-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
ThosEM
Space Weatherman
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The range/price equivalence has been belabored elsewhere.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
It's non-competitive for the very fact that they'll only produce a fraction of the numbers Tesla is targeting. Nothing else needs to be debated.
You can't compete without the production. I realize there is always the possibility that the Model 3 will sell fewer than analysis indicates, of course.
ThosEM
Space Weatherman
We are defining "competitive" in different ways. I'm defining it terms of comparable attractiveness to an interested party with an adequate budget. Defining it in terms of a non-binding production goal doesn't seem very meaningful to me. A bigger discriminator to my mind is the lack of fast charging infrastructure, planned or existing, for the Chevy.
ssrajputev
Member
Exactly! The honestly think the constant comparison is ridiculous. Yes, they are both BEVs with similar range at a similar price point. That's where the similarities end.
One is a compact CUV/hatchback, while the other is a sleek, entry-level sports sedan.
To me the choice is obvious but all of those Toyota Priuses definitely didn't sell because they are sleek and sporty. So I would never assume that Bolts won't do well based on their shape. But any non-Tesla has a tough sell for travel beyond short distances. I could see them do very well as taxis and Ubers, as the more upright shape should be superior for entering/exiting. I love my S and my only significant issue with the car is the difficulty entering/exiting while trying to protect my chronic back problems. I hope the 3 is a bit more upright.
Big-T
Member
Seems like there are two camps here, A large one comparing the car to other EV's (The S, the X, the Bolt, the Volt, the Leaf) which I agree is wrong.
The other camp is comparing it with the BMW 3 series and Audi A4, etc. Which I think is right, at least that's how it's been marketed and sold. Now IF that's correct then forget about the fact it's an EV giving it some amazing advantage. The TYPICAL ICE buyer (I'm looking at you one of the 80 million people that bought a new car in 2017) isn't going to be swayed because it's an EV. They're going to want creature comforts, performance, and likely at 35k some badge envy. That's what it has to compete with to be a compelling car, not just a compelling EV (as Elon stated last year)
ssrajputev
Member
I do agree that the Bolt is easier to get into. I never said the Bolt won't sell well because of it's shape. I'm just saying they're in two different market classes and never traditionally compete with each other. People just want to draw assumptions because GM "beat" Tesla to the market with an affordable higher-range BEV. I'm driven the Bolt twice and been in it thrice. I wouldn't buy it for myself, but I certainly want it to do well. There is no one-sized fits all approach here. What is Tesla's mission after all?
Also, the Prius did well at the time, because that was the best a consumer could do. It was the greenest choice out there. The current Prius hasn't been doing as well in terms of sales, Toyota has been discounting it. It's not surprising that a study/survey done a few years back showed the #1 car people had before converting to a MS was a Prius.
ssrajputev
Member
I agree. It needs to be a compelling a car. After all, a MS is a compelling car against its competition, ICE or BEV.
I just wanna see how well the M3 sells, given that the tax credit will start being phased out in 2018. The mass market is more price sensitive. Some people have honestly been expecting a smaller MS that starts at 35K, which is not going to happen. People will be able to price a M3 with options to $70K+.
N5329K
Active Member
If all I wanted or needed was a highly-utilitarian city car EV, the Bolt would definitely compete with the Model 3. It has long enough range, a very useful hatchback and a surprisingly generous interior that mimics (closely) the successful Honda Fit. Since that's not what I'm looking for, it really doesn't compete at all. It's still a Chevrolet. It still anchors a buyer to a Chevrolet dealership. Chevrolet is still GM. And it's still fugly.
Robin
Robin
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I don't know...I'd say that description would better fit a vehicle with 100 miles less range, and an MSRP of ~30k. I think the Bolt at 238 miles, with limited infrastructure support and an MSRP of $37,500, is a hobbled long range BEV...more than a utilitarian city car.
N5329K
Active Member
There's a saying in aviation: "The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire." Maybe the auto equivalent is "The only time you have too much range is when you're buying the batteries."
We had a Gen-1 Leaf in our school carpool, 10 miles each way to and from, and between picking kids up, taking them to school and going in to work, there were some nervous days. That's why I think a 200-mile, utilitarian EV would make a good city car. No nervous days.
Robin
We had a Gen-1 Leaf in our school carpool, 10 miles each way to and from, and between picking kids up, taking them to school and going in to work, there were some nervous days. That's why I think a 200-mile, utilitarian EV would make a good city car. No nervous days.
Robin
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
There's also the fact that Cadillac ATS, Buick LaCrosse, and Chevrolet MALIBU are all 'better' vehicles from GM than the BOLT, but cost less. Why are none of those three offered as fully electric?
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Oh, I get it, our 107 mile Leaf can have days where we're taking it to the limit to get around the outer fringes of the metro. However, I still think the Bolt should be offered in two battery configurations, where people can decide if 200+ miles is worth the added cost when taking into consideration the limitations of the current CCS network.
N5329K
Active Member
ThosEM
Space Weatherman
What is this? A discussion of Tesla stock potential or a discussion about the Model 3 and its feature set? I'm just talking about which car I might prefer when I'm in the market to spend ~$40k on a vehicle of some type. Crossovers sell better than sedans these days. So, IF GM had worked out, or manages to do so soon, a deal with Tesla to use the supercharger network, folks may well buy a Bolt rather than a Model 3, just for the hatchback and fold down seats. But my reality is that, since my Model S is so commodious, I'll hold out for the next roadster ;-)
Red Sage
The Cybernetic Samurai
Sure they can! Mercedes-AMG stuffed something like 66 kWh of battery storage into the SLS Electric Drive. Of course, it cost four times as much as the Tesla Roadster and had half the range...
Scannerman
Member
- The interior quality of the Model 3 will be worse than the Model S in all trims - there will be much more plastics and cheaper trims across the cabin
- The interior sound proofing of the Model 3 will be worse than the Model S
- The Model 3 will be a slower car than the Model S
- The Model 3 will cost significantly more as you option the car up - a 70D with AP and Self Driving will be no less than $55k
- The Model 3 will have less comfortable seats than the Model S
- The Model 3 will have less features available than the Model S - i.e. don't expect to get self-opening doors, alcantera everything, etc.
- The Model 3 will have less leg room in both the front and back seats than the Model 3 (headroom might actually be better in the Model 3 vs. the Model S due to the sloping roofline of the S)
I know the basic idea why those things were said. But they are just said. Without thinking stuff through. And most might be very incorrect. For example leg room, 55k price tag (20k for 20kWh and AP hardware is nonsense, we already know that AP will cost no more than on S X), more plastic, worse seats - 1gen model S seats were actually bad for that segment. Memory or not doesn't change comfort level.
- The interior sound proofing of the Model 3 will be worse than the Model S
- The Model 3 will be a slower car than the Model S
- The Model 3 will cost significantly more as you option the car up - a 70D with AP and Self Driving will be no less than $55k
- The Model 3 will have less comfortable seats than the Model S
- The Model 3 will have less features available than the Model S - i.e. don't expect to get self-opening doors, alcantera everything, etc.
- The Model 3 will have less leg room in both the front and back seats than the Model 3 (headroom might actually be better in the Model 3 vs. the Model S due to the sloping roofline of the S)
I know the basic idea why those things were said. But they are just said. Without thinking stuff through. And most might be very incorrect. For example leg room, 55k price tag (20k for 20kWh and AP hardware is nonsense, we already know that AP will cost no more than on S X), more plastic, worse seats - 1gen model S seats were actually bad for that segment. Memory or not doesn't change comfort level.
