Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,789 Posts
Again, I disagree. Tesla (and Elon) deserve credit for what Tesla (and Elon) have done. They don't get credit for what others do.
I dunno. This is kind of like saying that when the Lakers pull ahead of the Knicks, the Knicks don't bother trying any harder. When Tesla starts outselling BMW in North America, you don't think it has some influence on BMW's direction? Or at least the timing of it?

I'm certainly not going to claim that Tesla deserves credit for all or even most of the EV progress in the west. But to think that the other manufacturers are completely and willfully ignoring them seems just as "ludicrous". Somewhere in the middle is the truth, I think.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
I dunno. This is kind of like saying that when the Lakers pull ahead of the Knicks, the Knicks don't bother trying any harder. When Tesla starts outselling BMW in North America, you don't think it has some influence on BMW's direction? Or at least the timing of it?

I'm certainly not going to claim that Tesla deserves credit for all or even most of the EV progress in the west. But to think that the other manufacturers are completely and willfully ignoring them seems just as "ludicrous". Somewhere in the middle is the truth, I think.
If you want to make the argument that Tesla is driving EV demand, I can see where you're coming from. However, I'd still disagree. Tesla is not driving EV demand; they are driving Tesla demand. That's why Tesla and their surrogates spend more time and effort attacking other EVs and EV efforts than they do attacking ICE and fossil-fuels.

Also, note that I am not saying automakers are ignoring Tesla; they are fully aware of what Tesla is up to (just like the rest of their competitors). I'm simply saying that Tesla isn't as influential as people give them credit for. Keep in mind, from an engineering perspective, GM is already building better EVs than Tesla, and GM knows that. The marketplace doesn't necessarily understand that yet, but GM knows that the Lyriq and Ultium represent several steps beyond anything we've seen out of Tesla thus far. "Following Tesla" would (and should) look absurd from GM's perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
While the EV bits of the GM line may well be better than Tesla, GM is still suffering from reputation problems. They just can't seem to build a car without at least some parts that are just too cheap. This leaves and air of cheapness about the whole company. Tesla seems to have avoided this problem and is thus able to compete at the BMW level, while GM can't sell a Caddy to save it's life (or perhaps the company).
Much has been written about the Bolt interior - which I don't really care about. But, I just tried to install a luggage rack - the threaded bit's were rusted to the point I couldn't get a bolt into them. The racks on my dad's mid-60s Ford station wagons were better than this. And I know of nothing that will disolve the rust that isn't also likely to damage the paint. GM just couldn't spring the extra buck to use stainless steel for these fasteners - they would rather have them leave rust stains and be unusable. I love my Bolt, but GM in general just leaves a bad taste. GM must make all around better cars if they are going to survive the switch-over to EV's because they can't charge EV prices at the quality level they currently have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
While the EV bits of the GM line may well be better than Tesla, GM is still suffering from reputation problems. They just can't seem to build a car without at least some parts that are just too cheap. This leaves and air of cheapness about the whole company. Tesla seems to have avoided this problem and is thus able to compete at the BMW level, while GM can't sell a Caddy to save it's life (or perhaps the company).
Much has been written about the Bolt interior - which I don't really care about. But, I just tried to install a luggage rack - the threaded bit's were rusted to the point I couldn't get a bolt into them. The racks on my dad's mid-60s Ford station wagons were better than this. And I know of nothing that will disolve the rust that isn't also likely to damage the paint. GM just couldn't spring the extra buck to use stainless steel for these fasteners - they would rather have them leave rust stains and be unusable. I love my Bolt, but GM in general just leaves a bad taste. GM must make all around better cars if they are going to survive the switch-over to EV's because they can't charge EV prices at the quality level they currently have.
The part in bold is only true if you're operating within the Tesla echo chamber. Step outside of that, and independent car reviewers regularly criticize Tesla for their cheap, low-quality interiors and materials (e.g., paint). While that level of cheapness would still be noteworthy on a $35,000 car like the Chevy Bolt EV, it's absolutely unacceptable on any car that's masquerading as a luxury brand. The Jaguar I-PACE's interior, which is several levels higher in quality than anything Tesla offers, is also criticized for falling short of luxury brand expectations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Lesson learned - as soon as you buy a Chevy Bolt, install bolts into the threaded bits with some grease so they don't rust out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry Duke

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
From our current perspective, we all wish that GM had done things differently. GM still says that ending the EV1 was absolutely the right thing to do but that it was a public relations disaster. Still, GM has been involved with EVs for some time: the EV1 from 1996 to 1999, the Spark EV from 2013 to 2016, the Volt 2010-2019 and the Bolt 2017 - current. Compliance requirements certainly was a driving force, but each new model shows a clear advancement in EV technology, lumbering perhaps, but still steadily advancing. Could GM have gone faster? Likely. But for a typical business, it has made steady, prudent investments. Only recently has all the technology come together to justify the economic case for greater EV investments, and they have done that. Without Tesla, the next GM EV might be have been something like a Trailblazer EV or a Malibu EV. Tesla probably showed GM that the high-end was where to go first. Though all we can do is speculate, I would say that the conversion from ICE to EVs would have happened without Tesla, just not quite the same way and probably not quite as quickly.
Eh they have a prism that was electric, the fuelcell equonix and many many others such as s10 electric. They are typically fleet buyouts thou
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Actually, he's not. People seem to think that Elon and Tesla have a huge sway on the traditional automakers, but they are less influential than actual profit margins. If GM couldn't sell EVs profitably, they wouldn't (Elon or no Elon). GM was building EVs before Tesla was even a company, and in fact, Tesla's first EVs were based on GM EV technology. Over and over and over again, GM has reiterated that the reason they haven't pursued EVs more aggressively is because they couldn't make a profit while providing their customers with the functionality they expect for a price that's competitive.

Unless you can prove that Elon and Tesla provided GM and LG Chem their improved battery technology at lower costs, your assertion is baseless.

A very probable reason GM did not pursue EVs on the heels of their EV1 experiment has as much to do with the 31% of their corporate board that represents Big Oil as lack of profitability. As documented in "Who Killed the Electric Car" it was GM who bought the patent for then state-of-the-art battery packs and deep-sixed it. If Tesla had failed to launch a successful car, no entity would be happier than the governing board of GM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
A very probable reason GM did not pursue EVs on the heels of their EV1 experiment has as much to do with the 31% of their corporate board that represents Big Oil as lack of profitability. As documented in "Who Killed the Electric Car" it was GM who bought the patent for then state-of-the-art battery packs and deep-sixed it. If Tesla had failed to launch a successful car, no entity would be happier than the governing board of GM.
Except the very premise of your statement is false. The downtime between the end of the EV1 program and GM's work on the Volt, hybrid drive trains, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles was minimal at best. No one has explicitly stated GM's internal timelines (Lutz hinted at it), so all we know is that GM had a functioning Volt prototype just three years after the EV1 program ended. That's not something you just snap together on a weekend. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
A very probable reason GM did not pursue EVs on the heels of their EV1 experiment has as much to do with the 31% of their corporate board that represents Big Oil as lack of profitability. As documented in "Who Killed the Electric Car" it was GM who bought the patent for then state-of-the-art battery packs and deep-sixed it. If Tesla had failed to launch a successful car, no entity would be happier than the governing board of GM.
This reminded me of the Lutz tirade after Tesla released the first Roadster in 2006.


"After the launch of Tesla's original Roadster, the former GM executive voiced his doubts (and a trace of envy) questioning if the Silicon Valley startup could ever make it — in Revenge of the Electric Car he said:
Some believe in the Tesla announcement, 200-mile range, 0-60 in 4 point something seconds, 140 mph top speed, 6,831 laptop batteries, I basically said wait a minute, I've accepted everybody's arguments on why we can't do this, but here's this small startup company in California and they think they can get all these figures."

"In a joint interview with Elon Musk in 2011, Lutz praised the design of Tesla's Model S prototype and said he believed the car could open the window for broader market reach making the brand commercially viable. That said, Lutz and GM still didn't decide to initiate any pure EV strategy at the time.

Instead, under Lutz's direction, GM worked on the first "Tesla killer" — a part-gas, part-electric project, called the Chevy Volt (years after discontinuing the company's own EV1 electric car in 2003). Surely this would destroy the audacious plans of a brash young Elon Musk, right?"

What's fascinating is Lutz had a plan to destroy Tesla which pairs with the Jack Rickard blog I linked on Jacks passing thread. Although at recent times, Lutz has softened his stance on Tesla like the following a few months ago;

"Even Bob Lutz had to heap some praise on Tesla this summer, saying "it was impossible to find fault with the visual quality of that Model 3... [and] excellent fit and finish also requires leadership focus and will, something that Tesla clearly has."

Regardless, they still trot him out on CNBC from time to time and he seems oblivious to his cringe worthy, butt hurt hostility towards Tesla. It's entertaining but sad to watch him stoop to such levels of misinformation to support his confirmation bias and jealousy. Very similar to Tesla shorts Gordon Johnson and Mark Speigel. Johnson currently has a $17.40 price target for Tesla which is currently trading at about 25X that.


Here's a video that discusses how Tesla destroyed Lutz' own secret master plan to put Tesla out of business which was a threat to their core ICE business model.




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
Except the very premise of your statement is false. The downtime between the end of the EV1 program and GM's work on the Volt, hybrid drive trains, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles was minimal at best. No one has explicitly stated GM's internal timelines (Lutz hinted at it), so all we know is that GM had a functioning Volt prototype just three years after the EV1 program ended. That's not something you just snap together on a weekend. :rolleyes:
And what powers the Volt? After 43-50 miles, petrol. No undue influence there by the Big Oil interests on GM's board. And why the interest in hydrogen fuel cells? It's an easy conversion for the retail outlets controlled by Big Oil. Gas pumps in this line, hydrogen pumps in that line. And how is hydrogen produced? With petroleum products. Talk about preparing for the future...at a snail's pace.
 

·
Registered
2020
Joined
·
199 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,281 Posts
And what powers the Volt? After 43-50 miles, petrol. No undue influence there by the Big Oil interests on GM's board. And why the interest in hydrogen fuel cells? It's an easy conversion for the retail outlets controlled by Big Oil. Gas pumps in this line, hydrogen pumps in that line. And how is hydrogen produced? With petroleum products. Talk about preparing for the future...at a snail's pace.
Move the goalposts to serve whatever ends you want. The fact is, GM never "gave up" on electrification. Whether and when they were/are willing to give up on petrol, hydrogen, etc. is irrelevant. GM is driven by one thing: Profits. Assigning motives beyond that is impossible for a layperson like yourself to establish. When GM could profitably offer an all-electric following the EV1, they did. What happened in the meantime was a lot of research, development, and investments. If you want to discount that or give GM's earned and well-deserved credit to other automakers, fine. You can believe what you want. If you make factually incorrect or imprecise statements about that time, I'll correct them. Other people can then draw whatever conclusions they want.
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top