[POLL] Will base model M3 beat the Chevy Bolt's 238 mile EPA range?

[BluestarE3]

Another vantage point is to say that GM has no choice but to meaningfully advance sustainable transportation. China, Europe, and California etc. will be requiring GM and other traditional car makers to build large numbers of all-electric cars whether they want to or not. One hopes that the US federal government won't be derailed more than 4 years by Trumpism.

GM, realizing this, has been ahead of most of them in providing longer battery range and performance in their PHEVs and BEVs so far which is the direction we need them to be moving towards.

As for China, it looks like the traditional automakers are already trying to delay and weaken the mandate there to switch to EVs:
Virtually all automakers (except for Tesla) are asking China to slow down electric car mandate

 

[wdolson]

OK.....something that's been bugging me, so I'm going to just get right to it:


Short-selling the Model 3 and/or making it "inferior" isn't about leaving S and X as the "classier" vehicles in the lineup.

Right now, it's about getting the most Model 3's out the door and the resulting monetary transactions accounted for.

leaving the range or performance of the 3 as lesser than S or X? Why? What purpose would that serve?


This is going to be all about MARGIN.

If the "alien dreadnought" brings the cost of producing a Model 3 waayyyy down, why wouldn't you try to make it as amazing a car as you can?

just for argument's sake....I've seen out there that the Model S profit margin is ~20% per car. That's great. They've sold roughly 158,000 of them worldwide (as of the end of 2016). Not bad.....except when you consider that the goal of the Model 3 is to push out close to that entire total.....between now and the end of 2018.


As a stockholder, I would be disappointed in Elon if he "neutered" the Model 3 to push people into a higher end vehicle....that many of them wouldn't buy because they can't afford it.


TL;DR: the profit margin on 400,000+ Model 3's will do more for the bottom line than 158,000 Model S's has.

The limits of the Model 3 have a lot more to do with the compromises necessary to make the car in the $35K price range rather than deliberately making it less compelling to sell more Ss.

Keep in mind that all of the top selling cars in that list start well under $35K and/or are not going to be competing with the M3. Realistically, the M3 will be competing against ICE cars like the BMW 3 Series with global production at 411,844 in 2016. Musk is predicting Tesla will outsell the BMW 3 Series. Maybe someday hopefully, but I seriously doubt it in the near future. Remember that the starting price is $35K, but the average price will be much higher once they are in full production with all options.

The Model S has upsold a lot of people, there is no reason to believe it won't happen if the Model 3 is compelling too. A survey done a couple of years ago found over 1/2 of Model S buyers had never bought a car worth over $60K before.

 

[erthquake]

That's your opinion that they have no interest, but clearly it's not GM's main interest, nor should it be. As a public corporation they're interest should be making their shareholders the most money. They do this by providing products that the market demands at a price that's profitable. It's very simple. If the market demands EVs and they can make them profitably then GM will be happy to sell them.

If the Bolt is successful then GM will likely expand their EV portfolio to other segments, such as SUVs. If it ends up losing money then they will slow walk EV development and continue making ICE vehicles and fighting to slow regulations. So we should all hope the Bolt succeeds.

GM beat Tesla to market with a 240 mile car under $40k. But they chose to protect their ICE cars and deliver an uninspiring, borderline weirdmobile that isn't practical for road trips which few people are buying. That's GM's choice, they can't have it both ways, and I hope Tesla destroys them for it.

 

[AceSkywalker]

GM beat Tesla to market with a 240 mile car under $40k. But they chose to protect their ICE cars and deliver an uninspiring, borderline weirdmobile that isn't practical for road trips which few people are buying. That's GM's choice, they can't have it both ways, and I hope Tesla destroys them for it.

The reality is that more people want a pickup truck than those that want an electric car. GM is gonna want to protect their highest selling and highest profit margin segment. The F150 and its competitors have been the top selling vehicles in America for generations. Good luck getting truckbros like the neighborhood coal-roller to go EV.

 

[jelloslug]

I will be surprised if the base model RWD Model 3 comes out higher than the Bolt. Hopefully I'm wrong though.

 

[Krugerrand]

I expect Model 3 to get more miles per charge than Model S (based on same battery size) simply because Elon specifically stated that the Model 3 was going to be *tuned/software programmed/can't remember his exact word choice) to be efficient versus Model S and X being 'performance' geared/programmed/whathaveyou. As well the obvious that Model 3 is smaller, lighter etc... After all that is the whole idea of a mass market, affordable, long range vehicle - more efficiency bang for your buck. Performance models of the 3 won't be as efficient, but still more efficient and less performance than the S or X.

I'm also of the camp that there's no way Elon lets the Bolt have more miles than the Model 3.

 

[jim5359]

But they chose to protect their ICE cars and deliver an uninspiring, borderline weirdmobile that isn't practical for road trips which few people are buying.

Uninspiring to you, but they're selling at about the same pace as the Model S did when it first came out. And better than any other non-Tesla EV currently. No question the Bolt isn't as sexy looking as the Model 3, but looks aside it's a very capable and practical car for day to day use. Somehow I think if it was the Tesla Bolt you'd be singing it's praises.

The Model S has upsold a lot of people, there is no reason to believe it won't happen if the Model 3 is compelling too.

Excellent point. I was one of those that spent way more than I normally would when I bought the Model S.

 

[erthquake]

Uninspiring to you, but they're selling at about the same pace as the Model S did when it first came out. And better than any other non-Tesla EV currently. No question the Bolt isn't as sexy looking as the Model 3, but looks aside it's a very capable and practical car for day to day use. Somehow I think if it was the Tesla Bolt you'd be singing it's praises.

The Bolt's lower price (especially with the recent dealer incentives) should result in a much larger addressable market and more sales than the early days of the Model S. Moreover, the S sales were production constrained, whereas there are a lot of Bolts just sitting on deal lots. Honestly, if someone else had come out with something like a Model 3, I'd be singing their praises. I'm not a cult member. VW's I.D. Concept looks promising and appears to be the most serious effort other than Tesla.

 

[jonnyg]

The reality is that more people want a pickup truck than those that want an electric car. GM is gonna want to protect their highest selling and highest profit margin segment. The F150 and its competitors have been the top selling vehicles in America for generations. Good luck getting truckbros like the neighborhood coal-roller to go EV.

Until they can get a pickup truck that can go 0-60 in 3-4 seconds. At least sub 5. Will make the F150 Raptor look like a child's toy.

 

[AceSkywalker]

Until they can get a pickup truck that can go 0-60 in 3-4 seconds. At least sub 5. Will make the F150 Raptor look like a child's toy.

Its not loud, and it can't belch carcinogens on people they don't like or wanna annoy, so its a no go.

 

[Waiting4M3]

Well at least Tahoes and Suburbans are a heck of a lot cleaner than Toyotas.

Increasing economy 2 mpg on large pickups and SUVs has done more for the environment than all the EVs and hybrids combined.

Toyota makes gas hybrids so they can sell very dirty trucks. GM makes EREVs and BEVs so they can sell cleaner trucks.

That is a weird way to explain how spewing toxic gases into the air we all breath is better than not spewing toxic gases.

Isn't the fleet average MPG the number that matters at the end? It's not anyone can choose to breath only the exhaust that comes from trucks/SUVs and not from passenger cars. Toyota makes their passenger cars cleaner, and keep their trucks dirty, GM does the opposite, both end up with the same MPG as a whole.

If we want to further drilldown, one could argue that exhaust should be weighed by the miles driven, and trucks used by business could have more miles than passenger cars. This may be true on a per-year basis, but over the lifetime of the vehicle, a truck that is more heavily used will probably breakdown earlier than a car, so maybe the total mileage over lifetime is not that different.

 

[Waiting4M3]

The reality is that more people want a pickup truck than those that want an electric car. GM is gonna want to protect their highest selling and highest profit margin segment. The F150 and its competitors have been the top selling vehicles in America for generations. Good luck getting truckbros like the neighborhood coal-roller to go EV.

If as you say, more people want pickups instead of EVs, why would GM need to protect their truck segment from Bolt or from Tesla?

 

[Waiting4M3]

The Bolt's lower price (especially with the recent dealer incentives) should result in a much larger addressable market and more sales than the early days of the Model S. Moreover, the S sales were production constrained, whereas there are a lot of Bolts just sitting on deal lots. Honestly, if someone else had come out with something like a Model 3, I'd be singing their praises. I'm not a cult member. VW's I.D. Concept looks promising and appears to be the most serious effort other than Tesla.

Exactly.

I'm a Model 3 reservation holder and a Tesla stockholder, both because M3 is the only appealing mass EV. If GM had made a more compelling EV than the M3, and is seriously ramping production to 100K-millions of them, I would be both buying their EV, and their stocks, singing their praise on the internet, all that.

 

[jim5359]

I'm a Model 3 reservation holder and a Tesla stockholder, both because M3 is the only appealing mass EV.

You say this without seeing an M3 in person, without sitting in one much less driving one, and without reading a single independent review of the vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true of your personal experience with the Bolt. Yet, there are a number of independent reviews of the Bolt that are quite good. It even won the 2017 Motor Trend Car of the Year, which they typically don't give to cars that are unappealing and non-compelling. Yet the only factual information we have about the M3 are some leaked images and Tesla marketing. The rest is just conjecture.

If as you say, more people want pickups instead of EVs, why would GM need to protect their truck segment from Bolt or from Tesla?

Who is saying GM needs to protect their truck segment from Bolt or from Tesla? I don't know anyone making that argument, and if they are, please explain the logic? I don't see why someone who currently has an SUV or pickup would be interesting in switching to a Bolt or Tesla. Maybe when Tesla releases their electric pickup, but that's still a ways off.

 

[McRat]

The Bolt's lower price (especially with the recent dealer incentives) should result in a much larger addressable market and more sales than the early days of the Model S. Moreover, the S sales were production constrained, whereas there are a lot of Bolts just sitting on deal lots. Honestly, if someone else had come out with something like a Model 3, I'd be singing their praises. I'm not a cult member. VW's I.D. Concept looks promising and appears to be the most serious effort other than Tesla.

Tesla's success lies with the design and marketing of the EV as being a premium performance product, better than ICE choices. But for the other automakers so far, the EVs are still fighting the stigma of the "expensive but cheezy econoboxes with terrible performance but great economy" that was put into place by the early hybrids.

PS - The price is back up again. Especially in California where the $2500 EV rebate is gone for now. A Bolt a month ago was $4000 cheaper.n In any case, EVs were all the way down to $69 a month with no down and that still didn't make people buy EVs. People do not buy EVs because they are priced attractively.

 

[Waiting4M3]

You say this without seeing an M3 in person, without sitting in one much less driving one, and without reading a single independent review of the vehicle. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true of your personal experience with the Bolt. Yet, there are a number of independent reviews of the Bolt that are quite good. It even won the 2017 Motor Trend Car of the Year, which they typically don't give to cars that are unappealing and non-compelling. Yet the only factual information we have about the M3 are some leaked images and Tesla marketing. The rest is just conjecture.

You say this without knowing my personal aesthetics taste. I've seen the Bolt on the road, I don't want to be in one. I've seen many pictures of the M3, I'd like to be in one. Does that answer your question?

BTW if Motortrend would like to pony up the money for my car, I'd happily take the Bolt. Thank you very much.

Who is saying GM needs to protect their truck segment from Bolt or from Tesla? I don't know anyone making that argument, and if they are, please explain the logic? I don't see why someone who currently has an SUV or pickup would be interesting in switching to a Bolt or Tesla. Maybe when Tesla releases their electric pickup, but that's still a ways off.

You should ask AceSkywalker that. He brought up GM needing to protect their highest profit margin segment. I don't understand why he brought it up either, it seems to me that EV's should be no threat to trucks at all. Or maybe the truckbros subconsciously worry that Tesla will continue to succeed and eventually come after their trucks?

The reality is that more people want a pickup truck than those that want an electric car. GM is gonna want to protect their highest selling and highest profit margin segment. The F150 and its competitors have been the top selling vehicles in America for generations. Good luck getting truckbros like the neighborhood coal-roller to go EV.

 

[SageBrush]

I'm also of the camp that there's no way Elon lets the Bolt have more miles than the Model 3.

I've been surprised by just how much the 3/2016 reveal appears to match the RC cars, so I am inclined to think that the battery specs were decided then too and will not change, due to GM or anything else.

That said, I'll be somewhat disappointed if the Model 3 range does not wallop the Bolt on the highway. The Bolt is welcome to bragging rights from a high city range since I don't care about that number.

 

[wdolson]

I've been surprised by just how much the 3/2016 reveal appears to match the RC cars, so I am inclined to think that the battery specs were decided then too and will not change, due to GM or anything else.

That said, I'll be somewhat disappointed if the Model 3 range does not wallop the Bolt on the highway. The Bolt is welcome to bragging rights from a high city range since I don't care about that number.

The max battery spec was probably decided early on from space available in the car. It's possible they made the smaller battery a little bigger in response to the Bolt after the Model 3 reveal.

 

[SageBrush]

The max battery spec was probably decided early on from space available in the car. It's possible they made the smaller battery a little bigger in response to the Bolt after the Model 3 reveal.

I wasn't so much saying that they cannot change specs, but more that the $35k price tag has been engineered carefully with little leeway for revisions.

 

[wdolson]

I wasn't so much saying that they cannot change specs, but more that the $35k price tag has been engineered carefully with little leeway for revisions.

Agreed unless there was some major cost saving found between time of the announcement and now.