General Motors made good on its promise to launch the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV by the end of 2016. In the meantime, Tesla has been quickly readying its affordable Model 3 electric car to directly challenge Chevrolet’s affordable EV.
Now, it’s finally here. Tesla CEO Elon Musk published official photos of the first production Model 3. However, it may still be some time before the Model 3 enter full-blown mass production. The first 30 customers are expected to receive their production Model 3 sedans on July 28 during a “handover party,” according to Green Car Reports. As for when the hundreds of thousands of reservations will be filled, that’s still unclear.
Musk believes it’s possible to build as many as 20,000 Model 3s per month by this coming December. However, it’s still unclear what kind of official specifications the Model 3 boasts. Power, range and other details remain a mystery. It’s likely one reason why Tesla’s value has slumped significantly this past week.
In the meantime, Chevrolet is nearing its nationwide launch of the Bolt EV. The electric car has been trickling into new markets this year, but by the end of summer, certified dealers will receive allocations of the car in every single state.
The great affordable EV race is poised to really begin heating up this year. Not only will the Bolt EV’s availability expand significantly, the 2018 Nissan Leaf will also arrive with a potential range of up to 250 miles.
Comments
Saw a Bolt in Toronto the other weekend. While not as attractive as the Model3, it is much better looking in person than in photos.
The model 3 still looks a lot better than the Bolt, which I’m sure will give Tesla a sales advantage as long as they can deliver.
Until Chevy redesigns the Bolt into something attractive or even more like a small SUV rather than a quirky/frumpy thing, GM will do it’s part keep the contest interesting.
I think it will take a Buick model for that to happen properly
2018 Buick Encore Bolt FOR THE WIN
“Looks” is relative. We drive looking at the insides. Have you seen the Model 3 dash? Neither has anyone else because it doesn’t have one. Everything is controlled on the center tablet touchscreen. There are no buttons, knobs or wheels at all.
Tesla Motors technology may be great, but the Model 3 is terrible at human interfaces. Most of the imports have well designed interiors which is what the driver sees and uses every day. So if the Model 3 isn’t attractive or functional on the inside, only fanboys will buy it.
BTW the Chevy Bolt EV is a small CUV, only a few inches shorter than the Chevy Equinox, GM’s best selling vehicle after the Silverado. Visit a Chevy dealer and sit in the Bolt EV before you decide which EV is better. I bet you will buy the Bolt!
I think the popularity of the model 3 (in terms of the pre-orders) is the expectation of a baby Model S. Given the Model S has one of the better touch screens in the business, the jury is out on the interior.
Also, the Bolt is about 20 inches shorter than the Equinox, which is a compact SUV. The Bolt is just a hatchback at best.
How are the sales for the Bolt going? Isn’t production limited to 20K cars per year?
The sales are doing great, considering that GM will begin full national sales in August, Every new Bolt EV owner loves it. Just do web searches for feedbacks from Bolt EV owners. GM can produce over 20,000 Chevy Bolt EVs a year because it has one of the world’s largest manufacturing plants, even bigger than what Tesla Motors will ever dream of.
The only thing limiting production is consumer demand. I think a lot of people are waiting to see what the actual cost and waiting period will be for the Model 3 and probably more importantly, people are waiting to see the cost and range of the 2018 Nissan Leaf.
Tesla’s “punch” comes in three forms:
1) The former GM Fremont assembly plant, which it its prime was able to produce nearly 429,000 units in a year. I don’t think the Bolt assembly line has nearly that capacity.
2) The Gigafactory, owned in part by Tesla, which takes raw material and metal sheet in one end and sends ready-to-install battery packs out the other end. GM, I believe, purchases lithium battery modules in Asia (from) LG and ships them to North America for assembly into installable packs. Which approach is more likely to handle the demands of 200,000 plus vehicles per year.
3) A substantial existing fast charging network, built by Tesla and tuned together with their product for maximum charge rate. Meanwhile GM isn’t building a charge network, but rather ensuring compatibility with existing public charging standards, which charge at a much slower rate than Tesla uses.
I’m not knocking the Bolt. I’ve driven one, and it’s fantastic. But I think GM has much more modest goals for the product as compared to Tesla’s “bet the company” approach to electric vehicles.
1)i don’t think gm wants to sell hundreds of thousands of bolts because electric vehicles are money losers.
2)same as 1)
3)the supercharging network is nice but not necessary. i know 4 families with leased pure electric vehicles and each uses them for commuting/running errands. each owns at least one additional gasoline powered car(suv/minivan) they use for long trips. if not for the low leases and government incentives, i have no doubt none of them would be driving an ev.
The big question is: let’s suppose Tesla is successful in its approach, will anti-trust laws allow them to keep the (solar) energy business and the energy distribution business together with the transportation business? Look at what anti-trust laws forced GM to sell off in the 60s: GM was successful in the train business, car business, bus business etc… They ended up having to split it all up. Tesla – if ever successful – will have to split up as well. So the “advantages” stated here will be temporarily at best.
Good point but they really would have to have great sucess in all areas before that would be an issue.
Not everything they do is going to work. Elon is just doing what many do today. They toss many things up on the wall and just see what sticks.
Even like Edison and a Tesla the man failed 500 times vs one commercial sucess. That is the nature of an inventor an in the case of Tesla the man he failed miserably at buisness and died nearly broke in a bolted room.
To answer your question, which approach is more likely to handle the demands of 200,000 plus vehicles per year, I offer you this link: http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2017/02/lg_chem_battery_plant_expansio.html
A new addition to the existing battery factory in Holland, MI will more that meet the demand.
1) The 3 is being produced on the old small car line at Fremont (used to make Vibe/Matrix and Prism/Corolla before that) and maxes out around 225,000 units a year. The S/X are on the old truck line at Fremont (used to build Tacomas) If they want to build more than 200,000 3s a year, they need another plant
2) The Gigafactory was supposed to be vertically integrated, but that never happened. Anode material, Cathode material, and the seperators are all processed in Asia still and shipped across the Pacific and over the Sierra Nevada mountains to the NV gigafactory. The only thing made onsite are the battery cell cases. The rest is simply an assembly plant. The battery cells for the Bolt are built at the LG battery factory Holland, MI, not too far away from the Bolt which is built in Orion, MI.
3) The agnostic charging network is expanding fast. There is no reason for a manufacturer to get involved much like there’s no reason for GM to start building gas stations.
One small correction: The LG/Bolt batteries are manufactured in Korea, though I would not be surprised to see production shift to the Holland plant once it has completed its expansion.
i like gm’s approach to electric vehicles.
right now, no one is making money building these things. the bolt is more like a proof of concept vehicle.
gm is losing money on each vehicle but they are gaining valuable experience/expertise.
if and when pure electric vehicles take off, gm will be ready.
By the end of the year Tesla will be producing 20K VEHICLES per month and still ramping up. That’s equivalent to what GM will produce in a year.
Tesla does have some advantages like pointed out above. Styling yes and the Supercharger size.
But they have many liabilities too.
They are behind on cars and had to preset just to get the cat to market.
The car will cost more than $35k when options are added and the price will be closer to $50k.
The profits here are much less than the S and it will cut into Sales. It may take 3-5 3 models to make the profit of one S.
They still need to update the S as it really is getting old and new compitition is near from Porsche and other bigger names.
The X model was a disaster and left the company with little income for product development. This is what gave us the presage.
The chargers while handy they will no longer be free to 3 owners.
The other companies they have are going to be challanged. The reality of their solar roofs are still a challange as few home owners will upgrade due to cost. The batteries will have to find customers in a crowded market. They also could be stung by a competitor finding the next. Big thing in battery technology. It cold render them a has been over night.
GM n the the other hand has no need to fund their electric cars only on Electrc sales. The truck and other products help fund them and no worries about development money. GM also has no need to make money on them at this point so they will be able to under cut Tesla price to build market share.
GM is already a proven car and it will only get better. We know it is priced in the range promised as Musk already admitted the price of the 3 will be more.
The reality of the EV market now is just to grow it and improve it as it is still not ready for prime time. Until they are not lifestyle changers. Faster charging and more places to charge will be key. Most drivers traveling will not want to wait for a charge even at a half hour. They Also need a way to charge if the park in the street.
I do not want Tesla to fail but I also do not fall for all the Elon hype.
Electric will continue to improve and become even more competitive with investments. But ICE is not dead and will remain for a good while now. Oil is not running out soon and as long as it remains the cheapest and easiest mode it will not leave the market anytime soon.
FYI the 3 and Bolt are not direct competitors. There will be a separation in price. They to me are just both filling out the segment on 3 levels.
The Chevy Bolt has not beaten the Tesla Model 3. Quite honestly, the Bolt is ugly, and while some consumers may see it attractive, it’s only purpose is to be an EPA compliance credit to keep GM’s Emissions by a Totally fleet volume down. The model 3 took 400k pre-orders when no one saw he vehicle until Friday and a few glimpses of it before the official factory reveal. I don’t believe anyone would pre-order a car, as many times as they have for the model 3, for a vehicle made by GM. Also, by saying electric vehicles are not profitable? Are you serious? Tesla’s Model S, and X, are definitely profitable. The reason why GM’s Bolt isn’t, is because they have MORE THAN HALF OF THE CAR being produced by LG, and no one else. Hat gives them no leverage against LG. Tesla and Panasonic have an awesome agreement, where they produce everything in-house together. Mostly everyone on this forum is completely ignorant on Tesla, and electric vehicles. The Model 3 will outsell the Bolt. Just watch. Also, watch Tesla be the first to market, and federally approved and regulated self-driving vehicle. The largest database of records, and hardware already in use and on the road to gather data analysis, to get there. Screw GM when it comes to electric vehicles. GM is slow to update anything, and only innovates when completely lambasted by competitors when they’re about to finalize modernizing their lineup. Update the Engines in the vehicles, add an electric battery, hybridize vehicles. It’s not hard. Everyone wants better fuel efficient vehicles, and to say otherwise proves that you’re Ignorant of the needs and wants of consumers. If people didn’t want hybrid cars, the PRIUS wouldn’t be a leading example of that.
Tesla Profits? I guess you must be he only one who saw a dividend since they opened. They did not make enough from the X model to fund the 3 as planned. They had to pre sell and sell a discounted S model to get the money to finish the 3. Not a good way to build a company.
Yes the GM car is part credit but it also is the stepping stone to development and market intergration.
EV models are like the space program where it must be taken in steps to reach the moon.
GM did what no one else has done by making a car with a decent range and kept the cost lower than most others.
This is a slow growth segment and will be built one car at a time.
GM is not going to dump some half a$$ car on the market in large numbers and experiment on the public anymore. Today’s market is not forgiving anymore.
The only real innovation Musk had was found people would pay ton of money for a luxury car when everyone else spuds not think it would sell. But even then the numbers are small in market terms.
GM is playing a full game here and not focused on 3 cars and a bunch of crazy ideas.
Investors are restless today and Tesla has been blessed with speculators. At some point if they do not see a return soon it will turn on them.
Global sale have hit some walls too. No sales in Hong Kong even with incentives? Not good in a money rich city.
I am sure at some point the 3 will out sell the Bolt because for Teslas future it has to, The money from the 3 is critical to their future. If they do not see the money it may be a tough go from here.
My friend you like do many Tesla people take things too personal. It is amazing what they have done and most of us do hope they succeed for the sake of all electric cars. But there are some cold realities that need to be grasped.
Calling others names or insulting them is not much of a debate and a poor case to present.
Yes the two of the cars made money but they did not make enough to cover the cost of the 3. There is a difference in a model being profitable and a company making a profit yo pay a dividend to investors. That has yet to happen and it had better happen soon.
Many Tesla fans need to start looking at this not as a religion and more like a buisness.
Going 0-60 in two seconds is cool but people would be more impressed with who ever can make a battery that can charge in the same amount of time as it takes to fill a tank of gas.
Tesla has made more advancements in battery technology than any other automaker. Let’s be honest with ourselves. GM has LG doing all of the work for them. Investors need to realize that Tesla isn’t working for them. No one is telling investors to invest in Tesla. Investors invested originally because they saw the intent and purpose in doing so. If they now see otherwise, or have since the beginning, that’s their problem, and not Tesla’s. Just like what Apple has said, this is the wrong company to invest in, if all you care about is numbers. These companies are making a real change.
Yes they have made advancements but so has everyone. But yet we are still not were it needs to be.
YesLG is doing the work but if you need surgery you can do it yourself or you can go to a surgeon. The issue Tesla will face is other automakers will not use Teslas battery or motors unless they have some kind partnership like Toyota and BMW has.
The investors came because they invested in a tech stock. But even at that they needs to at some point show and provide a return. Even Apple would have failed if not for the I Pod or I Phone.
The fact is the investors are not Elon charity donations and at some point they need money.
The X under performed and made them restless. The 3 may sell many cars but will it provide enough money to lead to new products and updates for the present models while providing a return.
The bottom line is the investors invested to make money. It is a harsh reality for every company.
They invested in Apple to make a lot of money and many have. Tesla investors at this point have made nothing and investors at some point will deman something in return for their investment. If they do not see it they will go else where like other tech or bio stocks.
Tesla was invested in by many funds and the fund managers will be held accountable for their returns, if it under performs perople go else where. The long and short is most Tesla investors care less about greenhouse gas or even will ever own one of these cars. They just want returns on their investment.
LG is to GM as Panasonic is to Tesla. Tesla has no advantage with battery intellectual property.
But Telsa does have equity in the Gigafactory, and thus has an advantage in the supply chain with respect to the ability to surge production if necessary.
This perceived benefit that has yet to play out. The Gigafactory didn’t help Tesla beat the Bolt to market and it certainly didn’t help Tesla achieve their 2nd quarter guidance due to production issues on a new line and a resultant shortage. http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/03/technology/tesla-battery-car-deliveries/index.html
I would suggest that GM has nearly as much clout at LG, just as Tesla has with Panasonic.
What that means for GM is that they will get first looks at new technology and the benefit of jointly developing and testing different battery variants. GM probably does more actual battery and cell chemistry R&D than Tesla does…and they certainly have more expansive testing facilities.
“The Chevy Bolt has not beaten the Tesla Model 3”. That is quite a stupid comment, especially when only one Model 3 has been produced as of July 11th!! GM won the $30,000 EV race in October when the final production began and the first sales were in December. Tesla and Musk LOST!
I’m sorry, but doesn’t even Chevy’s own website say ‘starts at ‘$36,450’? Somehow it adds up to $38,000 with no options added, and bare minimum packages. GM has not won the 30k EV test, even with the federal incentive.
Still pretty good for a car that was not cheap to develop.
I wager you that the 3 even if it starts at $35k will be closer to $45k- $50k by the time you load it up.
GM does not need the Bolt to make a proft while Tesla needs to make a lot of Capital for the next project.
AutolineTV After Hours #385 had on Sandy Monru who said recharging a 2017 Chevrolet Bolt using a DC charger could be accomplished in just 90 minutes and this is something that Chevrolet needs to tell in their real people commercials because everyone thinks that the charge time could take 10-12 hours.
Monru went on to say that if General Motors adopted the 400-volt DC battery system that Porsche had announced, the recharge time for the Chevy Bolt could drop to as little as 15 minutes meaning you can go to a recharging station and get 100-miles of recharge in about 5-7 minutes.
I’ve met Osborn. He’s a sidekick of the felon Charles Resnick q. v. (convicted of using NASA funds to boat for prostitutes etc) and an utter fraud himself