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

[gregincal]

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.

Not really. All they care about is the average selling price, not the stripped down absolute base than very few people will order. They could easily have increased margins on other options to make up for the slightly larger base battery.

 

[Topher]

Isn't the fleet average MPG the number that matters at the end?

Nope. The condition of the planet (and the humans et al on it) is what matters.

Thank you kindly

 

[McRat]

Not really. All they care about is the average selling price, not the stripped down absolute base than very few people will order. They could easily have increased margins on other options to make up for the slightly larger base battery.

BEVs range from $30k and up. There are certainly going to be people who want a M3 on price alone. It's MSRP is where a Fiat 500e is.

 

[fasteddie7]

I would rather an investment in supercharging locations than adding 20 to 30 miles of range. You can leave your house in an ICE car now with the fuel light on and have no worry you can stop and fill up. When charging becomes that way, range won’t matter as much.

 

[McRat]

Nope. The condition of the planet (and the humans et al on it) is what matters.

Thank you kindly

Then walk or bicycle.

 

[McRat]

I would rather an investment in supercharging locations than adding 20 to 30 miles of range. You can leave your house in an ICE car now with the fuel light on and have no worry you can stop and fill up. When charging becomes that way, range won’t matter as much.

When you have an EV, every morning you wake up to a 'full tank'. It's a different way of driving.

 

[KJD]

Not really sure if I will buy a Model 3 or not. I want to test drive one first, then decide. If I do buy one chances are it will be a very stripped down base version.

As for if the range is slightly more or less than the Bolt, not really a big deal. If I want to go long distance I will probably drive the Model S instead.

 

[jchag]

I suspect the first Model 3's will have less range than the Bolt. The Bolt range is actually better than the rated. I own a Bolt and a Model S. Bolt is no good for long travel due to slower charging and limited chargers outside of California. i take the Tesla on any trip over 100 miles one way.

 

[Topher]

The Bolt range is actually better than the rated.

You mean the way you drive you exceed EPA ratings. Doesn't have anything much to do with the car.

Thank you kindly.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

You mean the way you drive you exceed EPA ratings. Doesn't have anything much to do with the car.

Thank you kindly.

I think it's a little bit of both, not to mention weather and elevation as compared to the conditions the EPA and/or GM used for their testing.

 

[R.S]

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.

I agree with the road trips thing, they could and should invest more in infrastructure. But just compare the Bolt to other GM offerings, it really isn't a unusual car for GM. Sure it doesn't look sexy, but just take a look at the Equinox, or the Traverse, those don't look good as well, but they apparently sell in respectable numbers. Or compare it to the Sonic... there is no way the Bolt looks worse than the Sonic.

GMs biggest problem is that their customers want CUVs, which are way harder to do as EVs. They need more battery, which drives costs up. I hope they will do a crossover EV eventually and maybe they should have made it more CUVish from the beginning, with dual motor AWD, but car development takes a lot of time, especially if there is no existing platform, so they had the wrong idea early on and sadly stuck with it. If they hadn't sold Opel, the Bolt could have been a big hit in Europe, too.

Sadly the Bolt is the wrong car, at the wrong time, with the wrong company. Other than that it's pretty well engineered IMO.

 

[SageBrush]

Sadly the Bolt is the wrong car, at the wrong time, with the wrong company.

You forgot not advertised. That is the line the GM fans love. Of course the fact that Tesla succeeds without paid advertising somehow escapes their attention.

I expected the Bolt to do VERY well in Europe because it is a hatch, smaller cars are accepted, and CCS has a much better network. Obviously GM did not think so although I don't know for sure why. It must come down to money and suggests that the Bolt is too expensive to sell profitably.

 

[R.S]

You forgot not advertised. That is the line the GM fans love. Of course the fact that Tesla succeeds without paid advertising somehow escapes their attention.

I expected the Bolt to do VERY well in Europe because it is a hatch, smaller cars are accepted, and CCS has a much better network. Obviously GM did not think so although I don't know for sure why. It must come down to money and suggests that the Bolt is too expensive to sell profitably.

No there are ads for the Bolt, here's one


I think they just saw Opel loosing money year after year, with no idea how to pull them towards profitability. A lot of that is GMs fault, but once the decision was made to sell Opel, GM killed all of the Bolts EU potential. They won't be able to sell it without PSA buying it from them and that will only be as long as PSA doesn't have it's own EV platform. So since setting up production capacity for maybe 2-3 years tops, just isn't an option, they can only sell "leftovers" (overcapacity) from the US market and that won't change.

The biggest hope for the Bolt would be a Buick sibling in China, now.

 

[McRat]

You forgot not advertised. That is the line the GM fans love. Of course the fact that Tesla succeeds without paid advertising somehow escapes their attention.

I expected the Bolt to do VERY well in Europe because it is a hatch, smaller cars are accepted, and CCS has a much better network. Obviously GM did not think so although I don't know for sure why. It must come down to money and suggests that the Bolt is too expensive to sell profitably.

I'm constantly bombarded by Volt and Bolt ads. Advertising today is focused. You are in a Low EV State, where folk don't buy many EVs.

Euro tariffs make American cars extremely unattractive. The only cars I know that Chevrolet still sells in Europe are Corvettes and Camaros at Cadillac dealers. These are bought by the wealthy. Even the attractively price Euro CTS-V is $30,000 USD over it's US cousin.

So pretty much GM is out of Europe. The protectionist market is a loser. Opel lost billions trying to compete in a rigged race.

 

[SageBrush]

No there are ads for the Bolt

Let me rephrase: not enough advertising.

Don't take me too seriously. I'm just poking a little fun at the parade of excuses when rather mundane facts like outsourcing a low volume EV and no investment in a charging infrastructure stare everybody in the face.

 

[R.S]

Let me rephrase: not enough advertising.

Don't take me too seriously. I'm just poking a little fun at the parade of excuses when rather mundane facts like outsourcing a low volume EV and no investment in a charging infrastructure stare everybody in the face.

I agree on the infrastructure, but outsourcing?

Most value in any car today is added by suppliers. Thats business as usual and for a good reason. Tesla gets their cells from Panasonic, instead of building their own ones, for a reason. The same goes for the AP computer by NVIDIA. Both are very expensive parts of their vehicles, but a supplier can do it better. The same goes for many petrol cars out there and they do fine. ECU, Turbo and fuel injectors from Bosch, gearbox and steering system from ZF? Now you have a VW Golf/Jetta drivetrain and they sell like hotcakes.

Now there are parts of manufacturing a company wants to keep and a even broader part where they want to do the development, but I am not sure if the electric motor, an often used example in discussions like this, is necessarily part of it. All electric (XX torque and XX hp) motors behave the same to the consumer and the consumer has no direct interaction with them. Setting some specks like torque, hp, efficiency and NHV should be enough here. And if a supplier can do it cheaper, or better, go for the supplier. There is very little differentiation to be had. No one would care if a Mercedes electric motor would be the same one as in a Ford, the same goes for the reduction gear.

The real mistakes GM made was building a subcompact hatchback in America, not giving it AWD and not investing in a charging infrastructure. Those were dumb moves. Not "outsourcing" and "too little advertising".

 

[SageBrush]

I agree on the infrastructure, but outsourcing?

Hasn't Elon said that the Model 3 pricing is only possible in conjunction with the Gigafactory ?
Who else makes Tesla grade AC induction motors and related software ?
Does out-sourcing today allow economies of scale ?
Does out-sourcing today allow rapid R&D ? The Bolt as an EV is an example of a car that looked great on paper two years ago but has been eclipsed within months of reaching the market. And to make matters worse it will be pretty static until the next generation.

EVs are computers on wheels; ICE are blenders. The corporate methods to maximize profits for blenders just do not apply very well.

 

[R.S]

Hasn't Elon said that the Model 3 pricing is only possible in conjunction with the Gigafactory ?
Who else makes Tesla grade AC induction motors and related software ?
Does out-sourcing today allow economies of scale ?
Does out-sourcing today allow rapid R&D ? The Bolt as an EV is an example of a car that looked great on paper two years ago but has been eclipsed within months of reaching the market. And to make matters worse it will be pretty static until the next generation.

EVs are computers on wheels; ICE are blenders. The corporate methods to maximize profits for blenders just do not apply very well.

GF cells are Panasonic cells and yes to the rest. Siemens and Bosch would happily sell you induction Morors with Tesla grade quality.

And blenders are made w/o suppliers, the iPhone is totally made by suppliers. So yea, the methods for blenders won't work with EVs. They are way too complicated to do any mundane step along the way.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree on the infrastructure, but outsourcing?

Most value in any car today is added by suppliers. Thats business as usual and for a good reason. Tesla gets their cells from Panasonic, instead of building their own ones, for a reason. The same goes for the AP computer by NVIDIA. Both are very expensive parts of their vehicles, but a supplier can do it better. The same goes for many petrol cars out there and they do fine. ECU, Turbo and fuel injectors from Bosch, gearbox and steering system from ZF? Now you have a VW Golf/Jetta drivetrain and they sell like hotcakes.

Now there are parts of manufacturing a company wants to keep and a even broader part where they want to do the development, but I am not sure if the electric motor, an often used example in discussions like this, is necessarily part of it. All electric (XX torque and XX hp) motors behave the same to the consumer and the consumer has no direct interaction with them. Setting some specks like torque, hp, efficiency and NHV should be enough here. And if a supplier can do it cheaper, or better, go for the supplier. There is very little differentiation to be had. No one would care if a Mercedes electric motor would be the same one as in a Ford, the same goes for the reduction gear.

The real mistakes GM made was building a subcompact hatchback in America, not giving it AWD and not investing in a charging infrastructure. Those were dumb moves. Not "outsourcing" and "too little advertising".

Automakers outsource a lot of parts, but they have core parts that they build themselves, like their engine blocks. Also the Model 3 cells are going to be built as a joint venture.

 

[gregd]

My expectation is that the Model 3 base will beat the Bolt EV's range, even by just a few miles. The reason is not one of ego; it's the emotional aspect of purchase decisions. Even though in practice a vehicle's range is a very complicated thing, purchase decisions often come down to comparing over-simplified numbers. A car with 240 mile range is better than one with 238. Totally illogical, yet totally understandable.

Same reason for making knobs go from 1 to 11 instead of 1-10. Remember the transistor-count wars of a generation (or two) ago, and tube count before that? Everyone wants "more" for their money. This is mass-market stuff, not physics and engineering.