous response of an EV is a luxury feature it itself, as is the convenience of refueling at home. Also, there are government incentives that close the price gap with superficially comparable ICE vehicles.

Making it a fine hybrid.

The Volt is a fine plug-in hybrid with full electric performance for the first 53 miles.

But there's a thread for that.

Pure BEV Dogma
 
As far as my next vehicle purchase goes, Tesla needs to offer sales and service in Michigan while GM needs to come up with a fast-charging network solution comparable to the Supercharger network (both in charge rate and network size). Whoever meets their objective first before my Prius dies gets my money. Otherwise, I'm looking at either a Volt or another Prius.
 
Tesla needs to offer sales and service in Michigan

You are only 20 minutes away from the border with Windsor Canada. Some of us up here in Canada have wondered if Tesla will be putting a service center in Windsor if they are unable to solve the problem with the politicians in Michigan voting on behalf of GM's agenda. It should be no problem to service US cars in Canada, as they service Canadian cars in the US for people in Manitoba for example.
 
Several years ago there was no other long range EV that could utilize it. How do you know they have been trying? If the deal was right, I would think a new EV entrant would be crazy not to adopt supercharging technology. Tesla cannot give access to their supercharging network for free so perhaps the deal is not right.

I'm glad no deal was reached. Tesla needs all the Superchargers for its own fast growing fleet of cars, now that Model S sales are accelerating, Model X deliveries have started in earnest, and with Model 3 around the corner in much bigger numbers. On peak moments the SC-network is sometimes struggling already, so Tesla needs to keep on building that out, to be prepared for Model 3.

So not a good idea to have another brand use the SC's as well, even if they pay money for that. Unless that money is used for a faster rollout of SC's. But is money the limiting factor there?
 
Elon has stated multiple times in the past that other car companies are welcome to utilize the Supercharger network if they build EVs with compatible connectors AND contribute funds to building out the network.
So if another car company takes him up on that offer a whole lot more Superchargers will be built, many more than Tesla currently plans to build.
The limiting factor to the build out is resources, people and money.
 
I'm glad no deal was reached. Tesla needs all the Superchargers for its own fast growing fleet of cars, now that Model S sales are accelerating, Model X deliveries have started in earnest, and with Model 3 around the corner in much bigger numbers. On peak moments the SC-network is sometimes struggling already, so Tesla needs to keep on building that out, to be prepared for Model 3.

So not a good idea to have another brand use the SC's as well, even if they pay money for that. Unless that money is used for a faster rollout of SC's. But is money the limiting factor there?
I'm with you on this one.
Tesla have committed a great deal of resources to build this network to prove it can be done and built it into their cars. The others like GM etc have many more resources but no inclination to do anything about it.
Why should GM or the others get a free ride by piggy backing of the effort of Tesla when they are slagging them off at every opportunity.
Especially when GM have no intention of building a network.
Its not up to Tesla to chase GM etc, they made the public offer.
Its up to the others to ask.

Audi have at least announced they intend to build a network - but as with all Audi EV press releases it means nothing as they will never start.
 
You are only 20 minutes away from the border with Windsor Canada. Some of us up here in Canada have wondered if Tesla will be putting a service center in Windsor if they are unable to solve the problem with the politicians in Michigan voting on behalf of GM's agenda. It should be no problem to service US cars in Canada, as they service Canadian cars in the US for people in Manitoba for example.
Ann Arbor is more like 80 minutes to Windsor. Sylvania, OH is about 40 minutes away, and wouldn't have the hassle of crossing a border. I'd be ok with a solution like that. (I doubt my AAA towing plan covers international borders. :wink:)
 
I'm not going to win a Volt argument in a Tesla forum, but the main one is obvious, the price. This is where the Model 3 and the Bolt EV comparison will get a little more interesting.

So, if your view is on point......then what happens today IF ( hypothetically speaking ) an ICE Chevy and a BMW, with equivalent size, are priced about the same ?

Would a a large percentage of buyers, PREFER the Chevy over the BMW, in such a scenario ??

Well, we all know that is laughable !!! Perhaps, you work for Chevy ? And, misunderstand your mother brand ? Understandable, but clueless !

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder what GM will do to convince dealers to sell bolt instead of ICE.
The only way GM will cause Tesla trouble with the Bolt is if sales explode (enough mfg capacity, dealers actively sell it, no recall problems).
I doubt this whole machine is well oiled to succeed in a way that could cause Tesla or even Nissan real trouble.
The potential BEV market is huge. There's room for everybody.

Money talks ! So, GM would have to give their Chevy dealers a lot more money or margin, upfront, to compensate for the lost service revenues from the ICE cars they currently sell, which due to more moving parts, friction, wear and tear etc. , Result in greater maintenance costs for the buyer and greater service revenues for the Chevy dealer.

Like any business, there is a huge difference in life time cash flow for a Chevy dealer who sells an ICE Chevy vs. a real EV ( as opposed to a hybrid ). This is the crux of the matter for any Chevy dealer, who have a large ( both sq ft footprint and equipment) investment to service the ICE Chevy's , not mention the hordes of service department technicians, and service dept sales and customer service staff.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad no deal was reached. Tesla needs all the Superchargers for its own fast growing fleet of cars, now that Model S sales are accelerating, Model X deliveries have started in earnest, and with Model 3 around the corner in much bigger numbers. On peak moments the SC-network is sometimes struggling already, so Tesla needs to keep on building that out, to be prepared for Model 3.

So not a good idea to have another brand use the SC's as well, even if they pay money for that. Unless that money is used for a faster rollout of SC's. But is money the limiting factor there?

I am not with you on this one.

Unfortunately time is of the essence and not sharing the supercharger network means other companies will have a hard time selling long range EV's for the next few years until they build out their networks. This is bad for the EV industry and bad for the planet. Maybe not so bad for Tesla but they could use more cash and resources, both of which other larger car companies have.

I am sure a deal could be structured that would have minimal impact on Tesla owners. For example the other car company could agree to pay Tesla AND build out a certain number of supercharger stations within a certain time frame focusing on the busy areas. This would in fact benefit Tesla owners and accelerate the advent of sustainable transport which is Tesla's mission.
 
To make a Bolt you start with Boblutz and remove the buz.

But GM announced to make only 30 thousand of them a year.

1. The ICE manufacturers in the global auto industry, ALL have huge plant, equipment and product development tied up in the ICE platforms.

2. Any transition for them, must be slow and gradual, because they simply cannot afford to quickly abandon those existing ICE platforms and sunk costs.

3. Even if they wanted to, due to the sheer work, investment $ and repositioning/reorienting/retraining etc. required, it will take over 10 years.

4. The industry will have to rework their contractual and incentive structures with their union employees, the dealer network franchise agreements and the phasing out of the exiting ICE vehicles that are on the road ( billions of vehicles ), which still require maintenance, support, servicing and they continue to retain legal liability for all those vehicles sold on the iCE platform, which are and will continue to be on the road for sometime.

Therefore, they simply cannot go fast ( practically difficult ) or importantly, cannot afford to go faster - than a certain pace - because of the constraints of the current ICE platform. I am sure the CEO's and CFO's at each manufacturer have developed a glide path to the future, but glide it will be, because the CFO 's will be very clear about the financial ramifications of each change, vs. time . This financial proforma for investment capital and slow and gradual transformation is a pretty BIG deal.

Besides all of the above, there is the Bigger problem of battery supply and lithium required, and we all know that the current battery and lithium based technology may or may not be the paradigm ten years down the road.

So, a new entrant like TSLA will continue to have significant advantages in many respects for quite some time.

The ICE manufacturers will need to play both offense vis a vis EV tech and defense vis a vis ICE legacy platforms and costs.

I am sure many new entrants ( current like TSLA and in the future like , maybe Apple ) also understand and appreciate the strategic and operational challenges faced by the ICE manufacturers. This gives them a strategic advantage to start fresh without the constraints of the legacy systems.

I'm not sure the investment community fully appreciates the extent of the constraints placed by these legacy platforms and how it will continue to constrain and weaken the ICE manufacturers. The auto industry and the employees and dealers will be in for some big changes and some tough times starting in about 3-5 years and lasting until at least 2030, IMO.

So, the patient LT Tesla investor, IMO, will be rewarded because of the strategic advantages vs. time T and the constraints of the ICE platform investment and sunk costs for the ICE manufacturers. This is a LONG game.....forget about the quarter to quarter stuff and focus on the 2020-2025 timeframe. It will be quite interesting.
 
Last edited:
I am not with you on this one.

Unfortunately time is of the essence and not sharing the supercharger network means other companies will have a hard time selling long range EV's for the next few years until they build out their networks. This is bad for the EV industry and bad for the planet. Maybe not so bad for Tesla but they could use more cash and resources, both of which other larger car companies have.

I am sure a deal could be structured that would have minimal impact on Tesla owners. For example the other car company could agree to pay Tesla AND build out a certain number of supercharger stations within a certain time frame focusing on the busy areas. This would in fact benefit Tesla owners and accelerate the advent of sustainable transport which is Tesla's mission.
It all sounds great - but none of the other manufacturers seem to be willing. Can't ding Tesla for that.
 
The additional specs released re the Bolt shows that :

1. BATTERY :

It will have a 60 kWh battery pack, and battery charging on AC will produce ONLY 50 miles of range in about 2 hours.

- Fast DC charging with deliver about 90 miles in 30 minutes.

- Full charging at home will require at least 9 hours !!

I expect TSLA Model 3 will beat both these quite handily.

IMO, these are limiting specs, particularly because ......GM / Chevy do not have a Supercharger network.


2. ACCELERATION:

0-60 mph will take about 7 secs.

I expect Model 3's 0-60 mph will be in the 4-5 sec range.


3. The CHEVY Bolt will NOT have all wheel drive.

Model 3 will probably offer this as one of the options....particularly for those in snow country.


4. I also expect TESLA Model 3 will Beat the CHEVY in fit, finish, paint, wheels and looks. And I am quite confident, in any area that deals with software.
 
To make a Bolt you start with Boblutz and remove the buz.

But GM announced to make only 30 thousand of them a year.
I'm reasonably confident that GM has not said anything about only making 30,000 Bolt's per year. Please provide a source for that claim.

That is based on speculation by people outside of GM. My impression is that at least some of that speculation was based on the false assumption that the battery cells would be manufactured at LG's Michigan factory.
 
I'm reasonably confident that GM has not said anything about only making 30,000 Bolt's per year. Please provide a source for that claim.
That is based on speculation by people outside of GM.

I might have fallen for circular referencing here. :redface: One article is from forum member Zach Shahan
Why Is GM Only Planning 30,000 Chevy Bolts Per Year? - Gas 2
but he lacks a source, too.

I would welcome any higher production numbers, 30.000 is a drop in the ocean for the U.S. market alone. I think it depends on battery supply, the contracts that GM drew with the supplier, and the willingness to invest in significant cell production.