Tesla better watch out for the Bolt, haha.
A little unexpected but not entirely unreasonable. Without fast charging infrastructure it's just a somewhat longer range and very expensive city car. You can now lease a new 110 mile range Leaf for $149 a month that can cover probably 95% people's daily commute, and more if you could at work. It not only has to compete with Leaf for people who only want an EV but also compete with econo-boxes for people who just want a car.
This certainly points to another important thing. Most people would not just blindly accept an EV even if it's a nice EV. Elon knew all along that you need to make a compelling car which happens to be an EV. That is exactly what Tesla has been doing and GM is not.
Not a good thing for the future of EV's in general. We have a long way to go to mass adoption - GM needs to do their part to REALLY support it - and this is an excuse in the making on why it was a bad idea.
Maybe a charging Network might help spur sales?
The fact that you can discount a car $5,000 from the dealers cut, and still make a profit is a good case for not having franchise dealerships. I've always said that putting something on sale means selling it for what it should have been sold for to begin with. Car dealership associations across the country are fighting against Tesla's business model for the right to charge you $5,000 extra for storing a car for a few weeks and then charging you exorbitant prices for service later. Here in Virginia we're fighting to get a second store more centrally located in the state, in Richmond. Since it doesn't even come up in the state legislature until early next year, I'll probably pick up my Model 3 out of state in Raleigh North Carolina because it's a little closer. Virginia's loss.
Jormar: it's things like that that are foinf to light a fire under legislators' butts. As Model 3 production ramps up and Tesla offers more and more models, states will be missing out on more and more sales lost to their neighbors. It's only a matter of time. Unfortunately, probably not quick enough for most people
Joemar*, fat thumbs on phone with what I'm thinking more and more is a miscalibrated screen
I'm with you on everything you said. I have the fat thumbs syndrome too. I've started doing a lot of "speech to text".
Am I the only one who really wants the bolt to succeed?
If Tesla remains the sole company that can profitably build EV's then EV's will continue to be an obscure niche that the rich and famous use. If we truly want the EV market to explode we need every single car company building them!
I think most of us want it to succeed.
It's GM that gimped a good car and does not want the car to succeed.
I want EVs to succeed. And that includes the Bolt. But, in order to succeed it needs to be a compelling choice, so I try to point out the issues that need resolving. Not clear that GM wants it to succeed, but I know Tesla does.
Judging a car by it sales in the second month (February at that) since being released, when it is only available in a tiny number of states seems a bit ridiculous.
Thank you kindly.
In general people don't buy cars in February, so I wouldnt read too much into this.
I want EV cars to succeed. The problem is that Tesla seems to be the only car maker that is serious about it.
"The fact that you can discount a car $5,000 from the dealers cut, and still make a profit is a good case for not having franchise dealerships."
Dealers do not make anywhere near that unless you let them rob you. They generally make about $1,000-$2,000 gross per new car sold. Of course everyone would rather not pay that, but it's not adding a huge amount considering the cost of a car.
- https://www.quora .com/How-much-money-does-a-new-car-dealership-actually-make-on-average-on-each-new-car-sale-taking-into-account-all-the-factory-rebates-etc-they-might-be-getting-after-the-sale
Why is there so much Bolt coverage in the Tesla forums.
bricha55, GM certainly doesn't want it to succeed otherwise they wouldn't limiting the number of places you can buy it. The fact that they are handing out discounts in CA and OR, means those markets are slowing down so perhaps they should immediately sell them elsewhere, like how about in the state that they make the Bolts in.
Clearly they do not want to sell as many Bolts as they can.
Better question is: "why are there so many GM Astroturfers in a Tesla forum?"
How many Bolt forums have you found?
Just ignore the troll.
Some says it does not look good for EV. I would say it does not look good for EV efforts we've seen so far. Tesla still has its work cut out to force the industry to do much more.
+1 Carlk. Maybe when Model 3 reservations are converted to orders, and the sales numbers (reality) set in, they'll get serious. And by serious I mean build a compelling car that can at least meet if not exceed Tesla's charging rate and sort out a charging infrastructure.
To me the Bolt just looks like a Chevy - that is an Econobox made by GM. It's style just does not compare to the Model 3.
Also, it is not as stylish as the eGolf. The Golf is one of the most popular cars ever made and the e version is a nice implementation. I understand VW is coming out with a new version next year. And that VW is also involved in installing lots of chargers in US as part of their settlement. So, if i was thinking of buying/leasing an EV i would be inclined to skip the Bolt and wait for the next gen eGolf.
OR if something else interesting comes along soon, like the Hyundai Ioniq EV. This is now for sale in Europe and Bjorn really likes it! see:https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/31/bjorn-nyland-praises-hyundai-ioniq-...
It should be for sale in US by summer.
Nice to see these EVs as competition in US for other entry level EVs.
Bolt sold 2,114 in 2017
Tesla S sold 2,650 in 2017
Bolt's doing well in its first year.
GM: 3600 dealerships, an average of 0.6 Bolts/dealership
Tesla: 100 showrooms, an average of 265 Model S per showroom.
I personally know some Bolt drivers who leased to fill the gap until their Model 3's are available. I hope the Bolt does well, as it is no Model 3 killer.
The link in the first post said that the discounts were coming out of the dealers margins. One dealer had two cars discounted $5200. If they only make 1 to 2 thousand per car, does this mean that they are taking a 3 to 4 thousand dollar loss on those cars?
"The link in the first post said that the discounts were coming out of the dealers margins. One dealer had two cars discounted $5200. If they only make 1 to 2 thousand per car, does this mean that they are taking a 3 to 4 thousand dollar loss on those cars?"
Not really. It's much more probable that the person that wrote the article doesn't know what they're talking about.
"Bolt sold 2,114 in 2017", but how many of those 2,117 are sitting on dealer's lots...........Those 2,650 Teslas are sitting at people's homes.
+1 JR. As EM is quick to note when reporting sales figures, unlike OEMs, Tesla reports sales as delivered to the customers. Others report sales as "sold" to the dealerships.
I am pretty sure that 2650/100 showrooms is 26.5 per location, not 265. Still 50 times bolt sales on average.... of course Bolt only sold in CA so far (OR maybe too?). A cursory (very cursory) google search yields 152 hits for 'chevy dealers in CA' so that is the more fair denominator.
That would suggest Tesla showrooms move about twice the cars per location as Bolts per dealer (of course that is 4-6 times the revenue and leaves out Model X sales).
"+1 JR. As EM is quick to note when reporting sales figures, unlike OEMs, Tesla reports sales as delivered to the customers. Others report sales as "sold" to the dealerships."
Dealers don't buy cars unless they have a demand for them. I think this argument that GM's sales figures shouldn't count because they sell to dealers is not a good one. Sales to dealers are still EVs that end up being driven by people.
The biggest problem with the Bolt is not the charging network or that it's not as aesthetically pleasing to some - it's the fact that GM still doesn't want to sell EVs. They made a very good EV - every review of it so far has been positive. Still, the reality is GM isn't interested in going the way of EV because it goes against their economic model. I suspect in 15-20 years - they will be like Blockbuster and Blackberry and Borders.
I will likely go with a Bolt for reasons expressed in other threads. If and when Tesla can build a long range EV with a hatchback and roof rack options under $50k CDN is when I will get one.
"The biggest problem with the Bolt is not the charging network or that it's not as aesthetically pleasing to some - it's the fact that GM still doesn't want to sell EVs."
"I suspect in 15-20 years - they will be like Blockbuster and Blackberry and Borders."
I'm not sure. I think when the economics are there for average people to buy EVs GM will be on board in a big way. I think building a pretty decent EV like the Bolt now is their way of making sure they are ready to pivot when they feel the time is right (in addition to it's being a compliance car).
I don't necessarily disagree - it's just that if the same people who allowed the company to go bankrupt a decade ago are still the ones in charge, I wouldn't bet on them. I know they've rebranded their powertrain division to be called propulsion systems but still - their continued lobbying efforts to remove fuel efficiency and pollution standards doesn't seem like a company that is going to survive in 20 years.
I think the point Carl is that the "sales" numbers don't necessarily mean registered to a new owner.
"I think the point Carl is that the "sales" numbers don't necessarily mean registered to a new owner."
They do eventually. All of those cars will end up being driven by new owners hopefully replacing an ICE vehicle. Dealers won't just send them to the dump. The _will_ sell them.
Although I generally agree that the cars on Dealer's lots do eventually sell, I feel confident I can still find "New" 2014 Cadillac ELRs for advertised for sale.
The percentage of vehicles that sit on dealer lots unsold for 3+ years has to be so low it's not worth talking about.
Our local Chevy dealer had their required allocation of two Volts for over a year--yes, they eventually sold with a massive discount. They never wanted them on the lot and they weren't particularly interested in selling them to anyone who showed an interest, mostly since they didn't know squat about their "product." Dealers that bet on being able to sell several dozen Bolts may have miscalculated their order since it was all a WAG. I too am much more interested in how many consumers have purchased a Bolt, so as to compare an orange to an orange. To conflate that with dealer allocations is dishonest.
"I too am much more interested in how many consumers have purchased a Bolt, so as to compare an orange to an orange. To conflate that with dealer allocations is dishonest."
How is that dishonest? All of the Bolts that have been sold to dealers will end up in driver's hands. Isn't that what counts?
"How is that dishonest? All of the Bolts that have been sold to dealers will end up in driver's hands. Isn't that what counts?"
Sure it counts if you don't care what year they get in that drivers hand and how much of a discount or loss it takes to move them.
So future drivers of GM vehicles is better than current drivers of Tesla? got it. I'm always on the lookout for clarity.
"Sure it counts if you don't care what year they get in that drivers hand and how much of a discount or loss it takes to move them."
Dealers aren't going to let cars sit unsold on their lot for years. That's just nonsense some people here are trying to sell.
Any why on earth would I or anyone else here care how much money a dealer does or doesn't make? Since when are dealer profits a priority in this conversation?
"So future drivers of GM vehicles is better than current drivers of Tesla? got it. I'm always on the lookout for clarity."
They were arguing about who has sold more EV's this year. Well Eagles was right because GM has sold more through February and that's simply a fact. It's silly to try to find all these excuses for why GM's EV sales shouldn't count. A sale is still a sale and the cars end up in consumers' hands. I'm sure not everyone that buys a Tesla drives it the same day they pay for it. Should we not count those?
I think most people on this forum see a difference between a car that sells at retail and is immediately in the owners hand, and one that sits on a lot for weeks or months and is sold at a discount or loss.
Yes they both count in the end, but not while they are sitting on a lot waiting for that future owner to adopt them.
"Yes they both count in the end, but not while they are sitting on a lot waiting for that future owner to adopt them."
Then by your logic the Bolts from last month that weren't put into customers' hands until this month should count toward this month's numbers, right?
You use whatever logic makes you happy.
952 wow I bet that this is a new record low for a 'Car of the year'
Can't believe I'm going to say this...I hope the Model 3 is not the 2018 Car of the Year! It could kill future sales. You know, sales in 2019-20! 8-)
It's dishonest because as I implied, it's apples and oranges. In that scheme, Tesla should count every car they build even if it hasn't been delivered or sold, because, well you know...
Here in Toronto - there are no Bolts on any lots. Any Bolt that makes it up here is already presold. I was told a month ago that early Fall is when I could actually get one. I don't know the situation in the US but I would guess that their sales numbers are partly related to the fact there aren't really that many available for sale.