Check out this out. What horrible reporting....if you want to even call it that.
I saw this too. Completely misquoting the Model X splash page.
Don't be too hard on them. They did get at least one thing correct. It is called the Model X.
They came so close to getting it right. They correctly quoted the website on 2016 deliveries for new reservations. They understand that this does not apply to existing reservations. They missed the CEO in Detroit at the NAIAS (that one would think "Car and Driver" might cover) promising deliveries beginning summer 2015. Duh.
Wow.... sad thing is that poor, incorrect, misinterpreted reporting is common. Recall the BMW fiasco.
Whenever I read articles about subjects I'm familiar with I notice they are riddled with inaccuracies.
Then I read something interesting I know nothing about and I can't help but to believe it all. It's frustrating how bad the news is!!
pvetesla - Absolutely agree, and it makes me value sources that really do try to maintain some level of legitimacy. Until I started getting into Tesla, I really had no idea how badly fact checking of any kind had degraded.
I know this is slightly off-topic, but I found it funny that hardly any (none?) of the articles I read about the Chevy Bolt took the time to ask any hard questions or outline the obvious challenges the latest "Tesla-killer" will face. It was seemingly skin deep range = best car analysis. Maybe once the 3 and Bolt are closer to reality some writer will take the time to ask GM about...
1. Will GM commit to leveraging their manufacturing capacity, marketing money, and dealership network advantages to get the Bolt in front of customers well before the 3.
2. If GM doesn't get to market well before the 3, will the Bolt be able to compete directly against the 3 in terms of luxuriousness, features, performance, price, and status.
3. If it can't, would it be better to brand this as a Cadillac and keep the price similar to sidestep another ELR debacle? In this case should GM just accept that they'll potentially be eating money on a fuller featured Caddy Bolt?
4. Can the Bolt, or any future long range GM EVs, survive with no L3 charge network? If not, should GM commit to alternate L3 charging solutions or help Tesla build out the Supercharger network?
In my opinion, the Chevy Bolt (really, GM couldn't find a more confusing name?) is vapour-ware. They have not built an all-electric vehicle before and I have no confidence that they'll get it right, or get the range they think they will, at least not the first time.
The Model-3 is going to be Tesla's 4th generation vehicle (if you count the Roadster) and they have a lot more experience and caché than GM.
Hmmm... Cadillac BSR. NAH!
Oh... And LAME is not an MP3 encoder.
I just had a funny thought. Can you image after the release of this car, the headline that will accompany the inevitable recall of it?
GM NOW RECALLING THEIR BOLTS!
It might be too little, too late for GM if the Model 3 arrives on time, but I'm willing to at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they are serious about their EV program this time.
Maybe they dusted off some ZIP disks and found some useful R&D to give them a running start :)
They say they regret and won't repeat the EV1 cancellation error. We'll see. "Don't undertake vast projects with half-vast plans."
The reason I tend to doubt GM is that they can never seem to settle on how much they spent on the EV1 program. Reports range from $1,000,000,000 to $3,000,000,000 spent. I wonder how much was spent on the alternative versions running on CNG, Propane, Ethanol, etc. And if they include their legal fees over years of fighting California legislation as part of the bill. I doubt so much went into both Volt designs and the Bolt concept combined.
I'm not sure what to make of the whole EV1 mess. They brought the car to market, which is something. The enemy this time around is not a piece of legislation, but an electric car company that is significantly ahead of them in EV development. I don't see GM gaining much from the Bolt concept if they don't intend to make a final product.
If anything the Bolt should have maybe come out at a different auto show, it totally swept away any hype about the new Volt in the media.
@sg021 wrote: If anything the Bolt should have maybe come out at a different auto show, it totally swept away any hype about the new Volt in the media.
I agree with you @sg021. Yet another point on why the Bolt may not have the full backing and support of GM. If this was truly an important vehicle for GM and they were going to invest heavily on it's success, they should probably have announced it differently.
Instead, it feels like GM is still testing the waters and seeing if the Bolt will stick with consumers and become a hit. If not, they haven't invested too much into it and could easily either keep it as a secondary line-up or abandon it altogether. The problem with ICE car companies is that they don't want to damage too much of their existing ICE sales with the new car line-ups. It's a hard transition to make for most companies.
Unlike Tesla who has bet "the farm" on their EVs.