Forums

Does the Bolt have too much range?

Does the Bolt have too much range?

I know that most people will disagree with me, but I think the Bolt has too much range. I know most, especially first time, electric car drivers want as much range as they can get, but really, what is it used for?

The Bolt makes a good city car. Most drivers drive well under a hundred miles a day. Getting down to this number by removing battery weight would increase efficiency.

The Tesla can use its range for long distance travel but the Bolt, without a supercharger network, really cannot. You could drive to a destination within 200 miles as long as you have access to an L2 charger and the ability to leave the car there overnight. Otherwise you could only travel about a hundred miles away from home. Less if you want to drive anywhere once you get there.

Without ubiquitous high speed charging, I don't see the ability to travel so I see the extra range as useless. It is good for marketing though as no one would be talking about it if it had 100 mile range.

PaceyWhitter | 6 marzo 2017

I am not saying the Bolt is a bad car but how can a Bolt drive 400, 600 or 800 miles? Do you stop and sleep overnight every 200 miles? (Nine hours on a L2 charger?). Do you only travel where there are one of the handful of SAE DC fast chargers?

Again, the Bolt seems like a nice car, but without the charging network, its travel ability is very limited. My point is that if it is a city car, it may not need the range it has. Obviously there would be some situations where it would be useful, but do you really design a car for those outlier situations?

andy.connor.e | 6 marzo 2017

So do you feel it would be better to not even give the ability to travel over 200 miles per charge because of the lack of a supercharger network and peoples average daily driving mileage?

Im not sure that makes any realistic sense.

topher | 6 marzo 2017

Even granting the premise, electric vehicles under 200 miles of range just don't sell well.

Thank you kindly.

PaceyWhitter | 6 marzo 2017

Obviously it doesn't make sense in a vacuum, but if you reduced it's battery capacity you would reduce its weight, thus increasing its efficiency and reduce its cost.

topher | 6 marzo 2017

Cost, yes (about $4,350 for half the battery size). Efficiency, a bit (13%, or about 134 miles range for half the battery, under ideal conditions (i.e. city driving with lots of stops)).

So you get a $33,150 car with a 134 (city) mile range. So roughly, a new Nissan Leaf. Competing against a Model 3, for $35,000 with 215 mile range, Superchargers, etc.

Thank you kindly.

polaris | 6 marzo 2017

Bolt has level 3 charging.

For sure, I want as much range as possible because it allows for the most flexibility. If charging stations became more ubiquitous - range becomes less of a concern but until then, you will want that range. We don't drive that much in the city so our use of a car is related to going on day trips or longer ones. Range is critical in that regard.

SamO | 6 marzo 2017

@PaceyWhitter,

I agree. My 208 miles of range S60 has been plenty for multiple cross country trips. I would never have enough time in a Bolt. I could try RV parks and public chargers, but it would take 12 days at least, whereas I was able to cross in about 4.

And GM has no plans to introduce a fast charging car or a fast charging network, so maybe they should just give up. They just sold Opel to Renault so they've given up selling cars anywhere in Europe.

Sad.

nadurse | 6 marzo 2017

Short answer: NO

Bill Korea | 6 marzo 2017

Opel was sold to PSA (Peugeot, Citroen), not Renault. They're all French, and they still remember how to make cars, sometimes profitably. GM sources almost all cars from secondary manufacturers, and is only interested in building trucks because this is supposedly the future. GM has always been a financial engineering company. The fact that their profits come from trucks is all the technical information they need.

I was tailgated by a Bolt last weekend. If only great cars attracted great drivers.

Rocky_H | 6 marzo 2017

@PaceyWhitter, I strongly disagree. You're thinking of only two range categories, but it's really more like three.

Quote: " but how can a Bolt drive 400, 600 or 800 miles?"

Right, not suited to the actual traveling situations.

But here's the problem with quoting this "average daily use" statistic and designing a car to just barely cover the average. With that being an average, it is still fairly frequently that you will go a significant amount over it. You don't drive 40 miles every single day, month after month, year after year. Every few weeks or every month or two you will have a long day that needs 140 miles or something noticeably over the average but not 800 miles. Even if it's 90 miles once a month, that gets stressful and nerve wracking, where you're running down nearly empty.

People do not want to have a stressful time or a car that can't handle a once a month occurrence. That is too much hassle and lack of capability for people to want to put up with for a regular use vehicle. It's quite a difference if there's something you do maybe once or twice a year, where you might rent something versus a car that will stress and inconvenience you every few weeks.

Carl Thompson | 6 marzo 2017

@PaceyWhitter

I agree with you. Without ubiquitous level 3 chargers it doesn't make to do long distance travel in a Bolt. And for normal driving and occasional longer trips around your area probably 120 miles would be sufficient for 99% of real life situations. Sure one or two days a year you might have a situation where you need to go more than 120 miles round trip but less than 238 but it would be very infrequent and probably not worth the extra cost in money, weight and efficiency.

The purists here will scream but probably the best car from cost efficiency / environment standpoint would be something like the Chevy VOLT (with a V) which could go 120 miles on battery but would switch to a gas range extender to allow you to go another 300 miles on gas. And of course you could keep adding gas to keep going for long trips. This would probably be the sweet spot for 99% of consumers because they don't take enough long trips often enough to make a bigger battery (and supercharger access) worth the added cost.

Of course if you _do_ make frequent long trips nothing can beat a Tesla with a big battery and superchargers.

Carl

COrich | 6 marzo 2017

There are plenty of people near me who commute between Denver and Colorado Springs. The one-way trip is from 60-80 miles. A 200 mile range is ideal for that type of commute on a daily basis. Something like a Bolt is probably worth considering for many folks in that work situation.

Let's not forget the Tesla 3 or Bolt, either one gets rid of at least one ICE car making that commute.

Bighorn | 6 marzo 2017

It's a city car based on lack of fast recharging networks or capabilities. With the pouch batteries, maybe it's good to start out with a 200 mile range, so if it loses the 40% in fairly short order, you can still get to work.

Carl Thompson | 6 marzo 2017

EaglesPDX:
"Which makes the Bolt with the 238 mile range and large recharging networks from ChargePoint, Aerovironment, Blink etc. as capable a long range cruiser as the Tesla."

No, not really. The difference is the fast level 3 chargers a few and far between. You can't plan a long trip using them the way you can with Tesla's supercharger network.

Sure you could use level 2 chargers which are all over the place but then you'd have to wait at charging station for 8+ hours for every 200 or so miles driven. No thanks.

Carl

KP in NPT | 6 marzo 2017

Trolls gonna troll.

SamO | 6 marzo 2017

Sooooooooo sloooooooooooooow. If you have a life, you aren't waiitng 8 hours to drive 200 miles. And Bolt has few slow-"fast charging" options. And none in the Midwest or outside of top ten metro areas.

Like sleek, it's never happening. GM will likely be bankrupt before they decide to build a fast charging Network.

SamO | 6 marzo 2017

Bankrupt again, I mean.

akgolf | 6 marzo 2017

Still waiting for that in depth cross country trip report with GMs recent entry into EVs. I understand they've made it from Los Angeles to Kansas and should make it to Florida sometime in June. Really looking forward to those real world results.

b.tesla | 6 marzo 2017

If you look at the present state of DC fast chargers on plugshare, there are some around the larger cities. But for the most part, the only ones placed to enable roadtrips between cities are the Tesla superchargers. Take a simple example; Phoenix and Las Vegas are big cities in the southwest about 300 miles apart. A Tesla supercharger trip between them is easy. I don't see any CCS fast chargers between them, so somebody in a Bolt would have to make a long stop at a L2 charger. And that is one of many possible examples.

Until somebody else gets serious about enabling fast interstate charging, the Bolt is a city commuter with more range.

Tesla is getting a huge advantage as they build out their supercharger network.

Carl Thompson | 6 marzo 2017

SamO:
"Bankrupt again, I mean."

Hah! True. No doubt about it they _did_ blow it big time a few years back.

Carl

kaffine | 6 marzo 2017

My commute to work is 85 miles each way. So an EV with an EPA range of 238 miles is cutting it close (I can't charge at work). I also drive fast with the AC on full so I'm not likely to ever get the rated range. Figure in battery degradation after a few years at 50k miles a year and I will need a new car frequently. I don't see me ever using a supercharger it will all be home charging.

I know lots of people that drive more the 100 miles in a day frequently without leaving town. It may not be every day but even for a city car 200 mile range is not overkill.

Of course some of this depends on what city you live in. I live in Las Vegas and have been known to drive across town to eat lunch.

JeffreyR | 6 marzo 2017

@CT wrote, "The purists here will scream but probably the best car from cost efficiency / environment standpoint would be something like the Chevy VOLT (with a V) which could go 120 miles on battery but would switch to a gas range extender to allow you to go another 300 miles on gas."

The reason that folks here counter the REX/PHEV approach is that you lose a couple huge benefits:

#1 Tesla's mission is to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy. If you burn gas (even just sometimes) then you are relying on gas. Just a stop-gap approach.
#2 Complexity of the systems are waaay beyond the simplicity of just a BEV; sure your brakes will last longer, and your engine may last a bit longer, but you still have all the extra bits a BEV gets rid of plus you have a BEV too. And you need to make them work in tandem.

We are still in the very early days of the transition to BEV (what like 1% of sales last year?) so it makes sense that both technology (batteries and charging) and infrastructure (charging) has not matured to the point where nearly all use cases are covered. So some people will feel like they need an ICE/REX/PHEV still. Luckily costs are dropping fast and infrastructure is expanding well. I'm lucky that a Model 3 will be affordable and have plenty of range for those long-ish trips from SJ to LA. Do I need 400 miles of range? No. Do I need 300 miles of range? No, but I want it. That's my target number. It makes my regular trips to see my folks w/ my kids much faster and more flexible.

I long for the day that dragging around heavy batteries will be a thing of the past; Either because fast charging is silly fast or batteries are much, much denser. Until then I will enjoy the added acceleration, range, and charging speed of the upgraded battery.

I think that 200 miles is about right as a new standard minimum w/ cost/weight/efficiency/charging concerns all taken into account. Can some make due w/ less? Sure. Will some need much more? Sure. But, 200 seems like a good start when you consider what head winds and cold-soaked batteries do to range. Not to mention this little tidbit I posted today:

Givens: 200-mile battery; can only get 60 miles charging over-night; double a typical 40-mile commute to 80 miles:

200 - 80 + 60 = 180
180 - 80 + 60 = 160
...
120 - 80 + 60 = 100
Find Level-2 or Level-3 charging => 200
Repeat

As you can see a pretty long commute can handle a week of charging that adds only 60 miles per night as long as you can catch up over the weekend (or at some point) w/ faster charging.

tstolz | 7 marzo 2017

Bolt range is right ... remember Tesla launched without the Supercharger network in place too. You have to start somewhere. GM's fail is not getting behind their EV by similarity backing L3 charging. To drive an EV long distances you need multi stall DC stations spaced every 150 miles that are reliable. Only the Supercharger network offers this. Any EV buyer wanting to go long distances will buy a Tesla .. this is obvious.

Tesla will continue to hold a competitive advantage over all other EVs well into the future since Teslas can use all chargers and since Superchargers will always be less expensive than the alternatives (Tesla plans to not take profit on charging).

polaris | 7 marzo 2017

The Level 3 charging network may not be great now but as more EVs come on line from various automakers - that network should expand significantly. Moving 5-10 years down the line - it's possible there will be a larger infrastructure than Superchargers.

Right now, when I look at Ontario, Canada - the Superchargers network isn't any more robust than the Level 3 charger network. That's because state/provincial governments are investing in these charging stations to promote the use of EVs.

Carl Thompson | 7 marzo 2017

@JeffreyR

I definitely agree that it would be a stop-gap. But that's where we are now; pure electric cars are currently just not ready to be used by most people. In 15 years or so maybe EV prices will have come down to those of ICE cars, EVs will have a range of 400+ miles and fast charging stations that everyone can use will be everywhere and allow adding 300 miles of range in 10 minutes.

Until then, though, a combination approach is needed.

Carl

slasher0016 | 7 marzo 2017

If this Eagle masterpiece doesn't sum up the entirety of his posts, I don't know what will:

"Tesla can charge a bit faster at 170 miles in 30 minutes vs. the Bolt's 90 miles in 30 minutes."

A BIT faster? Almost twice the range in the same amount of time is a BIT faster?

Rocky_H | 7 marzo 2017

Oh, jeez, @Eagles:

-------------------------------------
"The difference is the fast level 3 chargers a few and far between."

No not really. Look at the Chargepoint, Blink, Aerovironment et al networks. It's a bit more prep work as you have several networks to deal with and local municipalities but the charger network is there.
-------------------------------------

What a fantasy. I live in the biggest city in my state--a little under a million people in this metro area. Spin the compass any direction you want. A Bolt would run out of range before being able to reach a CCS station anywhere.

bmalloy0 | 7 marzo 2017

Eagles does know that a Level 3 charger isn't just a Level 1 plus a Level 2 nearby, right?

Badbot | 7 marzo 2017

rocky

"But here's the problem with quoting this "average daily use" statistic and designing a car to just barely cover the average"

If I was an ice manufacture I would make my compliance cars match the average.
This will over time lower the average no way 100% of compliance cars will hit the average/max commuter miles

PhillyGal | 7 marzo 2017

@Pacey - I do see what you're saying and would agree with you except for two points:

1 - In case it loses capacity over time (point to Bighorn!)
2 - If you live in a city and don't have a dedicated parking spot, it may be easier to charge once or twice a week.

Red Sage ca us | 7 marzo 2017

"...pure electric cars are currently just not ready to be used by most people..."

Who is 'most people' anyway? Those who buy new cars? Those who buy new pickup trucks? Those who buy new SUVs?

I'll tell you who: 'most people' buy used cars that are around ten years old. Let's see... Are there any ten year old used Tesla products around to fit the bill for 'most people'...? NO. There aren't.

Was the Chevrolet VOLT meant for sale to 'most people'...? NO. It wasn't. That's why GM builds and sells ten times as many of the CRUZE and MALIBU per year in the U.S. It is also why the Prius has outsold the VOLT by no less than 4:1 since its introduction. Of course, the Prius is typically outsold 3:1 by Camry and Corolla too, but that is another tale.

The point is that the whole 'most people' theorem is a straw man argument ready and waiting to be set aflame. Especially when the primary argument in favor of the VOLT having such limited fully electric range is that on average 'most people' drive less than 40 miles per day.

Damn.

polaris | 7 marzo 2017

@PhillyGal

Your point on charging at home if you don't own your home or live in an apartment/condo is I think a major factor in the adoption of EVs.

sosmerc | 7 marzo 2017

I would agree that being able to charge at home is currently pretty high on the list for anyone considering a BEV.
In my case, I have to figure in the cost of providing L2 charging at my home, and also at my Mom's house 220 miles away that we frequently travel to. So range and relatively fast charging are high on my list. The Volt as opposed to a Bolt is a better option for me at this stage. Model 3 would be excellent, but 2 years away for me realistically so I have to find a stop-gap vehicle that can meet my needs. Also want to maximize whatever available tax credits ....both Federal and State of Washington.

KP in NPT | 7 marzo 2017

There is no such thing as too much range. Especially with an EV without supercharging capability.

it's also good for EVs without home charging. Would mean having to charge only a couple of times a week, if that, at a public charger.

JeffreyR | 7 marzo 2017

@CT wrote, "Until then, though, a combination approach is needed."

I agree that a pure BEV is not for everyone. If you read the OMC, then you'll see this truism: Tesla is thinking person's car.

In other words a Tesla is not for everyone. But most people have not even driven in one let alone relied on one for several weeks. So they don't know A) what they are missing; B) what they can do w/ one. Even if you end up renting an ICE for a few weeks out of the year, that makes a big difference. Being in the Bay Area and road tripping down to SoCal most of the time, I am lucky.

Some old timers here bought a Roadster, Model S or even a Model X sight unseen. Early adopters bought them w/o Service Centers and Supercharger [plans/rumors]. So we are getting an easy choice. Be a part of history or wait for everyone to catch up. I'm really glad I can afford to get a new $35K car. In five years, many more people will be able to afford the used Model 3 and Model Y vehicles we have upgraded from.

With a bit of luck I'll upgrade to a Maximum Plaid Roadster and race off into the sunset on PCH!

https://youtu.be/trYcP0paerQ?t=37s

2015P90DI | 8 marzo 2017

I still don't get how anyone compares a CHEVY Bolt to a TESLA Model 3. Other than range, there are no similarities. The Bolt is a great commuter car, but it's still an eco-box compact car in the category of a Nissan, Toyota, etc. The Tesla is a higher end vehicle in the category of a BMW 3 Series or Mercedes/Audi.

Other than those seeking an electric vehicle only, there's no comparison between the two cars, especially when you add in charging capability. I have two Model 3's on order. Could lease a Bolt for half the price with their current lease deals, but wouldn't even consider it. The Bolt screams "I'm electric, I'm different, so I have to be ugly too". The Tesla makes no sacrifices in appearance to be an EV.

Carl Thompson | 8 marzo 2017

I agree with everything that's been said in the last few posts about how great electric cars are. But I'd add that I don't think they really can 100% replace gas cars at this point because fast chargers aren't ubiquitous (those close for Tesla owners) and there are simply places you can't go with one that you can easily reach with a gas car. If your family has an emergency or whatever and you need to drive a long distance as fast as possible a gas gar beats any electric car. If you live or drive through very cold areas a gas car is much more convenient because it doesn't lose much range in the cold and heating the cabin is free in a gas car. I once spent a week in Saskatoon in January and the warmest it got during that week was minus 30-- yeah 30 below zero. I would not want to use an electric car there.

I'm an early adopter and I'm on my 3rd electric car currently. But I also own a gas car just in case and I've had to use it at times for long trips or even simply because I forgot to charge my EV. I live in the SF Bay Area and work as an engineer in the tech industry so I know many, many people with electric cars. Not a single one of them only has only an electric car without also having an gas car for when it's needed. That's why I say electric cars aren't ready to 100% replace gas cars and it's silly to insult very useful and convenient in between cars live the Volt.

In fact I'd say that in a way half EV half hybrid (whatever you want to call them) "compliance" cars like the Volt actually do _more_ to bring about the electric revolution (and help Tesla in the long run) than do full EV cars right now. That's because they can be used as traditional cars and the average person doesn't freak out with thinking about "what-ifs" when they buy one. They get behind the wheel and discover how great how great it is when driven in electric mode and they then want more. That's how I got hooked on electric cars!

Carl

Carl Thompson | 8 marzo 2017

2015P90DI:
"I still don't get how anyone compares a CHEVY Bolt to a TESLA Model 3. Other than range, there are no similarities. The Bolt is a great commuter car, but it's still an eco-box compact car in the category of a Nissan, Toyota, etc. The Tesla is a higher end vehicle in the category of a BMW 3 Series or Mercedes/Audi."

Agreed. But for many people the Bolt is going to be more practical with the hatchback. And some people actually like that styling (but I am NOT one of them).

And remember if you are a working person that can't afford to take a risk on such an expensive purchase you might think "will the car company be around in 10 years if I have a problem with it?" They KNOW GM will be there. We HOPE Tesla will (things are looking good) but it's not as certain. I've owned an electric car (Coda) and tried to get support for it after the company that made it went out of business after just a couple of years. It sucked. I'm someone who can afford to have multiple cars and absorb the loss on my $45k Tesla if the worst happens. Most people aren't so lucky and we should respect that.

Carl

akgolf | 8 marzo 2017

We don't know GM will be there.

They already went bankrupt once and there is no guarantee it won't happen again or if it does the government may decide not to bail them out this time.

Carl Thompson | 8 marzo 2017

akgolf:
"We don't know GM will be there.

They already went bankrupt once and there is no guarantee it won't happen again or if it does the government may decide not to bail them out this time."

GM has been around for 100 years. They did go bankrupt (on paper) but there was never any real doubt that GM would stick around in one form or another. Nothing is certain, but the probably of there not being a GM in ten years is in my opinion as close to 0 as you can get for any business.

Carl

Red Sage ca us | 8 marzo 2017

GM basically threw up their hands and cried, '¡No mas!' and thus became a 'new entity'. If only they had also taken the opportunity to dump the entire 'franchised dealership system' when they had the opportunity... Then they wouldn't have to waste so much effort on trying to prevent Direct Sales by Tesla, because they would be doing the same.

"State franchise laws prohibit auto manufacturers from making sales directly to consumers. This paper advocates eliminating state bans on direct manufacturer sales in order to provide automakers with an opportunity to reduce inventories and distribution costs by better matching production with consumer preferences." -- Abstract from 'Economic Effects of State Bans on Direct Manufacturer Sales to Car Buyers' by DOJ
https://www.justice.gov/atr/economic-effects-state-bans-direct-manufactu...

SamO | 8 marzo 2017

So to sum up "Carl"

Hybrids = EVs
EVs = Can't replace gas cars
GM = Certainty to be around in 10 years

So much lulz. Sad.

SamO | 8 marzo 2017

But a clear insight into the errors baked into the conclusions.

1. Gas, hydrogen, hybrids and diesel are the proverbial chicken with its head cut off. Dead but they don't know it yet.

2. Sustainable energy for the grid, via solar, is now cheaper than any fossil fuel. Tesla batteries will even out day and night use.

3. There are tens of thousands of "fueling" for EVs in Saskatoon than gasoline.

4. Save the hydrocarbons for rockets.

SamO | 8 marzo 2017

3. There are tens of thousands more fueling stations for electric vehicles in Saskatoon then there are gas stations.

Red Sage ca us | 8 marzo 2017

Oh, and as for the OP...? The BOLT has precisely the correct amount of range to use the Supercharger network to great effect, enabling long distance travel between major population centers. Oh, wait...

andy.connor.e | 8 marzo 2017

You know what, i give in to the pressure. The Bolt clearly has too much range/charge. I will not purchase Bolt until it has exceeded under 120 miles per charge.

You hear that Elon? Im not buying your cruddy Model 3 until it has surpassed under 120 miles per charge! 215 is just too much!

Carl Thompson | 8 marzo 2017

Red Sage ca us:
" If only they had also taken the opportunity to dump the entire 'franchised dealership system' when they had the opportunity... Then they wouldn't have to waste so much effort on trying to prevent Direct Sales by Tesla, because they would be doing the same."

I agree that would have been nice as Tesla's approach is better for everyone than the antiquated "dealer" concept. But it's hard to see how GM going bankrupt was an "opportunity" for them to force thousands of independently owned small businesses to go out of business and spend literally billions to replace them all at once. Hopefully Tesla will be successfully enough to force other manufacturers to adopt their model but it will take a lot of time. And dealers really add "only" about $1k to $3k to the price of a new car (depending on how good a deal you make) so that by itself isn't a huge factor.

Carl

Carl Thompson | 8 marzo 2017

SamO:
Hybrids = EVs"

LOL, no. But some cars that could be called hybrids are fully capable of being operated as true EVs using electricity only in exactly the same way as a "pure" EV.

"EVs = Can't replace gas cars"

I'd agree with that currently. But that will change over the coming years.

"GM = Certainty to be around in 10 years"

I wouldn't say it's _absolutely_ certain. But it's a very safe bet. I do think it's more likely for GM than for Tesla. (That's not a knock on Tesla's excellent cars, though.)

"So much lulz. Sad."

Not everyone has to think the same as you. And there's nothing wrong with using your mind and looking at things realistically.

Carl

JeffreyR | 8 marzo 2017

@CT wrote, "If you live or drive through very cold areas a gas car is much more convenient because it doesn't lose much range in the cold and heating the cabin is free in a gas car. I once spent a week in Saskatoon in January and the warmest it got during that week was minus 30-- yeah 30 below zero. I would not want to use an electric car there."

While it is true that cold weather negatively affects range in a BEV, it is also true for ICEV. Just to a lesser degree. Also the waste heat in the ICEV is an opportunity cost in how inefficient they are. Unfortunately a BEV is not immune to waste heat losses, but just to a much lesser degree.

Red Sage ca us | 8 marzo 2017

Why does this site keep logging me out in the middle of posting replies?

Tesla cannot 'force' GM, or anyone else, to sell direct. GM should not be able to FORCE Tesla to use 'independent franchised dealerships' either.

GM must now use 'independent franchised dealerships' in perpetuity -- it is the law. There is no escape from this sticky mouse trap -- save bankruptcy -- ie, DEATH.

[FOUL] the 'independent franchised dealerships'. GM had too many of them anyway. Most are poorly located. Since franchise laws give GM no control over their distribution network, they are unable to adjust to changing demographics by opening or moving sites closer to their customers. Anything they suggest must go under review by the government officials and a board of dealers.

Even after reducing locations during bankruptcy proceedings, GM has more dealers than anyone else in the nation. 900+ Cadillac, 1900+ to cover Buick and GMC brands, with another 2,500 for Chevrolet. Toyota and Honda built their networks much more efficiently, and it takes far fewer locations to sell more cars per site. Tesla had less than 100 sites during 2016 and the Model S still outsold every single passenger car from Cadillac -- despite being 'banned' in 24 States.

So, yeah... GM would have been better off scrapping their entire dealership network for something that was much simpler, smaller, easier to manage, eith lications that were most apt to bring big business in an efficient manner.

Pages