I believe the balance of the year will be all about the MX and getting that out the door with a strong launch. My guess is that you will see the M3 reveal this time next year at the Detroit Auto Show.
O
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
I believe the balance of the year will be all about the MX and getting that out the door with a strong launch. My guess is that you will see the M3 reveal this time next year at the Detroit Auto Show.
O
I did post about this a while ago in this thread:
Chevy Bolt. 200 mile range for $30k base price - Page 2
I am convinced that this is just a compliance vehicle designed to be manufactured to garner just enough credits so GM does not need to buy them from companies like Tesla. These cars are very likely to be sold at a loss, just to get credits, so the vast GM assets churning out ICE cars are not stranded. There is no way they will be able to touch Tesla battery cost without a similar scale, i.e. gigafactory.
If there is a plan to produce more batteries than for about 20K Volts and about 16K of Bolts, they would surely mentioned it. The reason that they did not speaks volumes.
From my point of view this will not add much to the case for electric cars replacing ICE, because this car is from the get go designed for a different purpose: provide just enough ZEV credits, at a minimum loss to GM, so that they avoid financing R&D of the companies like Tesla.
Don't forget that according to the same WSJ article GM was hoping to sell 60K Volts per year, probably because this was the goal that would get them enough credits. This, obviously did not work so good, and even after the price cut their sales were not even near the set goal (18.8K last year). So they were forced to go back to the drawing board to come up with the Bolt. Once again this will allow GM to get ZEV credits they need, and more fully utilize their battery facility which is now underutilized.
Last edited:
I also see a dealer-based charging network as a mistake. Outside of the location issue, one thing you see with the Nissan chargers is wildly inconsistent policies: some dealers allow anyone to charge, some allow only Nissans to charge and some only allow you to charge if you bought the car from them. As they are independent businesses, I am not sure GM could dictate any kind of universal charger access policy.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Exactly. And for the GM dealers, GM can't even dictate a consistent marketing strategy for the Volt by the dealers (same with other manufacturers). Thinking GM can micromanage the charging policies of the various independent dealers (which so far none of the major automakers have been able to do) is being extremely optimistic.
The only way to get close is not only pay for the charger installation (as has been done by Nissan), but also to pay the ongoing costs of maintaining the charger (Nissan has not done so, so when chargers inevitably break you can pretty much forget about it being fixed in a timely manner). And at that point it would make sense to select a better site than a dealer (basically same idea as a supercharger).
I agree, to a point. To make this work, the network has to be centrally administered, paid for, and maintained. That's the only way of ensuring a uniform experience.
I tend to disagree about the location issue. I think there are probably (still) enough GM dealers (it wouldn't need to be only Chevrolet) to make them good locations for chargers, and I can see why dealers might want to drive foot traffic by having the Chargers on their property. And doing it through the dealer network is going to be a hell of a lot easier than individually siting all of the Chargers like Tesla is doing. You might not need zoning approval, e.g., and you certainly would have an easier time negotiating leases/subleases.
Having said all of that, it will surprise the hell out of me if we see GM do what I think they should. I suspect it's much more likely that we'll see a half-assed program like BMW and Nissan are doing.
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Sorry for being a bit late to the party.
My first thought: Elon is winning! The ultimate goal of Tesla is to accelerate the advent of electrical transportation by waking the competition and by leading the way.
Second thought: It will be a low volume car. Batteries from where?!?
Third: Pricing?!? $30-35 in 2017 is low. Does GM want to try and catch up a bit with Tesla so badly that they'll sell these at a loss just to stop Tesla a bit in their tracks? They'd hope to be able to catch up in the following years. I mean this announcement could signal that the board of GM, or at least people in leading positions, have finally understood that the future is BEV.
My first thought: Elon is winning! The ultimate goal of Tesla is to accelerate the advent of electrical transportation by waking the competition and by leading the way.
Second thought: It will be a low volume car. Batteries from where?!?
Third: Pricing?!? $30-35 in 2017 is low. Does GM want to try and catch up a bit with Tesla so badly that they'll sell these at a loss just to stop Tesla a bit in their tracks? They'd hope to be able to catch up in the following years. I mean this announcement could signal that the board of GM, or at least people in leading positions, have finally understood that the future is BEV.
While not for the same length, it certainly has been mine. Tesla has been good on issues, but my car has been in far more than any other car I've ever owned..
SmartElectric
Active Member
Not necessarily. I've seen Bjorn's video on the difference between Model S 60kwh and 85kwh battery packs, and the 60 charged for ~50kwh for most of the charge cycle, the initial was 70ish and then it dropped pretty quick.
Who knows how fast the low end Model 3 battery pack will charge? I've seen nothing concrete on that.
I agree...if they were smart (they're not) they'd both piggy back on the Tesla network and contribute to its expansion. Sales would be huge since buyers would have the confidence of of the existing network allowing long distance travel.
If Chevy can't answer the rapid charging question, even with a 200 mile range, sales will be limited to a local commuter status.
SmartElectric
Active Member
^^^This.
If GM manages to build this car, it's going to be a low volume compliance vehicle, that is sold in the CARB states. If by some miracle it does turn out to be desirable, with high demand, you can bet that your friendly local dealer will mark it up appropriately. People keep falling for the same tricks and marketing BS, over and over. The fact of the matter is; gasoline is half the cost it was a year ago, and people are buying gas hogs again(until next time/next bailout). Why would GM stray from a sure market? It's like being on welfare, there is no ambition, because it's a sure bet to continue on the same easy path.
I thought when Elon released the patents, he specified that other companies were welcome to use the SC network as long as they kept it free? Have I remembered this wrong?
If I'm right here, that seems to me a 'good' reason why other companies won't use it; there's no way to turn a profit. On the other hand they get an already up and running network, and they all make enough to contribute to the running costs without it influencing their cash flow that much, so...
The profit is supposed to come from the cars you sell that you couldn't sell without the network - and like Tesla, they could easily price it into the car's base price or make it an add on option.
Trev Page
Member
Just because it's close to Teslas $30K price target for Model 3 doesn't mean it will be same. Tesla is aiming to compete directly with the BMW 3 series luxury sedan. Bolt will surely be an econo car class. The only reason it will cost $30k is because most of the cost is still in the battery. Tesla's Gigafactory is all about getting the battery costs down to the point where they can put more into the car.
The biggest detriment though is without a prevalent high speed charging infrastructure it's not going to get any traction so game over. Superchargers at the moment is still Tesla territory and unless some of them pay into the programme it's worthless. It doesn't matter if Tesla gave away the patents for the technology , Tesla is still paying for the deployment and upkeep.
Plus it's a GM so the Bolt is going to be butt ugly
The biggest detriment though is without a prevalent high speed charging infrastructure it's not going to get any traction so game over. Superchargers at the moment is still Tesla territory and unless some of them pay into the programme it's worthless. It doesn't matter if Tesla gave away the patents for the technology , Tesla is still paying for the deployment and upkeep.
Plus it's a GM so the Bolt is going to be butt ugly
Last edited:
I believe he said he wanted them to "participate", which I would interpret as helping with the Supercharger rollout - i.e. deploying stations.
I'm not even talking about warranty repairs, though I've had as many of those as with any of my recent ICE cars. I'm just talking about maintenance. Tesla wants me to come in every year and spend $600 on an annual service. That's more than I spend on my Porsche, generally (in part because I don't have to take that to a dealer for maintenance).
The car itself has a variety of things you have to maintain. Brake fluid, brake pads, tires, cabin air filters, windshield wipers, 12V batteries, fob batteries, etc. And doesn't the battery coolant need to be changed at defined intervals?
My point is that everyone gets all excited about EVs like they are these machines that run on unicorn dust and have no wear and require no maintenance. But that just isn't true--they have to be maintained, and while they don't have engines they do have basically every other part in a modern car that can wear or break down. Plus traction batteries, which eventually will need to be replaced. So what don't I have to do to my Tesla? Change the oil, I guess. Big whoop--that's not that big a deal.
And in Tesla's case, ALL (or nearly all) of that work has to be done at the company service center, since Tesla doesn't wholesale parts.
So people who say the EV represents the death of the revenue stream from the dealer service department...well, let's just say that assumes facts not in evidence.
Jaff
Active Member
Also agree, dealership charge stations would be a huge mistake.
After dealerships are closed for the day, most of them are gated off for the security of their inventory...where are they going to put the charge stations for 24 hour accessibility?
After dealerships are closed for the day, most of them are gated off for the security of their inventory...where are they going to put the charge stations for 24 hour accessibility?
SmartElectric
Active Member
Yeah.
Mercedes / Smart instructs me to come in for $300 annual service, but since I bought outright, I am not included to do it, as the purchase agreement does not stipulate an exact schedule to maintain my warranty. Those leasing Smart ED's must do the service as part of their agreement.
The Mercedes GLK 350 my wife owns went through a recent $800 annual service, and they didn't fix any of the issues she cared about (couldn't reproduce). I vow to never by a gas car again...and will try to avoid dealerships as well...
But as you note, Tesla is not cheaper to maintain, but perhaps they will lower the maintenance costs as they get better at it, no way to know.
Similar threads
