-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
My open letter to the Chevy Bolt, from a Tesla fan.
- Thread starter PTADO
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Nope. Taxpayers were left holding the bag for $11.2 billion, which they will never see back despite GM being profitable again.
U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout | Reuters
mknox
Well-Known Member
I really couldn't care less about CD numbers, honestly. Boxy cars can generally carry "boxy" loads better. Rarely do I want to fill my car with styrofoam packing popcorn, but I do occasionally want to move a dresser or similar. My Model S is pretty impressive in terms of its cargo capacity (mainly due to the hatchback design) but is not great for larger boxy loads due to the way the rear hatch slopes down (for better aerodynamics).
The Bolt has a pretty impressive EPA range, despite it's supposedly poor CD, so who cares? If the criteria fits what people want (range, cargo, features etc.) then it will sell. If people want a sleek low sexy car instead, then it won't. I guess time will tell.
Poor CD will cause the Bolt's range to suffer at typical US highway speeds (70-75mph) but since the EPA's highway range tests are fairly forgiving many consumers may not realize the impact until after they buy it.
My broader concern is that GM has chosen to design the Bolt to target a very narrow market segment instead of making the investments needed to develop a compelling EV that will have broad appeal to people looking for a vehicle in the same price range.
When I was growing up in Detroit the city launched its "Say Nice Things About Detroit" marketing campaign. The problem was that the reality was that Detroit was not such a nice place, and the marketing campaign became the butt of many jokes. I think many people who support EVs feel the need to "Say Nice Things About The Bolt" but in my view GM missed an opportunity to develop a compelling vehicle that is designed to appeal to a broad range of customers rather than a small niche.
The Bolt is aimed at perhaps the least popular class, the ZEV class. Zero Emissions Vehicle class. This is the least popular class hence the narrowest market segment.
Since the Bolt will be a Global car, the hot hatch segment is actually popular outside the US. US buyers will buy mainly because it's an EV, which is rare, euro buyers will buy based on it merits vs other hot hatches.
I think GM is marketing and trimming it wrong. There should have been a sport edition, and that's what you use in the ad. Look at the Ampera-E commercial for insight.
diamond.g
Active Member
I edited the post to remove that comment as being off topic.
But I had a typo, I meant Bolt. When you have regen and excellent aero, weight is not as big of a penalty. The Volt and Bolt are roughly the same weight.
The "poor" Cd isn't actually poor. It's not as good as some, but better than most.
A Viper has a Cd of .45.
I think you hit the nail on the head. GM designed the Bolt to appeal to a very narrow market niche -- what they view as "the least popular class, the ZEV class."
In contrast, Tesla designs and markets its vehicles to be better than ALL cars in the same class and price point, ZEV or ICE. The Model S outsells all competing premium sedans in the US and with preorders from almost 400,000 customers who have never even set foot in the vehicle the Model 3 appears to be on a trajectory to do the same.
EV technology is now at a stage where EVs should be able to outcompete ICE, at least at the Model 3/Bolt price point. But GM is not even trying to compete with comparably priced ICE vehicles and instead chose to target the Bolt at a narrow market niche, what they see as the unpopular "ZEV class." Big mistake in my opinion. Also, by appealing mainly to the "converted" the Bolt is not doing much IMO to help the transition to sustainable transportation.
Last edited:
diamond.g
Active Member
Yup, I actually like hatchbacks. It is a shame the American market doesn't really care too much about them (Subaru and Audi stopped offering the hatchback version of some of their vehicles in the US). People tend to not like spending over 25K for a hatchback here.
I also have no issues driving a car with a trunk either.
I wonder if the Bolt's shape would be more widely accepted if it were a CUV instead.
The Bolt basically a 5 seat hot hatch. Not traditionally a big seller in America, but is in Europe. Things change.
After all incentives and programs, I have little doubt one will be able to acquire a Bolt for $25k by the summer.
In California, there is a total of $10k in gov't handouts. Then GM Points, Costco Programs, and Dealer competition will bring it down more.
But EV drivetrains are still wildly more expensive than ICE drivetrains.
mknox
Well-Known Member
Well, the one video I watched (Motor Trend, I think) drove the vehicle beyond it's EPA range and included a lot of highway driving... but I guess we'll see.
Couldn't disagree more. Just look at sales and you'll see the small crossover segment is red hot. I think this car already has a lot of broad appeal to buyers looking for a car that can provide utility and function. Look, I love my Model S, but when it comes to a smaller car, the Bolt has it all over the Model 3 in my opinion. And that is likely because I really don't like small sedans with tiny trunks. I'm not saying the Model 3 won't be a great car... it will, but I do wonder why Tesla decided to go with the sedan first as opposed to the rumored Model Y crossover which I think will have a much broader appeal.
mknox said:
My guess is that they wanted to make initial offering to be as low cost as possible to entice ICE users who are in the market for a new car. The latest average new car cost is around $33,000 so that puts the base Model 3 pricing in parity with what people are likely to spend on new cars. Also, the price difference between the S and X base models is around $8,000, so I would imagine the Y would have a similar (but problem smaller) difference. That's an increase of around 20% of the entire purchase price of the vehicle - not an insignificant amount by any stretch.
My feelings are if you can get a person into a Tesla and have them experience the benefits, they are more likely to purchase additional Tesla models (like the Y). The easiest way to do that is to keep the price of entry as low as possible.
Personally I would love a Model Y to replace my aging Honda Pilot and haven't taken the possibility of forgoing my Model reservation to wait for the Y - but I'm not giving it up yet.
SΞXY P100D
$ Trillion Musk
Why doesn't it make sense? The Model 3 is primarily targeted at the most highly successful BMW 3 Series (non-hatchback non-SUV) demographic. And the Model Y will be here soon enough to capture the rest of the market.
wcalvin
Member
Squeezing battery and electric drivetrain into a vacated engine compartment of a handy donor vehicle sounds familiar. Isn't that what Tesla did eight years ago with 2500 Lotus cars with emptied engine compartments? While they did the EV the right way by 2012 with all the weight low and the safest passenger compartment anywhere..
Chevy is just doing a chimera with a less expensive shell. And eight years late. Typical Detroit.
Chevy is just doing a chimera with a less expensive shell. And eight years late. Typical Detroit.
Chevy should have done what their competitor Opel did with their AmperaE, a clean sheet design aimed at competing in the popular Hot Hatch market, not just competing with other EVs:
Just kidding (an AmperaE == Bolt), but I wish GM would grow a pair and demonstrate the performance advantage that EVs have over economy ICE cars in the real world. Trim it out as a Sport Edition, market it on performance.
mknox
Well-Known Member
Just did a quick Google search and found some Aug 2016 YTD sales data: BMW 3-series: 45,660 ; Honda CR-V: 231,609 ; Toyota RAV-4: 230,942 ; Ford Escape: 209,699 and so on. Now these cars aren't exactly like the Bolt, but it does seem to indicate a preference for hatchback/liftback type of cars and of the higher sitting crossover design. BTW, #1,2 and 3 are the Ford F-150, Chev Silverado and Ram pickup. Aside from the top 3, the only models that sold better than the RAV-4 were Camry, Civic and Corolla.
SΞXY P100D
$ Trillion Musk
I believe you are correct that CUVs are a very popular class. But that begs the question: why are GM's expectations for the Bolt so low? Shouldn't they be planning to build 300-400K per year instead of ~30K? Tesla has demonstrated that demand for an EV in the arguably less popular sedan class is sufficient that 373,000 people were willing to preorder.
GM has very capable engineers. Given GM's vast resources, if GM management had taken the plunge and made a sufficient investment in battery technology and production capacity, EV drivetrain technology, EV-friendly design (aerodynamics and good looks) and a fast charging network, they should have been able to develop an EV that is projected to sell at least half as well as a car made by a company that introduced its first mass produced vehicle only four years ago. But so far GM has chosen not to make those investments so we don't know what they could have accomplished.
At some point, GM is going to have to dive in with both feet instead of dipping a toe in the water, or they will be left behind. As a former Detroiter, I really hope they figure that out. IMO "say nice things about the Bolt" doesn't help GM (or sustainable transportation generally) get where they need to go.
Last edited:
Similar threads
