The M3 and Bolt do compete on price, with the Tesla offering much more, just in terms of warranty, superchargers, etc...
If you need a 200 mile electric car sooner, than the Bolt would be the choice.
If you need a 200 mile electric car sooner, than the Bolt would be the choice.
I definitely see a lot of people getting a Bolt while waiting for the Model 3. If you're somewhere in the 300k (as in, you're making a reservation right now), you know it's going to be 2019 before you get the car, so a nice 24+ month lease ties you over...
I think that the bolt will pull buyers off Prius. 3 will pull buyers off the small luxury, may get some to upgrade from a prius or to fall back form a bmw 5. Market researchers are going to be doing a ton, a ton, of research into exactly who is leaving what brand for a 3.
I've been wondering about that, too. I have seen IC engine compartments that were not as full, and also a lot neater.
Jeff N
Active Member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 2,271
- 2,904
The Bolt has a short front overhang (previously known as the engine compartment) so things are scrunched up. The compartment includes the front motor and differential gearing between the wheels and all the various brake hydraulics, A/C, motor, inverter, and battery radiators, power steering rack, 12V battery (?). The Model 3 has a longer overhang so they can push some of that stuff down below and add a frunk.
I could see that
So Tesla's rear wheel drive motor is really just amazing engineering. However, it does not all fit between the axles. With the leaf and volt/bolt etc the front wheel drive nature of the car has meant the front compartment has a lot going on. Probably the leaf is the best example and if you google peg boarding a nissan leaf drive train you can find a video of someone that has pulled one out, put all the components on a peg board and run it as such. Gives you a great understanding of everything in the car, smaller cars are much harder to hide battery management needs, the charging infrastructure, cooling, etc. Then there is the battery, with tesla s and x the form factor allowed a flat battery pack and created a wide stable car. With small hatchbacks that is not so easy, Tesla seems to just have a better battery form/engineering than Nissan or GM. I wonder how the e-golf is setup?
Snow Drift
Pirelli P Zero Winter
I would argue the Bolt is overpriced. Look at the interior, it's not comparable to a $35k BMW or Audi. It looks like a Fit or Spark. The cup holder are the same molded plastic as a Wal Mart pop in cup holder console. I sat in the Bolt at the NYIAS on the 23rd. Horribly cheap interior and I'm coming from Subarus.
Just because it's electric doesn't mean it can cost more than its segment.
M3 is priced like a base model A4 and 3 Series. That's the correct price for the entry level luxury sedan segment.
I think we should just start calling it the Model E since the symbol is the same as the E in Tesla. I think that's what Tesla wants people to do. Ford can't keep us from calling it the Model E.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
- Dec 8, 2007
- 9,875
- 4,801
Actually the front overhang of the Model 3 is extremely short also (might be just as short as the Bolt). I don't think front overhang is the right term for what you are trying to describe, as it describes the distance between the front bumper to the front drive axle.
The part that is shorter in the Bolt is from the front axle to the base of the windshield. In the Bolt, the base is almost right on top of the front axle, while for Model 3 there is some distance between the two.
Bangor Bob
Member
What's really going through Mary Barra's mind: "I wonder if Tesla is still hiring?"
I wonder what the thought process was on having FWD instead of RWD which I'm sure impacted any space available for the frunk?
It's not so much the lack of the frunk that caught my attention it was the impression that perhaps GM reused ICE components with only minor changes rather then redesigning the components.
Just seems like a lot more space is taken up by the Bolt then the S uses.
It's not so much the lack of the frunk that caught my attention it was the impression that perhaps GM reused ICE components with only minor changes rather then redesigning the components.
Just seems like a lot more space is taken up by the Bolt then the S uses.
Bimbels
GoldMember
Some who argue against the 7500 tax credit say that it causes (traditional) automakers to jack up the price by roughly 7500K so you feel like you got a "deal." In this case, I would say that's definitely what is happening.
beeeerock
Active Member
The Bolt shouldn't be given a pass just because it's FWD and very small... therefore needing to put all that stuff in the front. If the price point is essentially the same, the range is essentially the same (Tesla has the edge), the question should be why Chevy felt they needed to build a subcompact Frankencar.
It suggests several things to me... One, (perhaps most importantly) they need to make it that small and light to get the advertised range. They are lagging in the technology department.
Two, they're still thinking linearly in terms of 'engine/transmission in the front, passengers in the middle, gear in the back'. They didn't look at all the necessary drivetrain parts and say "let's think outside of the box and see how we can reorient everything based on radically different space constraints."
Three, they probably haven't given crash testing results as high a priority as Tesla. The space up front (empty for the most part) helps make the car safe. Chevy looks to have the same engine submarining problem as with ICE models.
Chevy, and even BMW, haven't really taken the EV transition seriously. They can't build the numbers to make a dent in the market. They haven't pondered the recharging infrastructure requirements. And clearly they haven't recognized that buyers might actually care what the car looks like.
So what is Mary Barra thinking? Probably something along the lines of "Oh crap, I guess we actually might have to build something that isn't a retrofit ICE". Or, "I wonder whether I'd enjoy early retirement?"
It suggests several things to me... One, (perhaps most importantly) they need to make it that small and light to get the advertised range. They are lagging in the technology department.
Two, they're still thinking linearly in terms of 'engine/transmission in the front, passengers in the middle, gear in the back'. They didn't look at all the necessary drivetrain parts and say "let's think outside of the box and see how we can reorient everything based on radically different space constraints."
Three, they probably haven't given crash testing results as high a priority as Tesla. The space up front (empty for the most part) helps make the car safe. Chevy looks to have the same engine submarining problem as with ICE models.
Chevy, and even BMW, haven't really taken the EV transition seriously. They can't build the numbers to make a dent in the market. They haven't pondered the recharging infrastructure requirements. And clearly they haven't recognized that buyers might actually care what the car looks like.
So what is Mary Barra thinking? Probably something along the lines of "Oh crap, I guess we actually might have to build something that isn't a retrofit ICE". Or, "I wonder whether I'd enjoy early retirement?"
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I could see maybe 10% of those people going for a 24 month Bolt lease. You know, because GM is only going to produce 30k of them.
I mean, that's the real deal here. The comparison between the two cars is ridiculous, if you consider planned volume. Sure, GM could increase production...but not my much.
bollar
Disgruntled Member
Frankly, I think she is relieved that Tesla validated the market. She has a long-range EV to build from, unlike Ford, Fiat-Chrysler and a host of others.
Jeff N
Active Member
- Oct 31, 2011
- 2,271
- 2,904
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Yes, I've seen the comment. They provide nothing to substantiate the remark. They could say they have the capacity to produce 100k, should we then take that at face value?
The fact remains that they have no intention of producing 50k, or at least, they haven't indicated that they do.
GM already sells their EV Compliance Car. It's called the Spark EV. It is similar to other EV Compliance cars by other carmakers. Drive one. It's dirt cheap, handles better than the others, and is pretty quick, especially the first ECM flash versions.
The Bolt has more HP and range than any of the Compliance Cars. This was not necessary.
The entire US sales of all EV/PHEV's was just over 100,000 units last year. This includes Tesla, Nissan, and Chevrolet as the main contributors. Exactly why would a responsible company build 100,000 additional units for the next year sales? Or even 50,000?
But GM can and has ramped up volume on high demand models very, very quickly. It's what most all car companies are good at. It's part of the automotive industry structure.
Similar threads
