What will Model 3 do to Chevy Bolt sales?

[MP3Mike]

What good is having $35,000.00 car that you can’t product. Let assume that the mark-up on all Tesla’s S, X, or 3 is the same. You are charged with setting production rates. The mark-up on each car being 30% and you have limited production. Your going to build 100,000 3’s at the cost how many “S” and “X” cars. How long do you think you would remain in business?

You are assuming that the Model 3 will use the same production line as the S and X, which is highly unlikely. It will be built on a different chassis, and likely have it's own line(s). So producing Model 3s won't reduce the number of Model S/Model X cars that Tesla can make. You are also assuming that people will buy the $35k base. Which is unlikely, they will probably add lots of nice high margin options. (Not to mention that Tesla tends to produce all of the highly optioned cars first, so they won't start making the stripped base versions right away.)

Tesla has made it clear that they have lots of room for production. For example their paint shop can handle 10,000 cars a week. (And they are talking about getting up to 1,000 Model Xs per week in the next quarter.)

 

[RDoc]

Tesla has similar sales costs (they still have sales centers and salesmen). I highly doubt that is going to be much of a cost differential at all.
After being in the new Volt today, I wouldn't be sure that the Bolt will be cheaply made. The new Volt feels like a luxury car, I was seriously impressed.

What's different is that Tesla doesn't have dealerships with separate owners who need to make a profit to pay themselves. The money that normally would go the the owners goes back to Tesla itself.

 

[thx1139]

We have 2 Volts and have never been unhappy with the ride. As for seats havent been unhappy with them either. We did opt for the more expensive leather seats. Yes they are manually adjustable, but I believe that was done to save on energy. After having the Volts we said no gas only car every again. As for ride we have had a Lexus IS300, BMW 5 series and the Volt was a nicer car to drive. Maybe not the luxury of the BMW, but quieter smoother ride and far better controls. The BMW iDrive controller was a joke. It was knicknamed "Honey you control the radio while iDrive".

 

[postpast]

I just went to the Toronto Auto Show and I don't think that that either the Bolt or the Model 3 have to worry about taking market share from each other. A couple of points that stood out to me:

1. We here are auto enthusiasts and greatly overestimate the knowledge of average consumers. Tesla is appealing based on brand more than anything else. The Tesla display had good crowds around it and most of the people were really excited in the brand. Most of those same people were also very uninformed about any specifics (I hear people mention range from between 200km's to 800km's). The Tesla salespeople should also tone down the rhetoric, as they were saying a lot of false things that had me and some other peoples ears up. People wanted a Tesla regardless of any facts or specs, in a true testament to the power of branding.

2. People are very brand centric when it comes to autos; 10 minutes around a car like the CTS-V and you would have an equal amount of people come by and talk about it being the fastest sedan in the world as people dismissing the thought of a 100 grand Cadillac as ridiculous.

3. The Bolt and Volt are set the sell as regular products; If the Bolt as shown was on the regular floor, it would have have fit in with a price tag of 25-30 thousand. It isn't a "weird-mobile" and fits Gm price and product range well. The Volt was displayed as a normal car and the people from GM were selling the regular features as much as the electric drive-train.

4. GM is pushing the Bolt and Volt; There were as many Volts present as Silverado's, even though Volt sales and profit is a fraction of that of trucks. The Bolt was GM's main display and the only car on a rotating presentation area. Within a minute of looking at the Bolt there was a GM person there to tell me about it.

5. People buy largely based on brand; This was my largest take-away. Tesla has a very appealing brand and will get a lot of customers from that. A lot of people still like the GM brand and GM will be able to get enough of them to buy Bolts.

 

[Jopo43]

Tesla has a charging network
Chevy no
Tesla has the want to sell ev's - thats all they sell
Chevy no - but its a great way to get you into the stealership - look at this suv we make more than 50% profit buy this suv
Tesla will update the model 3 via internet
Chevy no - the answer will be buy this new years model
Tesla !!!!!!!

 

[McRat]

Rumor flash, Bolt to have 235 mi EV range.

How accurate the info is, who knows? It was from a GM engineer in an informal discussion with a Fast Lane auto journalist.

Could be. GMs can hit over 4 miles per kWh, assuming a 4 kWh buffer, 56kwh x 4 is still only 224, but perhaps efficiencies have been improved slightly.

- - - Updated - - -

Tesla has a charging network
Chevy no
Tesla has the want to sell ev's - thats all they sell
Chevy no - but its a great way to get you into the stealership - look at this suv we make more than 50% profit buy this suv
Tesla will update the model 3 via internet
Chevy no - the answer will be buy this new years model
Tesla !!!!!!!

Some things about how Americans drive (#1 market): We drive 13,500 miles a year. Assuming 2 weeks vacation, and driving 6 days a week, that's 45mi per day, or a 22.5mi combat radius. The range on low cost BEV's was not pulled out of a monkey's butt, it was a calculation. If we own an EV, we tend to also own an ICE car. GM's increase in the range of the Bolt was not based on logic, it was based on false perceptions by the public. We don't drive as far as we think we do.

 

[techmaven]

235 is definitely achievable, but not using the 5 cycle EPA testing in miles. The Bolt has 60 kWh, with something less useable. It is heavier than a Leaf and has poorer aerodynamics. The 30 kWh Leaf has 107 EPA mile range, so the Bolt should be significantly less than 214. Unless GM has a dramatically more efficient charger (unlikely), dramatically less buffer in the battery, or they game the rating (would not be reproducible outside of GM). Even then 235 would be a real stretch.

 

[McRat]

235 is definitely achievable, but not using the 5 cycle EPA testing in miles. The Bolt has 60 kWh, with something less useable. It is heavier than a Leaf and has poorer aerodynamics. The 30 kWh Leaf has 107 EPA mile range, so the Bolt should be significantly less than 214. Unless GM has a dramatically more efficient charger (unlikely), dramatically less buffer in the battery, or they game the rating (would not be reproducible outside of GM). Even then 235 would be a real stretch.

You can't use Leaf data for Chevrolets. Chevrolets are more efficient in miles per kWh. The Spark EV is 17kWh of usable battery with a combined EPA of 82 mi, or 4.8 miles of range for every 1 kWh of usable battery size.

The Bolt only has to hit 4.2 miles per 1 kWh of usable battery size to achieve 235 miles for 56 kWh of usable battery.

 

[Model 3]

GM's increase in the range of the Bolt was not based on logic, it was based on false perceptions by the public. We don't drive as far as we think we do.

Well, I am not an American, and I do drive as far as I think I do. Yes, I have hoped for the chance to replace the fossil car with an EV since the early 90'th, and I'm still waiting (TMS is to expensive for me). I have calculated the distances I drive and taken into account the effect of cold whether, snow, rain, headwinds etc, and the result is that I need a minimum of 200 miles EPA range. So no, the "200 miles barrier" is not mythical or "false perceptions" for me. 200 miles EPA range will still give me less then satisfactory buffer, so more is still preferable.

So to me this rumour is good news (if accurate) as I expect TM3 to have even more range then the Bolt. And if it does not (yet) have more range, I'm sure Tesla will do what's needed to make sure it will get it before release in 2017 :smile:

 

[McRat]

Well, I am not an American, and I do drive as far as I think I do. Yes, I have hoped for the chance to replace the fossil car with an EV since the early 90'th, and I'm still waiting (TMS is to expensive for me). I have calculated the distances I drive and taken into account the effect of cold whether, snow, rain, headwinds etc, and the result is that I need a minimum of 200 miles EPA range. So no, the "200 miles barrier" is not mythical or "false perceptions" for me. 200 miles EPA range will still give me less then satisfactory buffer, so more is still preferable.

So to me this rumour is good news (if accurate) as I expect TM3 to have even more range then the Bolt. And if it does not (yet) have more range, I'm sure Tesla will do what's needed to make sure it will get it before release in 2017 :smile:

It is not unusual for me to drive a 5,000+ mile round trip or 3,000 miles at 21,000lb combined weight. That doesn't make me a typical driver.

The average driver in Norway does 10,500 miles a year, or 3,000 miles less than American drivers.

 

[Model 3]

The average driver in Norway does 10,500 miles a year, or 3,000 miles less than American drivers.

Yes, I have had a lot of discussions about this "average" driving. Some short-distance-ev-fanboys use this to proclaim that "almost no one" needs more then a short range car. *shake my head in frustration*.

While I need 200+ miles EPA range, that does not say that I drive 200 miles every day. I don’t drive every day! So around 3 days a week my cars gets 0 miles/km. And the rest is - as now - distributed on two cars. So yes, each of my cars does about - or a bit over - this average. But I can't use car#1 to my destination and car#2 to get back Well, I my be not a typical driver, but there is a lot of families here that ether do only use their car in the working-week, or just in the weekends/holidays. Or just use a lot more (or less) mileage in the weekend/holidays then on working days.

So this "average" driving is a meaningless value to make any predictions on what range you need. And with the winters here in Norway you need much more "range" then the actual mileage you drive.

 

[tracksyde]

You can't use Leaf data for Chevrolets. Chevrolets are more efficient in miles per kWh. The Spark EV is 17kWh of usable battery with a combined EPA of 82 mi, or 4.8 miles of range for every 1 kWh of usable battery size.

The Bolt only has to hit 4.2 miles per 1 kWh of usable battery size to achieve 235 miles for 56 kWh of usable battery.

The issue with making any kind of range comparison/calculations compared to a Spark EV is the curb weight. The Spark EV has a curb weight of 2,866. The Nissan Leaf is 3,256-3,391. The Bolt may come in around somewhere closer to 3,600 pounds (2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV Specs Released: Battery Pack, Motor Power, And More)

 

[Jeff N]

235 is definitely achievable, but not using the 5 cycle EPA testing in miles. The Bolt has 60 kWh, with something less useable. It is heavier than a Leaf and has poorer aerodynamics. The 30 kWh Leaf has 107 EPA mile range, so the Bolt should be significantly less than 214. Unless GM has a dramatically more efficient charger (unlikely), dramatically less buffer in the battery, or they game the rating (would not be reproducible outside of GM). Even then 235 would be a real stretch.

I agree that 235 seems somewhat implausible as a combined city/highway EPA range estimate but 235 as the city range might be possible. The 30 kWh LEAF has an EPA city range of 116 and twice that would be 232.

 

[techmaven]

You can't use Leaf data for Chevrolets. Chevrolets are more efficient in miles per kWh. The Spark EV is 17kWh of usable battery with a combined EPA of 82 mi, or 4.8 miles of range for every 1 kWh of usable battery size.

The Bolt only has to hit 4.2 miles per 1 kWh of usable battery size to achieve 235 miles for 56 kWh of usable battery.

Wait so GM has their own physics? Wow. That's pretty nifty.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree that 235 seems somewhat implausible as a combined city/highway EPA range estimate but 235 as the city range might be possible. The 30 kWh LEAF has an EPA city range of 116 and twice that would be 232.

Yeah, that's how Kia trumped the Kia Soul EV with 124-140 miles of range:

Kia Soul EV Beats 132 Miles Range

Drive at low speeds, preferably with a skilled hyper-miler. EPA rating is 93 miles or range.

For the Bolt, Chevy needs to get 200 miles of UDDS range to get all the CARB credits it can get for this vehicle. That's why the 200 miles of range emphasis and they don't need to hit 200 miles of EPA range or 200 miles of real world range. The 60 kWh of battery capacity is impressive and looks like it has already taken the winds out of the sails for Nissan and BMW and probably the latter half of this year will be very tough for BEVs w/o that level of range.

 

[S3XY]

Some things about how Americans drive (#1 market): We drive 13,500 miles a year. Assuming 2 weeks vacation, and driving 6 days a week, that's 45mi per day, or a 22.5mi combat radius. The range on low cost BEV's was not pulled out of a monkey's butt, it was a calculation. If we own an EV, we tend to also own an ICE car. GM's increase in the range of the Bolt was not based on logic, it was based on false perceptions by the public. We don't drive as far as we think we do.

First of all, most Americans work 5 days a week and the other 2 days are for pleasure. It sure would be nice to be able to make a leisurely drive for a day trip to somewhere that is more than 100 miles away not having to worry about charging while you are away. Second, half of the country lives in cold climates where range is significantly reduced by cold weather. So I don't think there is anything wrong with our perceptions. We understand that work days do not require long range ability. But on the weekends (which is about one third of our lives) we just might care about range.

 

[Az_Rael]

I guess the only problem with "average" numbers is just that. They are averages. And the high and low outliers (retirees and super-commuters) can really skew the numbers. Also, I think a lot of people feel that buying a car to use "only" for commuting (being too scared of range anxiety to travel very far with it) is a pretty big luxury. Doesn't really matter actual driving distances, they will just know that several times a year they go visit Grandma in a small rural town and can't take the EV on that trip.

I am definitely NOT average. I have an 80 mile round trip commute. And that is if I don't go out for lunch or run any errands on the way home. So I am looking forward to finally being able to buy a BEV for my commute. And its pretty cool I now have two cars to choose from - the Bolt or the Model 3. (of course, the M3 is what I am going to pre-order )

 

[MiamiNole]

I think he was inferring that in an ideal case (the average "American"), for the most cost-efficiency, for those instances that you do need longer range you can then use an ICE engine/car. However, there are far more reasons than just simple cost-efficiency that one would want a Tesla with an extended range. The tons of people that have longer commutes or needs for longer range, not having to pay for the maintenance of an ICE, not having to use multiple vehicles, or simply the notion that Teslas are simply just cool cars to own and drive (hard to put a price on that).

 

[gregincal]

I think he was inferring that in an ideal case (the average "American"), for the most cost-efficiency, for those instances that you do need longer range you can then use an ICE engine/car. However, there are far more reasons than just simple cost-efficiency that one would want a Tesla with an extended range. The tons of people that have longer commutes or needs for longer range, not having to pay for the maintenance of an ICE, not having to use multiple vehicles, or simply the notion that Teslas are simply just cool cars to own and drive (hard to put a price on that).

Yeah, why would I want to use an ICE when I'm driving a longer distance. That would drive me nuts. When I most enjoy driving my Tesla is on weekend trips.

 

[cab]

One thing folks haven't mentioned much here is GM's ability to DISCOUNT and effectively subsidize the Bolt. The Volt JUST launched a few months back, and we were seeing immediate discounts of $2-$3k off sticker. The average "out the door" price of a Bolt could be substantially less than a Model III. What we will likely see is the same pattern we see today with cars like the i3 and Volt as compared to the Model S. People may "really want" the Model S, but can't quite afford or justify the delta over the Volt/i3...so they end up with the latter.

At a different tier, folks may "really want" the Model III, but if GM discounts the Bolt (as they undoubtedly will), and buyers "on the edge" financially look at both options, they may find themselves going for a Bolt that ends up costing $5k-$20k less before it is all said and done. Now, as Elon has said, for BMW 3 series buyers, this won't be as big of a deal since they are already willing to pony up that kind of coin. It is important to note that 70%+ of the BMWs roaming around are relatively low optioned 320 and 328is though, so "price" is actually important for a bunch of those buyers too.

Finally, the pattern above continues down the economic ladder...where someone might "really want" a Bolt, but settle for a highly discounted Leaf with lower range, etc.

 

[techmaven]

As long as Tesla can sell every Model 3 it makes and ends up production constrained anyways, it doesn't really matter of some point choose a lower priced Bolt, or that Chevy has to discount $2k or $5k to move the Bolt. Tesla still commands a premium so they make more money, the factory is running at the peak that they can run it at anyways, and we get more BEVs on the road.