LinkedIn GM CEO on Electric Vehicles

[stopcrazypp]

It is serious. And those numbers are based on certain realities in the market. You can only push the market so far. Even if Model 3 comes out with a 400 mile range and there are twice the number of Superchargers out there - there will still be people who are hesitant.

There's going to have to be a ramp-up of the awareness.

Production capacity and sales can be two different things.

For example, Leaf production capacity stands at 250k annual volume today (pack production ~220k). In mid-2010 (before the Leaf launch), Nissan was building 50k production capacity in Japan, and already planning 150k capacity in the US (which scheduled completion in 2012) and 50k capacity in UK (scheduled completion in 2013).

36k Bolt production capacity (assuming that is true) is dipping their toes in the water in comparison, although certainly far better than compliance like the Spark EV. That's fine in itself, but GM is tooting their own horn about it being a mainstream car and how big a commitment it is in EVs, when that amount of volume doesn't really match what they are claiming.

 

[AustinPowers]

First time I read this, in all seriousness this is how my brain interpreted it:

GM CEO Mary Barra Knows Big Changes Are Coming to Autos. Here's How She Intends to Not React

Funny, same here.

 

[mknox]

Right, but are they? GM is making something, but is it as sleek looking as the next ICE that will make people lust after it like the Model S? Nope. It's some weird future design like the LEAF.

I actually very much liked the Bolt prototype I saw at the Toronto Auto Show. My wife really likes the Pontiac Vibe she drives right now, and hasn't let me replace it as I had planned to several years ago. The Bolt had a similar feel to it, only it seemed a bit bigger. I think there is a certain appeal to it. Again, options. How is that bad?

 

[scaesare]

Again, options. How is that bad?

It's not. You are spot-on.

There are a bunch of Fits, Versas, Matrixs, etc... on the road today, that are in the same styling/size class as the Bolt. People obviously buy them.

Just because the design aesthetics of the Bolt is different than what the Model 3 is anticipated to be no more diminishes it's potential for success than the fact that Nissan sells a bunch of Versas despite the fact the BMW 3 series cars exist.

 

[RobStark]

It's not. You are spot-on.

There are a bunch of Fits, Versas, Matrixs, etc... on the road today, that are in the same styling/size class as the Bolt. People obviously buy them.

Just because the design aesthetics of the Bolt is different than what the Model 3 is anticipated to be no more diminishes it's potential for success than the fact that Nissan sells a bunch of Versas despite the fact the BMW 3 series cars exist.

The problem is they don't sell Versas starting at $37,500 or $30k for a limited time.

The vast majority of people will not pay a $20k premium for what appears to be an econobox.

They do sell 3 Series cars for $35k and up.

There will be no BEV premium for the Model 3.

That is the fundamental difference in the value proposition from GM and Tesla.

Why one is serious and the other not so much.

Why one is planning a trial balloon at 36k potential units the other almost 10x that.

If you are not prepared to succeed you are planning for failure.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I think the interviewer could have asked for her response to the Tesla supercharger network for the upcoming Bolt.

Yes. That was a missed opportunity. Had a few set questions and failed to react to her responses, especially the comments mentioning infrastructure and range anxiety having said "well on our way".

 

[Bangor Bob]

The problem is they don't sell Versas starting at $37,500 or $30k for a limited time.

They do, however, sell a Sentra starting at $37k. Ok, so they put an Infinity badge on it, but...

The rest of your points stand however.

Someone mentioned GM putting a couple hundred million into their Orion plant to prepare for this vehicle as a sign that they're "serious." I'll just point out that MB is investing a billion into their small-car assembly plant for their next-gen models. That's the size of "serious" for the majors. $200M is more than dabbling, but very "cautious."

 

[roblab]

It is serious. And those numbers are based on certain realities in the market. You can only push the market so far. Even if Model 3 comes out with a 400 mile range and there are twice the number of Superchargers out there - there will still be people who are hesitant.

There's going to have to be a ramp-up of the awareness.

What's sad is buying an electric car, for any number of reasons, and then becoming aware that you car is inconvenient in any number of areas, such as range, recharging, power, battery life. That, in my mind, would turn people off of buying a second electric, which might be construed as protecting a century old business model.

Without pushing, Tesla will likely sell twice what Bolt makes, simply because Tesla wants to change the world instead of make a bigger profit. Mary Barra may think she is serious, but she comes from a long line of GM people, and her prime interest is to preserve the GM spirit. A while back, that was stated as, "What's good for GM is good for the world." That is no longer the case. GM MUST change their thinking, and that is just about impossible.

 

[scaesare]

The problem is they don't sell Versas starting at $37,500 or $30k for a limited time.

The vast majority of people will not pay a $20k premium for what appears to be an econobox.

They do sell 3 Series cars for $35k and up.

Well, as I mentioned, I was addressing the styling/size criticisms being levied at the Bolt.

But, if you want to compare, the Leaf is basically an EV version of the Versa. The Versa appears to range up to $17K, and the Leaf up to $35K. So, it appears that people ARE paying up to an $18K premium primarily for the EV aspect of a "quirkily" styled auto.... and one that only gets ~75 miles to boot. How about nearly triple that range?

If you want another example there's the BMW I3. Similar size class, the weirdmobile factor, and up to $45k.

There will be no BEV premium for the Model 3.

That is the fundamental difference in the value proposition from GM and Tesla.

Factoring in fuel savings and federal tax credit, I'd suspect you could make the case that TCO for both vehicles will be substantially lower than that of a similarly class ICE vehicle.

Why one is serious and the other not so much.

If you are basing it on your reasoning above, I'd tend to disagree.

Why one is planning a trial balloon at 36k potential units the other almost 10x that.

If you are not prepared to succeed you are planning for failure.

Neither seriousness, nor success, are determined by number of units, or the idea of a measured entry in to the market. I'd argue the Model S was a success the first full year. It sold something like 20K cars.

If the idea of trying to potentially learn from the EV1 failure, dip your toe in the waters with the Volt(s), and then engineer and test 55+ cars indicates they aren't planning, I'm not sure what you are basing that conclusion on?