Chevy Bolt to be put into production next year (2016)

I really wanted to sit in the tesla the other day at the Philly auto show, but that was a no go. They had it all locked up tight.

 

The bolt is based on the sonic, the leaf on the versa, electric motors really help add shine to these cars but surveys say people want a mid sized sedan. So no, versa and sonic sales do not detract from bmw 3 series sales at all. I think if gm and nissan both build 200 mile bevs it will help tesla sell the model 3. It will be 3 companies standing behind bev technology all helping to drive down costs and build awareness.

I'm not sure what this becaue musk says so stuff means. Nissan's, Toyota's, and Gm's predictions of their plug-in cars were far off. Tesla has actually delivered. I would expect that past predictive powers are also in play, meaning I trust Musks vision (mainly because it squares with market research now) than those at toyota, or nissan, or gm. At least Nissan and GM now agree that city cars are wrong for bevs, and they need range.
+1

No one else was even trying to build a 200 mile bev. Toyota thought the leaf range was too much and built the EQ with less than 50 miles. There was group think in asia that batteries were just for city cars. The EREV and long range bev look to be the winners, and as gm and nissan attempt longer range bevs it should help drive prices down for them and for tesla.

 

Wow I'm sure stock holders and owners are extremely pissed off at tesla.

What? Stock price is up how much since these failures? Owner satisfaction is higher than any other cars?

So step 1. Suppliers could not supply enough parts for all the cars tesla was selling. Profit margin is higher on the 60kwh and 80kwh cars. Every one that ordered a 40kwh car got a 60kwh car with software disabling extra range at a 40kwh, and none seem to be complaining. I don't call the failure, its being more sucessful and popular with more expensive cars than originally expected. That helps explain stock price exceeding any expectations, tesla has over delivered here, as they have with the 85d and P85d introduction of all wheel drive with more range on the first one, and more power on the second.

X is obvious and part of the plan for a long time to help pay for the S platform with a second vehicle. The most you can say is you think the model 3 (bluestar) is delayed. I think it might possibly be delayed but it hasn't been delayed yet. The model X got delayed for 1 year, but its awd system is now shipping in the model S 85kwh variants. The gen IV prius has been delayed over a year, and the prius phv only sold 30% as much as original projections, and toyota has done well compared to gm. What is your yardstick for performance.

Why would they pull a mirai. Its been a concept since 2012, and hyped past all get all. Why would their be a concept out years before you can buy one. That is typical old auto, and one problem with it.

Tesla is performing better than toyota, GM, Ford, VW, etc if you use any of the typical metrics for business or auto. It is still a long shot, and the first american car auto company to go public since ford in 1956. Big auto colludes against new companies, so its a tough road, still managment at tesla seems much better than the management at the competition, but they don't have the cash a company selling 10 million cars a year have.

The Bolt and longer range leaf are much more likely to get more americans into plug-ins, which will help tesla, than to kill a future model 3.

 

The S ending up more expensive isn't a poor reflection on Tesla. The 60kWh and 85kWh were in the price range they announced. Cancelling the 40 was a smart decision, because it was only 5% or so of preorders. Assembling a seperate 40kWh pack and getting it EPA certified may have meant them losing money on it. Early on, the 3 was suppose to follow the S, but less effort is involved with making a wagon/crossover/SUV of an existing platform than designing a whole new platform.

People want a midsize sedan, but that isn't what the BMW 3 series is; it's a compact just shy of midsize. A Tesla 3 should easily get into the midsize category by virtue of the frunk, but it won't be Camry size.

The Supercharger network isn't free. It's included in the 85kWh price, but is a $2000 option for the 60kWh model. I expect it to be an option on 3 trims that would be price competitive with the Bolt and Leaf.

 

Brian, you are taking Austin's comment out of context.
He was discussing sales numbers. As far as sales numbers go, Tesla has been far more accurate than GM, Nissan, or Toyota's PiP (what few predictions they made, were quite off).

As for the other stuff, you can spin it however you want, Tesla hit their price point on the Model S at launch. Yes, they canceled it shortly there after, however they did deliver cars at that price point to those few that ordered.

And no, I'm not saying Tesla has been successful in all their predictions, but they have hit closer to the target than anyone else so far. Remember the prediction by Lutz that the Volt would originally go on sale for "nicely under $30,000"?
That's right, companies state goals and sometimes they don't make it. I'd rather have them try than simply play it safe.

 

I liked Brian's input though ...we need to be , or at least I like, some give and take.
But I am not convinced yet that GM is going to beat Tesla with the Bolt on timing.
So we are saying maybe 2 years from now early 2017 some 200 mile Bolts are available for sale.

Is that real or hoped for?
Could there be ulterior motives for making an optimistic availability date? Could be many.
Could there be a rationale for selling Bolt cheaper than normal mark-up? Could be.
I am waiting for some neutral assessment if GM is leveling with us.

I gotta think the $30k is after tax credits.

 

It is, that was clarified later.
The Model 3 price is predicted to be $35k without tax credits.

However, at this time nobody has a product for sale so a lot could change on either side.

I believe a GM first to market is a pretty safe bet.
However, with their stated production numbers, Tesla could quickly pass that even if they start later.
The deciding factor in ramp up time will be the battery factories.

 

The LG Chem battery plant in Holland, Michigan was originally designed with the room for 3-4x expansion of manufacturing capacity in the future when needed.

Here's a quote from a March 2010 story:

LG Chem To Set Up Michigan Battery Plant | TheDetroitBureau.com

 

If the bev has a 48KWH, then if they expand production they could make 50K volts, and 50K bolts at that factory. I'm sure both gm and lg would be thrilled at those levels, and it would certainly bring the economies of scale to get down to the rumored $275/kwh. LG can also build more factories in the US and export from korea if gm is even more sucessful.

The model 3 is shooting for higher volumes with lower priced cells and more expensive electronics shooting for $175/kwh. I hope they make it but it is more of a risk. I think they will at least get close in 2018. That would give tesla a $4800 cost advantage on a 48kwh pack. Tesla's internet sales model may provide lower selling costs than gm's dealership model. GM should be able to negotiate better parts contracts, but this might only save a tiny amount per car. GM's labor costs should be lower, but its hard to over come tesla's battery cost advantage. This is at a risk of the gigafactory working though.

A final factor going for Tesla is customers are really happy with tesla service. It includes car pick up, and over the air software improvements. When is the last time you heard anyone happy to go to the gm or nissan dealer for service.

I hope all three cars do well, but expectations are much higher on the model 3. GM and Nissan have a lot more money available for development, but are saddled with corporate cultures that make it hard to produce innovative cars. I applaud the leaf and volt as the best selling plug-in cars and 2 pioneers, but both teams drew inspiration from tesla.

 

Tesla's problem is that orders exceed production. GM's problem is that production capacity exceeds orders. It doesn't matter how fast you can build them when you can't sell them.

The market isn't efficient so there are pockets of inventory. Some members here bought their cars after they sat on the lots for months. A brand new Volt was brought to the attention of my EV club because it was a year old and now with a dealer in central PA. Barlow Chevy had a Corvette in inventory for a year.

GM beat Toyota to market with a plug in hybrid and then Toyota didn't try very hard to catch up. Can GM beat Tesla to market with a 200 mile EV for $30000-$35000? Maybe. Will there be many people standing in line to buy one? I doubt it.

The difference is Toyota could concede and not lose much. Tesla believes in building the best cars that just happen to be electric. GM will have a real fight on its hands. They can't compete on quality and they can't compete on service so their car is going to have to sell at a discount to Tesla's or be bought by those who want an EV but can't wait for Tesla to build one.

I'm happy to see that they are willing to try. Competition drives innovation.

 

Brian, the X is not delaying the Model 3 and did not replace it in the master plan.
The 3 is waiting on the Gigafactory, as you noted, for quantity sales.
The X is not delaying the GigaFactory in any way.

It is a variation on the S, AWD and a different body on the same foundation. Tesla is producing it because no one else is making an EV in that category and should give them a bump in sales while waiting on the Gigafactory.

I am more confident that Tesla will be here in 15 years, than GM won't go bankrupt (again).

And no, they didn't produce 40kWh packs, just software limited 60s.
How you can view this as a failure I have a tough time understanding.

Customers got a better car than they ordered for the price they ordered. If you consider that a failure, I hope they fail more often

 

He didn't back out. He gave the people that ordered the 40 a Better car than they ordered.
It has a longer battery life, better performance, and the ability to upgrade it to the next battery size through a simple software update. All for the price they originally agreed upon for the 40 kWh.

I hold Lutz's "nicely under $30k" comments against GM no more than Tesla's, or Toyota's stated goals that don't pan out.
Heck, I leased a Volt for heavens sake.
You are the one that seems to be giving GM the benifit of the doubt while bending over backwards to find fault with Tesla for the things customers and investors applaude them for.

 

Even if locked to using just 40kWh of the 60kWh pack, it is still an upgrade. More total pack means more braking energy can be recaptured and in crease the range per charge. It also means more energy can be delivered to the motor, and thus they get better acceleration than what they paid for. Then the smaller percentage of pack used means longer overall pack life.

A tiny number of people pre-ordered the 40kWh car. Too small of a number to justify making it. If Apple got the same response for an announced smaller battery iPhone or GM to the base base engine of a car model, they'd cancel the product too. Virtually every business would if making a proposed product ended up not having the demand to cover the investment for production. Except they'd just return the deposits of pre-orders with a sorry.

Tesla could have done the same, but chose to deliver 60kWh cars with a "hobbled" pack for the proposed price of the 40kWh model. In addition to the above benefits, those owners get longer range if they realize they need it without having to buy an entire new car for a fee. Yes $11k is steep for that, but it is less than difference between the 40 and 60, and if they never opt for it, that is how much Tesla lost to fulfill their pre-order, which they never had to do.

 

Brian, you are way out of line. As a publicly held corporation Tesla is required to publicly submit financial information. Either get the quarterly statements and filings from their website or the SEC. Tesla chooses not to participate in the monthly sales announcements. So what?

Are you equally upset at all the other companies that don't report monthly sales?

The GM that is making cars today dates back all the way to July 2009. It is NOT the company that drove itself straight into bankruptcy court.

Tesla was founded in 2003 and went public on June 29, 2010.

As far as I know Tesla delivers a vehicle built to conform to ever order it fills. Every Model S reservation was either refunded or converted into an order at the original price. The only whining I've encountered are from those who ordered before "upgrade day" so they didn't get the latest and greatest features and believe they are entitled to them.

If you really believe TSLA is overvalued then you should be selling it short or selling covered calls.

If a Model S owner wants a bigger pack there is at least the possibility they can buy one from Tesla. How many other cars can be upgraded? Is that number zero? A Roadster owner can upgrade their pack. Try getting a pack upgrade from Toyota or Honda for a car that's out of production.

 

Agreed, with a clarification for any third parties reading this.
There is no one I know of that, as Brian claims, states Musk is infallible, nor that Tesla doesn't make mistakes.
Those are common logical fallacies of exaggeration/straw man arguments.

As for the Bolt, I very much look forward to its introduction as early as late 2016 according to rumor.
More competition in this area is going to be good for consumers and an improvement on local pollution in our cities.

 

So, Musk wants a carbon tax, "people are pumping it into the atmosphere, and we're all paying": "It's like having the garbage pile in the street, and no one's paying for it."

Model X costs as much as Model S. Model 3 in 3 years? 2018?