Musk said that GM would sell a compliance rate number of Bolts and he was right on the number to with if memory serves less than 100 vehicles. His contention was that it wasn't a real entrant just a compliance gimmick. I finally saw one up close in a parking lot and in my opinion the styling is horrible to the point of pure econo-box. Its worse than a mini car- clownish like stubby little tennis shoes or something and I believe this was intentional. They hobbled this car on purpose. Interior is fine. Saw a black Volt the say prior in a parking lot and thought its styling in and out is fine, only the back could use a little improvement but front and profile are good. The difference between the two is that GM takes its seriously because its still dragging around an unneeded ICE engine. If you look what has happened with the Bolt against Model 3, the Model 3 is outselling it 9x last I looked could be 20x or 40x now. And this is with prices almost double in a lot of cases where the options drive the cost of the Model 3 up. I think we will see the cost of the Model 3 come down below 35k for some versions. Bolt better be priced at half that if it wants to stay in the market and even then I don't see it being taken up buy a lot of people. Its been shown that underhanded throwing of basket balls at the free throw line will possibly double the number of baskets by pro players but almost all refuse to do it, same here with the crippled looks of the Bolt- they made it look ridiculous on purpose. Can't want for Trump to get out, want an admin that will fine them massively for that kind of behavior or even seek prosecution- a compliance effort should lead to prosecution of executives and injuction- just my opinion. Not bailing this company out when it goes under again, hopefully Tesla going private will screw up its acquisition chances- GM going bankrupt in a big bon fire would help demarcate the transition to electrics.
All this is nice. The proof of the pudding is getting a 200+ mile range car, preferably a sedan (not a hatchback) for about $35,000 plus tax out of the door price. No one has it (bolt, leaf, i3 etc) are not mid size cars and are actually a little more than $35K. Tesla has no motivation to bring a $35K car if they can sell a higher priced car. Till someone actually comes out with a sedan around $35K with 200-250 mile range, Tesla is sitting pretty. If someone brings this out. Tesla may accelerate their movement into the 35K market. GM makes money on trucks, not on small cars and hence if they find legitimate competitor, they may change their tune, till they they have no motivation. If gas price goes up, may they will be motivated. Hence I see only incremental steps no, major move to a $35K model. The only one who may be willing to break this trend appears to be Hyundai.
No, Elon never called the Bolt EV a "California compliance car". He did say it was a "CARB credit play", and I think the evidence points to that being mostly -- but not entirely -- correct. He estimated Bolt EV production at being "on the order of" 20k-30k, and he was bang on the mark. The first year of Bolt EV production was a bit under 30k, as I recall. The 2nd year is supposed to have a 20% increase. See the InsideEVs news article "Elon Musk Talks Incentives, Explains Why Chevy Bolt Is CARB Credit Play" But to call a car which sells significantly more than 500 units a month a "compliance car" is stretching the term past any useful meaning, especially a car among the top 10 (currently it's #6) best-selling plug-in EVs in the USA! Shall we also label the Model S and Model X "compliance cars" because they're not made in large numbers? Shall we call every plug-in EV selling less than the Model 3 a "compliance car"? It wouldn't be any more silly! GM is selling the Bolt EV in Canada, in S. Korea and elsewhere, so it's very clearly not merely a compliance car. Trying to paste the "compliance car" label onto one of the best-selling plug-in EVs is nothing short of EV bashing, and also GM bashing.
Note I didn't claim that a certain amount of GM bashing is uncalled for. Just don't get carried away with it, as our resident forum eccentric does. "Everything in moderation, including moderation." -- Oscar Wilde
GM's relationship with pure BEV's does seem somewhat strange. My beefs with GM have been: The EV1 destruction, killing off Saturn (not an EV I know), the ignition switch fault scandal, and building the Bolt in far less quantity than they could be selling. I have no inside source so the following is conjecture on my part. The EV1s got destroyed because it takes a large pile of $$$ to create a new design and tool up to build it. GM didn't want anyone getting these vehicles for the purpose of backward engineering. Too bad they hadn't let the lease holders use the cars until they had a fatal breakdown. PR is not GM's strong point. I know Saturns weren't EVs but I had two of them and loved them. I still have my 1999 wagon. It now has over 260,000km on it and the only component failure under normal use was the clutch safety switch. At 42mpg (U.S. gallon) or 6.0L/100km it gets better gas mileage than many of today's hybrids. But Saturn was an outlier in need of a platform update which is wickedly expensive. I was heartbroken when the Springhill plant was shuttered and Saturn's became a badge name on a regular GM platform but I understand the business logic. I bought a 2006 Chev HHR and it was a great little service vehicle. After depreciating it through the business for 4 years I sold it to my daughter at trade in value. She still has it and we're lucky not to have been one of the faulty ignition switch casualties. Had one of my adult children been killed as a result of this I hate to think where I might of gone with it. It still runs great and the body is tight (oil sprayed every year since new) but the a/c has failed. She's not sure about spending $1500 or more given the age and high mileage. There's a year's wait to get a Bolt in Canada. And after hearing reviews about the seats I recall my 1989 Chev Cavalier being a torture chamber on long drives. I had to keep an Obus forme in the seat to make it tolerable. In conclusion I think the purpose of the Bolt was to show investors that GM is quite capable of building a competent EV but big piggy trucks and SUVs is where the big money is right now in the U.S. and Canada. This way they'll have the technology fully baked and ready to go if the market for EVs picks up in a big way.
No doubt that's part of why GM destroyed the EV1s, but that's certainly not why they repossessed the cars before the lessees wanted to give them up! Another part of it is that... Well, let's try to see things from GM's viewpoint. GM decided to make a test market EV, for the same reason any test market car is made, and perhaps also to see just what they could do with the breakthrough EV tech that Alan Cocconi had developed for the Impact concept car. Instead of using a DC motor with a limited range of RPMs, a BEV could now be made which could use a much more efficient AC motor, and Alan's invention, a new integrated motor controller (including inverter) would allow a broad range of motor running speeds, so the car wouldn't need a transmission! That made it even more energy-efficient. But unfortunately, the politicians and "green" activists in California got all excited about the news that GM was putting an all-electric car into production and got waaaaaay ahead of their skis in putting into place regulations that would require any auto maker which wanted to sell cars in California, to make a certain percentage of them zero-emission cars. No doubt GM felt like their friendly little EV had turned into a Frankenstein's monster! And no wonder that GM hastily killed off the program as part of an ultimately successful PR campaign to get California's CARB to roll back the 1999-2000 ZEV mandate. The very existence of the EV1, along with some owners who were fervent EV/green advocates, was a threat to GM's ability to sell cars at a profit in the State with the largest sales -- California. (And perhaps some other States; I'm not sure what year other States adopted California's CARB regulations.) After all, there was absolutely no way GM could sell the EV1, or any similar car, at a profit. It cost far more to make one unit than they possibly could have sold it for. So I'd say it's no wonder that GM made no further attempt to put any plug-in EV into production until 2010. And due to their bad experience with the EV1, perhaps it's not surprising that when they did, it wasn't a BEV like the EV1, but rather a PHEV, which worked more like the gasmobiles that were GM's "comfort zone". A PHEV: The Volt, which shared certain parts with other GM cars, such as the front end of a Cruze. Now, please keep in mind that everything I've written here is merely my assessment from what I've read, and seen in videos, on the subject; my assessment including some conclusions which may or may not be correct. I have no "insider knowledge", so some of my comments here are opinion rather than fact.
Good question. My impression of Hyundai is that they think long term and will make the investment, but I could be wrong. Tesla is miles ahead but someone with deep pockets can break in. It is not the technology, it is not lack of capability, it is the leadership resolve to get it done. The bottom line is till someone is willing bring the competition to Tesla's door, the $35K mid size sedan is still a long way off.
Right. The way I look at it is that the GM is putting their toes into the water, they are not ready to jump in but if they do need to, they have the foundational elements and the ability to throw people and money into the mix. They make their money on SUV's today so the investment is not a priority. Let us say there is a flare up somewhere and the gas prices go to $4.50 per gallon. GM can move faster than most others, with the possible exception of Nissan.
