Tesla BEV Competition Developments

[SwTslaGrl]

https://www.trucks.com/2017/10/06/byd-expands-electric-bus-factory/
"The factory is nearly tripling its size, expanding from 150,000 to 440,000 square feet. An additional 700 workers will support production of as many as 1,500 battery-electric buses annually, a tenfold increase in output from when it first began building e-buses there in 2013."

 

[wdolson]

So much engineering effort; so much innovation; and still essentially nothing to show for it. I was really looking forward to hearing how successful the Bolt was going to be, partly due to supposedly being sold on a nationwide basis. But... meh.

I very much appreciate the list you supplied, as it gives me the data to change my opinion from this -- GM hasn't made any real effort -- to this -- GM appears to keep (re-)laying the foundation for a future that it is never willing to embrace.

Thanks,
Alan

About a month ago Doug DeMuro reviewed the Bolt:

Considering his love of super cars, he thought favorably of the Bolt overall, but at the end he summed up why the Bolt is not more popular than it is and pointed to the logo on the nose.

GM may be innovating, but few think of them as an innovative company. The ignition switch scandal stuck in people's minds more than the Volt and Bolt because the shenanigans around the ignition switch problem are more in line with what people expect from GM. That confirmed the meme while cars like the Volt and Bolt go against the meme.

I had a Buick I kept for 24 years. My family bought GM cars from 1929 to the late 90s and the worst car we had was a 1974 Caprice and that lasted 12 years before it began to have problems. My sister, my father, and I all had GM cars 1 year apart in age and all lasted a long time. My father's 1983 Oldmobile is still on the road last he saw. He sold it to someone in the same small town and said he used to see it from time to time, though he's been in assisted living the last year and doesn't get out like he used to.

Despite having a Buick in the garage that outlasted her Subaru, my SO still thinks GM cars are junk. When I point out the track record of myself and my family, she responds "you got lucky". Some people did have bad luck with GM cars. Their quality has varied and my family doesn't drive GM cars anymore, everyone but me switched to Fords around 2000, but GM is capable of quality. The public meme is that GM is an average quality car for the masses and nothing else.

I did find the seats in the Bolt horrible and wouldn't buy one because of that, but I thought the Bolt had some innovations Tesla missed but I would never buy one. In part because the Bolt is too small. I would prefer something at least mid-sized. But I expect the Bolt's resale value is not going to hold up like the Model S, even if it does prove to be a decent car over the long term. Resale value is driven a fair bit by reputation and GM's is not as good as Tesla's.

Overall, I agree with Doug DeMuro, GM has a decent contender in the Bolt, but their biggest drawback in the Chevy logo on the nose. If GM wanted to get serious about EVs, they should start a new division like they did with the Saturn line.

 

[Pollux]

Huh. @McRat, I'm not sure I'm ready to go spread the news that GM is a leader in the EV revolution/evolution. But I do acknowledge the points you've just made and will keep them in mind. Your point about the Volt as a "Commuter EV" puts me in mind of a friend of mine with a Volt who calculates that he has achieved a bit over 99% all-electric driving. Volt is also the car I point to when people don't want or can't afford a Tesla.

So... I'll try to keep a more open mind about GM and EVs.

Thanks,
Alan

 

[McRat]

...
GM may be innovating, but few think of them as an innovative company. ...

It certainly depends. Why do you think you personally cannot drive a Corvette Z06 at it's limits? Trust me, it's not the car, it's exceptionally well-behaved even with a rookie at the controls. It has a better electronic warfare suite than anything this side of F1. Ditto for ATS/CTS/Camaro lineup. They were designed as user friendly, user fun, and highly competitive against cars that cost far more. If winning is something you like, without dying in the process, they are a good choice.

However, that's not what your essay is about.

You focus on image. Yes, that is the most crucial automotive aspect to many people. They will drive a CLA just to avoid being kicked out of the 'cool-kid-club'.

Out of the entire GM lineup, no other cars attract foreign car 'cool-kid-club' buyers more than the Volt and Bolt, but I must admit, that's seat-of-the-pants stats by me from reading enthusiast sites.

Not even the Corvette attracts foreign car fashion buyers. It might be more fun to drive, faster, better manners, and even better MPG, but without the right badge, it simply won't work for them. They aren't buying a car, they are buying a Rolex. They don't even care if the hands don't move, because that's not important.

Personally, a CLA would never even approach the fringes of my radar. If given a Rolex, I would keep it, but only because it's really tacky to return gifts IMO. But I would not wear it. I'm not into jewelry. I think I have a $2500? goose gun, and a $500? ink pen, and a $700? bottle of Tequila, probably more $$$ now. They are gifts that sit collecting dust. What do you use them for? I'll take one of my Remingtons or Mossbergs and a good mechanical pencil when I need to use those items.

 

[wdolson]

It certainly depends. Why do you think you personally cannot drive a Corvette Z06 at it's limits? Trust me, it's not the car, it's exceptionally well-behaved even with a rookie at the controls. It has a better electronic warfare suite than anything this side of F1. Ditto for ATS/CTS/Camaro lineup. They were designed as user friendly, user fun, and highly competitive against cars that cost far more. If winning is something you like, without dying in the process, they are a good choice.

However, that's not what your essay is about.

You focus on image. Yes, that is the most crucial automotive aspect to many people. They will drive a CLA just to avoid being kicked out of the 'cool-kid-club'.

Out of the entire GM lineup, no other cars attract foreign car 'cool-kid-club' buyers more than the Volt and Bolt, but I must admit, that's seat-of-the-pants stats by me from reading enthusiast sites.

Not even the Corvette attracts foreign car fashion buyers. It might be more fun to drive, faster, better manners, and even better MPG, but without the right badge, it simply won't work for them. They aren't buying a car, they are buying a Rolex. They don't even care if the hands don't move, because that's not important.

Personally, a CLA would never even approach the fringes of my radar. If given a Rolex, I would keep it, but only because it's really tacky to return gifts IMO. But I would not wear it. I'm not into jewelry. I think I have a $2500? goose gun, and a $500? ink pen, and a $700? bottle of Tequila, probably more $$$ now. They are gifts that sit collecting dust. What do you use them for? I'll take one of my Remingtons or Mossbergs and a good mechanical pencil when I need to use those items.

The Corvette sells well in the US because it's an American icon. The modern Corvette has up to date tech, which is for the car magazine writers. The buyers are mostly buying them because of the history of the car. The Corvette has been the American sports car that was in the same performance range as the top names from Europe for decades. They sell some overseas, but it's kind of a novelty.

Outside the US Corvette can't compete for prestige with brands like Porsche. Even if an argument could be made that the Corvette is a better driving car. (I don't know one way or the other, I've been in Corvettes, but never drove one and I don't recall ever being in a Porsche.)

Most cars over about $80K, are bought to flash wealth. I grew up near San Marino, CA which is the richest town in the Los Angeles area. Lots of old wealth. Back in the 80s, lots and lots of Cadillacs, but almost nothing more expensive. I'm sure now it's mostly Lexus and other sub-$100K luxury cars. Beverly Hills on the other hand was all expensive exotic cars because the neuvo riche wanted people to look at what they were driving.

The Tesla Model S has drawn in a lot of people who would never drive a $100K car otherwise. I wouldn't. I was looking in the $40K range when I started shopping.

I don't want people to look at me or be seen. Sports cars have the "look at me" aspect to them. It's a turn off for me, even if I might enjoy driving the car.

I wear an ancient Seiko watch I bought new for $28 on year end close out back around 1990. It's a good quality watch that has given me excellent service, even if it does look like a dinosaur from the 80s (it's digital). I would never wear a Rolex because it is too much of a "look at me watch". If I think it's worth it, I buy quality that's going to last, but I don't want others to notice. I like the styling of the Model S because most people don't know what it is unless they know Tesla. It looks just like most other large, modern sedans.

In the $30K-$40K EV market, I expect some people are still buying Leafs or other EVs over the Bolt because they can't bring themselves to buy a lowly Chevy. Especially one that costs nearly $40K before tax incentives. Julian Cox pointed out the Bolt was essentially a $20K Chevy Sonic with an $18K drive train. Even though other EVs are more expensive too, that's the way people see GM EVs. GM probably would have been better off to introduce the Bolt through Buick or Cadillac at around the same price point.

 

[McRat]

The Corvette sells well in the US because it's an American icon. The modern Corvette has up to date tech, which is for the car magazine writers. The buyers are mostly buying them because of the history of the car. The Corvette has been the American sports car that was in the same performance range as the top names from Europe for decades. They sell some overseas, but it's kind of a novelty.

Outside the US Corvette can't compete for prestige with brands like Porsche. Even if an argument could be made that the Corvette is a better driving car. (I don't know one way or the other, I've been in Corvettes, but never drove one and I don't recall ever being in a Porsche.)

...

Off-Topic

Starting in 1997, Chevrolet declared war on the old school sports cars but only after firing a warning shot across their bow, the 1990-1995 C4 ZR1. For many years it held it the record for miles covered in 24hrs, ([email protected] average mph for 4,221.256 mi, World Record). This pissed off the Euro old guard and made them up their game. Europe ramped up their power and dropped weight, and raised prices in anticipation of the C5 Corvette that was coming soon.

But they brought a knife to a gunfight. The LS1 Corvette just pissed in their punchbowl. They best they could come up with, was "it uses American Plastic for the interior instead of German or Italian plastic!". They were hoping '97 C5 was a Halo Car, a One-Trick-Pony.

Unfortunately for them, the 1997 retail LS1 Corvette was just the test car. Next came the Z06 FRC variant. And it's been Corvette ever since. The Corvette has been untouchable in it's price range for 20+ years now. To hang with the Crossed Flags, you need to bring about $250,000 or more to the table. Ford has upped the ante this year to ‎$453,750 to produce a Vette Killer. It has beat a Vette endurance racing this year.

So perhaps modern Vette buyers are Walmart shoppers. Why spend $250,000 when you can get a better sports car for $65k?
Even the $125k C6 ZR1 was a bargain when compared to what it brought to the table. A serious threat to any OEM car on the track, regardless of price. And oh so sweet to drive. A real driver's car that goes over 200 mph but is never scary.

And the Vette is getting a WHOLE lot faster very soon.

The LS1 C5 Vette on my first outing with one (not the Z06):

But that was last century.

What does a discount Chevy kid's car (Camaro) do as sold?

7m16.04s at the 'Ring. This is faster than most Ferraris, Lambos, and Porches on one of the world's most grueling tracks. But it's a 4 seater that sells for chump change.

 

[RobStark]

In the $30K-$40K EV market, I expect some people are still buying Leafs or other EVs over the Bolt because they can't bring themselves to buy a lowly Chevy. Especially one that costs nearly $40K before tax incentives. Julian Cox pointed out the Bolt was essentially a $20K Chevy Sonic with an $18K drive train. Even though other EVs are more expensive too, that's the way people see GM EVs. GM probably would have been better off to introduce the Bolt through Buick or Cadillac at around the same price point.

So they are going to buy a prestigious Nissan that is essentially an $18k Nissan Versa Note SR with a $12k powertrain?

BTW I wear a Rolex Submariner LV I purchased about a decade ago for $7k. Nobody notices it other than other mechanical watch nerds and the occasional salesperson.

 

[RobStark]

Wall Street warms to Detroit's EV vision

At least the first two of the 20 new vehicles will be based on the current Chevrolet Bolt EV, while future ones will feature an "all-new battery system" and architecture, GM said. The first two vehicles are expected to launch in the next 18 months.

GM declined to provide specifics about the next-generation propulsion system or what vehicles it will electrify. However, it previewed three clay models of vehicles designed for the propulsion system: a Buick crossover, a Cadillac wagon and a pod-looking vehicle with "Bolt EV" badging. Their underlying architecture can accommodate two different heights of cells for the battery pack.

 

[wdolson]

So they are going to buy a prestigious Nissan that is essentially an $18k Nissan Versa Note SR with a $12k powertrain?

BTW I wear a Rolex Submariner LV I purchased about a decade ago for $7k. Nobody notices it other than other mechanical watch nerds and the occasional salesperson.

Look at the resale values of the Leaf, they are about the same as the Versa Note. At least that's the case here in the US.

 

[RobStark]

Look at the resale values of the Leaf, they are about the same as the Versa Note. At least that's the case here in the US.

And the point is what (if we assume LEAF residual values are as good as Versa Note)?

That makes the LEAF prestigious?

That LEAF resale value will be superior to the unestablished resale values of the Bolt?

Nissan scrapes the bottom of the barrel and doesn't have the same resale value as Honda or Toyota.

 

[RobStark]

General Motors establishing new military defense division

GM's Silent Utility Rover Universal Superstructure is fuel cell-powered.

DETROIT — General Motors plans to establish a new defense industry unit as it seeks to grow its business with the U.S. military, Automotive News has learned.

The company said last week it is holding talks with the U.S. Army about adopting the company's new hydrogen fuel cell platform for military use, and has other defense projects in the works.

 

[wdolson]

And the point is what (if we assume LEAF residual values are as good as Versa Note)?

That makes the LEAF prestigious?

That LEAF resale value will be superior to the unestablished resale values of the Bolt?

Nissan scrapes the bottom of the barrel and doesn't have the same resale value as Honda or Toyota.

It says new car buyers are willing to pay a premium for the Leaf, but used car buyers are only willing to pay about what a Vera Note goes for. I think this is an indication of how the tax credit is actually working as an incentive to get people to fork over more money for the Leaf. When the Leaf's tax credit is gone, it's resale value is poor. Some of that might also be the bad reputation the early Leafs got for bad degradation of the battery.

We don't know what the resale value of the Bolt will be. It hasn't been around long enough to develop much of a 2nd hand market. Tesla's hold their value very well compared to other cars in the same price range and other EVs.

The Bolt might hold its value better because it does have enough range to be reasonable for road trips, though the charging network is a bit thin in places, though that will improve at least some over the next few years.

 

[jbcarioca]

. .. If GM wanted to get serious about EVs, they should start a new division like they did with the Saturn line.

If we want to be fair about this we must accept that GM has been capable of serious innovation since at least the 1940’s, and parts of GM were serious innovations earlier from the electric starter to captive auto finance. Some innovations have been technically amazing for their time such as large car Front Wheel Drive, flexible driveshaft, variable capacity engines. Some of them did not last long, others became industry standard but GM has always innovated, including with the Saturn scratch resistant body panels and Saturn initial no-haggle policies.

With the Bolt we all know the LG parts work properly. We also know GM distribution and marketing do not handle innovation very well, and that GM still designs-by-Committee. If the Bolt were designed and distributed by somebody else the car would have a better chance.

So, describing the problem as the “bow tie” probably is fair.

 

[JRP3]

The company said last week it is holding talks with the U.S. Army about adopting the company's new hydrogen fuel cell platform for military use, and has other defense projects in the works.

Because high pressure hydrogen is ideal for battle conditions

 

[jbcarioca]

...
Personally, a CLA would never even approach the fringes of my radar...

On this we agree, as anybody who actually drives one would know. The CLA is the present-day equivalent of the former A Class. MB has always, since the 1950's at least, had seriously cheap cars available. Long ago they probably were better than most other choices, but today most econoboxes really are decent cars, and a badge on a cheap car still has a lousy value proposition. The Cadillac Cimarron was one of those too.

Sure, but the Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt and a number of others not sold in NA are pretty good cars. They all suffer from poor marketing and, especially the Bolt, from lack of serious commitment to train dealers, salespeople and potential customers. In my view, the Fast DC charging 'options' on cheaper versions are examples of that myopia. Nissan apparently has learned, not so GM, so far at least.

The Germans are notable in that they've all understood the charging infrastructure dilemma from the outset and are busily building infrastructure prior to the onslaught of new BEV's. The Chinese are doing that too, but they started sooner and are ramping up faster. Where are GM, Ford and FCA?

 

[ZsoZso]

Because high pressure hydrogen is ideal for battle conditions

Thats probably the only application that makes sense, especially when combined with self-driving tech.
You send the vehicle to enemy territory, then self-destruct !

 

[RobStark]

It says new car buyers are willing to pay a premium for the Leaf, but used car buyers are only willing to pay about what a Vera Note goes for. I think this is an indication of how the tax credit is actually working as an incentive to get people to fork over more money for the Leaf. When the Leaf's tax credit is gone, it's resale value is poor. Some of that might also be the bad reputation the early Leafs got for bad degradation of the battery.

We don't know what the resale value of the Bolt will be. It hasn't been around long enough to develop much of a 2nd hand market. Tesla's hold their value very well compared to other cars in the same price range and other EVs.

The Bolt might hold its value better because it does have enough range to be reasonable for road trips, though the charging network is a bit thin in places, though that will improve at least some over the next few years.

In other words there is no reason to suggest people in the Sub $40k BEV class will keep buying the LEAF over the Bolt because the Bolt is a "lowly Chevy."

 

[wdolson]

If we want to be fair about this we must accept that GM has been capable of serious innovation since at least the 1940’s, and parts of GM were serious innovations earlier from the electric starter to captive auto finance. Some innovations have been technically amazing for their time such as large car Front Wheel Drive, flexible driveshaft, variable capacity engines. Some of them did not last long, others became industry standard but GM has always innovated, including with the Saturn scratch resistant body panels and Saturn initial no-haggle policies.

With the Bolt we all know the LG parts work properly. We also know GM distribution and marketing do not handle innovation very well, and that GM still designs-by-Committee. If the Bolt were designed and distributed by somebody else the car would have a better chance.

So, describing the problem as the “bow tie” probably is fair.

I hadn't thought of it quite this way, but you are right. GM has had a number new technologies over the years. Some caught on and some didn't. I believe they were also the first company to produce production cars with airbags. The V-8 engines that could shut off cylinders were introduced on Cadillacs in the 90s, but the technology languished until recently.

I believe GM was the first or among the first to offer seat belts as an option in the 60s. I remember my father talking about seat belts being an option when he bought one of his Chevys. He always sought out the cars with the most advanced safety features. He has moderate OCD and he's always been paranoid about safety.

In other words there is no reason to suggest people in the Sub $40k BEV class will keep buying the LEAF over the Bolt because the Bolt is a "lowly Chevy."

Lots of Americans think American cars are junk and Japanese cars are much better. This is more true about well educated people in the coastal blue states. I hear it all the time from my SO who otherwise is very fair about everything. She's a lawyer and everything in the legal world she knows thinks she would make an excellent judge. She could hear a case with someone accused of raping a child who has been convicted in the media already and give a fair decision based on the facts presented in court. However she is convinced cars from the Big 3 are universally junk and Japanese cars are almost always superior in quality.

She's an extreme case, but I know a lot of people who think the only American designed car of any quality is Tesla. The eco buyer market who have been the majority of non-Tesla EV purchasers to date, there is a big overlap with this population.

 

[Saghost]

I hadn't thought of it quite this way, but you are right. GM has had a number new technologies over the years. Some caught on and some didn't. I believe they were also the first company to produce production cars with airbags. The V-8 engines that could shut off cylinders were introduced on Cadillacs in the 90s, but the technology languished until recently.

the '90s? Try 1981:

Matt Garrett - Cadillac V8-6-4 Home Page

But your basic point is valid - GM does a lot of innovating, much of which never reaches consumers, and much of the innovation that does fizzles into short production runs or doesn't really catch on until much later. Corvair, Fiero, HCCI, ElectroVan...

 

[RobStark]

Lots of Americans think American cars are junk and Japanese cars are much better. This is more true about well educated people in the coastal blue states.

These are my people.

They buy Toyota,Lexus, and Honda.

But for some reason not Acura.

And more recently Subaru. Despite repeated reports of excessive oil consumption.

But not Nissan,Infiniti,Mitsubishi nor Mazda.

Nissan sells on price. At rock bottom prices.

Not on perceived superior quality nor at a price premium like Toyota,Lexus and Honda.

The halo of Japanese superior quality did not save Suzuki,Daihatsu nor Isuzu from being driven from the American market. Mitsubishi was not far behind before being rescued by Nissan.

And Nissan was saved from bankruptcy not too long ago by Renault. If Nissan had fat profits in the USA like Toyota and Honda it would not have needed a rescue.