[Joule]

All they did was start charging more for the more difficult paints. Yes, they reduced other paint options, but it doesn't change the fact that the painting process is the bottleneck. So yes, painting an additional section would require more time than simply inserting a glass roof in that section's place.

https://insideevs.com/musk-paint-tesla-model-3-bottleneck/

If you didn't notice, I was responding to your point that covered two different positions. Yes. The 60 kWh Nissan LEAF will steal away Model 3 sales. It's just a fact. To what degree is a different question. The reason I keep asking you to exercise nuance is that you can't seem to get out of the all-or-nothing, zero-sum mentality. The LEAF stealing away Model 3 sales is not synonymous with outselling the Model 3.

I don't think you are. You are a current Tesla owner correct? Do you also own a Bolt EV?

So far, a vast majority of Tesla owners I know are not working class. They take for granted that they can simply drop $50,000 for a car because it's the best. However, a majority of buyers can't do that. They have to weigh options, and if a vehicle can provide 60, 70, 80% of the value for 30, 40, 50% less money, they are likely to choose the less expensive option.

As for the variables, of course we don't have all of the facts. That's why it's called making a prediction (not a "conclusion," as you stated).

There is ridiculous, and there is, well... this conversation. The bolded text in your quote seems to contradict the prediction/conclusion thingy! But that is just par for the course, right NewsCoulomb? BTW the insideevs link you provide doesn't support your argument, it weakens it. The problem being stressed there is in the painting process itself, which has required some of the cars to be completely redone. Just for fun, if we take a round number like 10% as an example of the number of cars that needed to be repainted/corrected (I am not trying to suggest that it is or would be that high), that would mean about 5500 cars, which would be like having to paint/correct 11k (and paint corrections could take more time then it took to originally paint the car). So while they were only able to deliver 55k, they had to paint/correct 60k+. That is a big deal for a company that is trying to reach profitability. The problem being reported is present without having to paint the roof, and there is noting in the article, or anything printed elsewhere that would suggest painting the roof will make the problem worse. If a car has to be repainted/corrected for a spot on a door, a fender, and the hood, adding the roof does very little to the fact that the car body has to be sent back.

You keep going on about your belief that the Leaf will steal sales from the Model 3 as if I don't get it, or I am trying to argue the fact that you have a point of view. I get it. I think everyone here gets it. We have all heard loud and clear that you think the 2019 Leaf will steal sales from the Model 3. I highly doubt it, but I get your point of view. The fair question in followup to your view worth asking is, by what metric will you base your claim? What I see for 2019 is an increase in EV sales in general. I believe that Q3 of 2019 will show an increase over the past quarter of this year. To support that logic, I could reference you back to insideevs where you could with almost no effort see that since 2010, there has been a slow but steady increase in EV sales year after year, and there is nothing that is glaringly apparent today that would suggest the trend will change in 2019.
But what will you use to support your view if asked next year? If we take the value proposition you offer and apply it to 2018, we might as well take it out with the trash, because clearly that is not what is happening. I know, it is the range thing right? To advance that further, I think Nissan was very smart to focus efforts on Japan and Europe in 2018. With GM essentially being knocked out as it were in Europe, and no Model 3 deliveries, you could say that the Leaf is the only game in town. But I am convinced that sales numbers for the lower range Leaf will be dwarfed by sales of longer range EV's in 2019, which also includes the 60kWh Leaf.

So recap! You think the 2019 Leaf will steal sales from the Model 3 based on a value proposition that includes their less expensive/less capable Pro-Pilot software based driver assist system. Got it!

 

[Joule]

That is fairly common here, unfortunately (by many). Normally I wouldn't care too much, but 4 months from now, when I am searching for that back-and-forth argument about why oranges are better than limes (or whatever off-topic side-track was chosen), I am not going to think to look for it in the "Sep Sales" -titled thread (or whichever thread it happened in).

It really isn't that hard to start a new thread for a new topic.

And for that, I do apologize SparkE. To be fair, the original point being made by NewsCoulomb was about projected sales in 2019, I was simply pointing out where I thought his projection was faulted, which led to,... well you know. If it is any help, anyone interested could always just click on one of our names to find all the linked posts. From there it shouldn't be that hard to find the pointless bantering that went on behind the thread titled "Sep 2918 EV sales".

Otherwise, sorry if this has turned out to be anything less than informative/entertaining for anyone.

 

[bro1999]

If Tesla does not post a profit for Q3 despite the oodles of Model 3 sales, the stock will tank more than an ill-advised Elon tweet can tank it. If it can't make a profit selling mostly highly optioned Model 3s, how is it ever gonna turn a profit when it starts selling the money losing base 3's?

 

[Joule]

If Tesla does not post a profit for Q3 despite the oodles of Model 3 sales, the stock will tank more than an ill-advised Elon tweet can tank it. If it can't make a profit selling mostly highly optioned Model 3s, how is it ever gonna turn a profit when it starts selling the money losing base 3's?

I think you are absolutely on point here. The question for me is, can Tesla break the 60k Model 3 production mark in Q4? The second question is, can they show a profit at 5k/week as Elon previously suggested? Time will tell, and it is getting close to the crunch.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

There is ridiculous, and there is, well... this conversation. The bolded text in your quote seems to contradict the prediction/conclusion thingy! But that is just par for the course, right NewsCoulomb? BTW the insideevs link you provide doesn't support your argument, it weakens it. The problem being stressed there is in the painting process itself, which has required some of the cars to be completely redone. Just for fun, if we take a round number like 10% as an example of the number of cars that needed to be repainted/corrected (I am not trying to suggest that it is or would be that high), that would mean about 5500 cars, which would be like having to paint/correct 11k (and paint corrections could take more time then it took to originally paint the car). So while they were only able to deliver 55k, they had to paint/correct 60k+. That is a big deal for a company that is trying to reach profitability. The problem being reported is present without having to paint the roof, and there is noting in the article, or anything printed elsewhere that would suggest painting the roof will make the problem worse. If a car has to be repainted/corrected for a spot on a door, a fender, and the hood, adding the roof does very little to the fact that the car body has to be sent back.

We'll see. The source Insideevs was quoting was Elon (Tesla), so of course he is going to be highly optimistic about fixing the painting process. Either way, even if painting isn't a bottleneck (which it does appear to be), Tesla won't be releasing the non Premium Upgrades Model 3 SR anytime soon.

The question is, will they offer the non Premium Upgrades Model LR/LR AWD before they offer the "decked out" Model 3 SR? The former should still be the higher margin car, right?

So recap! You think the 2019 Leaf will steal sales from the Model 3 based on a value proposition that includes their less expensive/less capable Pro-Pilot software based driver assist system. Got it!

Sheesh. Finally. Yes, the 2019 LEAF will steal Model 3 sales because it is a better value and more readily available. And for those interested in driver assistance, ProPilot is a better value option than EAP.

As for metrics to track it, the only thing I can think of is customer interviews. Sometimes that data is collected: "What other vehicles were you considering at the time of purchase?"

 

[SparkE]

Well, future sales isn't exactly "Sep 2018 sales", but at least it is in the ballpark.

Frankly, talk of "stealing future model 3 sales" is a pretty ridiculous concept to even think about, let alone discuss, at the moment.

I'm no Tesla fan-boy, but more model 3s are shipping this year than the sum total of every other vendor's BEVs added together. Geez, just Q3 shipments of the model 3 will probably end up more than the sum total of every other vendor's BEVs added together. Heck, for the MONTH of Sep, Tesla shipped more models 3s than the annual total to date (i.e., so far for 2018) of any other single EV in the US - including PHEV vehicles, like the Prius.

It really doesn't matter if the 2019 LEAF or the Bolt "steals sales" from the model 3 - so they ship 1000 less per month? Out of 20K, or 25K or 30K units? And mostly taking sales from the lower-end model 3s to boot? So what?

Higher sales for EVs is better for everybody. Currently only Tesla, Chevy, and Nissan are realistic players in the BEV niche market, and Tesla dwarfs the other two. Competition is good for the consumer. Arguing whose car is better is infantile.

Frankly, I am anxiously waiting for new models, and/or increased shipments, of BEVs from Kia/Hyundai, Nissan, Chevy, Honda, Toyota, Tesla, and anybody else - the more the merrier!

 

[Joule]

"What other vehicles were you considering at the time of purchase?"

The Bolt really, but the Nissan was also in the running because it had a much more developed interior. What sunk the Nissan for me was purely the range, and the Bolt was questionable as I had no real experience with what to expect from an EV. After driving one for a few months now, I am glad I have the extra range and would argue for myself at least that even the current Model 3 is a little short if I consider weather and everything else.

 

[Joule]

Well, future sales isn't exactly "Sep 2018 sales", but at least it is in the ballpark.

Frankly, talk of "stealing future model 3 sales" is a pretty ridiculous concept to even think about, let alone discuss, at the moment.

I'm no Tesla fan-boy, but more model 3s are shipping this year than the sum total of every other vendor's BEVs added together. Geez, just Q3 shipments of the model 3 will probably end up more than the sum total of every other vendor's BEVs added together. Heck, for the MONTH of Sep, Tesla shipped more models 3s than the annual total to date (i.e., so far for 2018) of any other single EV in the US - including PHEV vehicles, like the Prius.

It really doesn't matter if the 2019 LEAF or the Bolt "steals sales" from the model 3 - so they ship 1000 less per month? Out of 20K, or 25K or 30K units? And mostly taking sales from the lower-end model 3s to boot? So what?

Higher sales for EVs is better for everybody. Currently only Tesla, Chevy, and Nissan are realistic players in the BEV niche market, and Tesla dwarfs the other two. Competition is good for the consumer. Arguing whose car is better is infantile.

Frankly, I am anxiously waiting for new models, and/or increased shipments, of BEVs from Kia/Hyundai, Nissan, Chevy, Honda, Toyota, Tesla, and anybody else - the more the merrier!

I think by 2020 we should have much improved EV representation from the big boys club, unless of course something totally unexpected happens and incentive is completely killed off by the Gov. With past experience in mind, it is a little disturbing to say the least to get news of the recent proposed bill to not only eliminate the Fed credit, but to also impose additional tax on non-gas powered cars. Look what happened in Ontario recently.

 

[ZoomZoom]

I drove the Model 3 the same day I drove the Bolt. There's no comparison. I'll just leave it at that. I didn't buy the M3 because the Standard Battery option on the Model 3 is 4 to 7 months out and I want a cheap car. I know I get what I pay for, but I want a cheap car. The M3 that they are selling now in huge numbers are expensive. They are sweet. Nice. Very nice. So I drove the Bolt, bought the Bolt. It's on order. 6 weeks they tell me, not sure though.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Frankly, talk of "stealing future model 3 sales" is a pretty ridiculous concept to even think about, let alone discuss, at the moment.

I'm not sure why. It's already been happening. I personally know several people that already abandoned their Model 3 reservation and bought another EV instead (most common are the Bolt EV and 40 kWh LEAF). I know several more who are still on the fence about whether they keep it.

At >$50,000, the Model 3 is a very compelling car, which is why we're going to see at least 100,000 of them delivered in the United States this year. At <$40,000, the Model 3 is not that much better than other EVs in its price range, and any number of features (in combination with availability) could equal a canceled Model 3 SR sale.

Here's a little roundup of just what we've seen in the sub $40,000 EV class so far relative to the Model 3 SR:

Chevy Bolt EV

• Longer range
• Down about 1 second 0-60 mph
• Peak charging maybe 30-40% slower
• Hatch, larger cargo volume, more rear passenger room
• Available now

Hyundai Kona Electric

• Longer range
• Down about 2 seconds 0-60 mph
• Peak charging maybe 10-15% slower
• Hatch, larger cargo volume

KIA e-Niro

• Longer range
• Down about 2 seconds 0-60 mph
• Peak charging maybe 10-15% slower
• Hatch, larger cargo volume, more rear passenger room

Nissan LEAF 60 kWh

• Similar range
• Down about 1 seconds 0-60 mph
• Peak charging possibly 10-20% faster
• ProPilot Assist
• Hatch, larger cargo volume, more rear passenger room

 

[Sean Nelson]

So recap! You think the 2019 Leaf will steal sales from the Model 3 based on a value proposition that includes their less expensive/less capable Pro-Pilot software based driver assist system. Got it!

I drove the Model 3 the same day I drove the Bolt. There's no comparison. I'll just leave it at that. I didn't buy the M3 because the Standard Battery option on the Model 3 is 4 to 7 months out and I want a cheap car. I know I get what I pay for, but I want a cheap car. The M3 that they are selling now in huge numbers are expensive. They are sweet. Nice. Very nice. So I drove the Bolt, bought the Bolt. It's on order. 6 weeks they tell me, not sure though.

ZoomZoom's post proves the point. He's not talking about the Leaf, but it's exactly the same principle.

 

[SparkE]

Who cares if Tesla sells 500 fewer model 3s a month? Or even 1500 ? They are still going to be selling 20,000 model 3s per month.

And why would Tesla care that some budget-conscious people are buying a LEAF or Bolt instead of the base $35K model 3 (you know, the one all the Tesla haters are saying can barely be sold for a profit)? They'll be happy to let other car-makers sell $32K vehicles while they sell $55K model 3s.

Seriously?

Sometimes I think that arguing simply for the sake of argument has replaced porn as the internet's highest data sink.

 

[DaV8or]

I drove the Model 3 the same day I drove the Bolt. There's no comparison.

Yes. The Bolt and the Model 3 really aren't competitors and it's silly to compare them. Really the only things they have in common is that they are both BEVs and they kinda, sorta have the similar range. That's it. Not much else.

It's now on GM to come up with a new car to steal sales away from the Model 3 if they so choose because the Bolt isn't it. It's also on Tesla to come up with a car to steal sales away from the Bolt if they so choose, because the Model 3 isn't it. I really hope they both take the challenge. GM could do better at impressing people and Tesla could do better at meeting the needs of the more common driver that makes up the bulk of what's on the road.

 

[ZoomZoom]

Yes. The Bolt and the Model 3 really aren't competitors and it's silly to compare them. Really the only things they have in common is that they are both BEVs and they kinda, sorta have the similar range. That's it. Not much else.

It's now on GM to come up with a new car to steal sales away from the Model 3 if they so choose because the Bolt isn't it. It's also on Tesla to come up with a car to steal sales away from the Bolt if they so choose, because the Model 3 isn't it. I really hope they both take the challenge. GM could do better at impressing people and Tesla could do better at meeting the needs of the more common driver that makes up the bulk of what's on the road.

We haven't seen the 'real' build price of a Model 3 Tesla with the standard battery. But if that is within the same price range of the Bolt .... IF. Well, that will impact Bolt sales. I'm not the only one who bought based on budget. EM still boasts that the base price will be $36,000. Honestly I don't think that'll be the base price, but boy that will be a game changer if he does do that. Just my 2 cents. I don't think it's silly to compare 2 vehicles in the same price range, even if one is really really nice and the other is a nice. The Model 3 with the extended battery and all wheel drive, but without the fancy auto-drive is available for $50K. Drop the all wheel drive and you are in the same ballpark as the high end Bolt. Still a little more.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Who cares if Tesla sells 500 fewer model 3s a month? Or even 1500 ? They are still going to be selling 20,000 model 3s per month.

And why would Tesla care that some budget-conscious people are buying a LEAF or Bolt instead of the base $35K model 3 (you know, the one all the Tesla haters are saying can barely be sold for a profit)? They'll be happy to let other car-makers sell $32K vehicles while they sell $55K model 3s.

Seriously?

Sometimes I think that arguing simply for the sake of argument has replaced porn as the internet's highest data sink.

You might be right. Tesla might be slow to roll out the $35,000 Model 3 because they know they won't be able to sell it at a profit (or not much of one, anyway). Right now, it certainly doesn't look like Tesla is that interested in actually selling a $35,000 Model 3. I still maintain that price point was simply published so that Tesla could claim not to be "out done" by GM with the Bolt EV.

However, that being said, we aren't talking about "500 fewer Model 3s a month." We're talking 5,000 to 10,000 fewer a month between all of the competitive options available below $40,000. I don't think it's a stretch to estimate that total Bolt EV, e-Niro, Kona Electric, and LEAF (60 kWh) deliveries will average more than 20,000 units a month, and that's being very conservative. For global sales, that number could easily double.

As for the Bolt EV not comparing to the Model 3, that is true for a number of reasons. The vehicles are very different, and most people would find the Bolt EV more practical. However, it seems like people are referencing performance, features, and finish more than anything else. That's also true, but all you have to compare right now is the Model 3 that is minimum $10,000 more expensive than the Bolt EV. In terms of performance and capabilities, the $35,000 Model 3 will be far closer to the Bolt EV LT than the Model 3 that is currently available.

The reason the current Model 3 ($50,000 to $70,000) is doing so well is because it literally has zero competition in its space. We hardly have any EV sedans available from any other automaker, and none of the ones that are available have >200 miles of range and >200 hp. GM could easily take a chunk out of current Model 3 sales with a 340+ mile Malibu EV (or better yet, a Cadillac/Buick based on the platform) using a 180 kW motor and 80 kWh battery based on scaled up Bolt EV tech. They wouldn't even need to up the charging rate beyond the current 1 C for it to be a compelling alternative at an MSRP starting at $45,000 to $50,000. However, no automakers really seem interested in playing in that space right now. The only one I know of is Mercedes with their EQA, and that's a couple of years away.

 

[Joule]

ZoomZoom's post proves the point. He's not talking about the Leaf, but it's exactly the same principle.

Proves what exactly Sean? So ZoomZoom is buying a Bolt, and then what? Should someone call CNN and let them know that the overall effect of Magrider's decision is being cancelled by an update from ZoomZoom? How does that equate to what NewsCoulomb was trying to say? How many people bought a Model 3 instead of a Bolt in the last quarter? According to the most recent numbers, more then 50k. So what, you and NewsCoulomb are going to keep a scratch pad with sets of four vertical lines followed by a fifth line diagonally striking through them to indicate groups of five? Lets see, In September after ZoomZoom and Magrider cancel each other out, that makes Tesla = 22k; Bolt = 1500; Leaf = 1500. Fingers ready guys, start counting!

Even though NewsCoulomb would continually try to push it there, I was never arguing about sales now or in the future as stated in the sarcasm directed at him in the recap. As a contributor on an internet forum, I was really just pointing out what I believe were weak points to his argument. And his claim that the larger EV community has been wronged at the hands of Tesla is just pure bull. He goes on and on with wild eyed assertions about how everyone in the industry is being undermined by Tesla, and is never able to back it up with proof. The two times I saw him reference something, the references he used actually contradicted what he was saying, the first being an article about Porsche, and the second being something he more recently posted on paint problems with Tesla's production ramp. To quote him,

"However, when I say the new LEAF will do a number on Model 3 SR sales, it means that Nissan will be stealing an appreciable number of Model 3 SR sales away from Tesla, especially in the United States. In fact, I don't think the Model 3 will be the best selling EV in the United States for 2019."

As I have already said, I don't agree with his point of view as it is essentially meaningless IMO because it is not something that could be easily proved. In order for his statement to be true, Tesla's sales would have to drop in an appreciable way, while Nissan's grew in similar proportion. Having someone chime-in that he/she bought this, that, or the other thing is nothing more then being anecdotal about the topic, and it proves nothing.

And can you look around today with any logic and come up with what he is asserting? Take the data compiled on insideevs over the last 8 years and tell me what logical conclusion you come up with. All things being equal, all we can really say is that we should expect a general increase in EV sales across the board in the US. Having said that, I have no doubt that there are forces working in the background to try and tip the cart so to speak so that the proclamation he is making today becomes true tomorrow. There is a multi-trillion dollar industry in the back pushing for it. So yah, he is a Bolt driver with a video blog. Whether they can garner enough support from the current Gov to succeed in dramatically stalling the movement towards EV's or not here in NA, and they are trying, the real demand for EV's is clearly on a magnitude of scale that goes well beyond what we have been lead to believe. So if what NewCoulomb is asserting becomes true tomorrow, it will not have come about from natural causes.

But if your aim is to confirm NewsCoulomb's theory, a better test might be to record 2019 sales in Europe for the following reasons; less incentive at a Federal level to squash EV adoption through increased taxation and a demotivated EPA, and the Model 3 has not entered that market yet, making any changes in sales trends more noticeable.

 

[bro1999]

Proves what exactly Sean? So ZoomZoom is buying a Bolt, and then what? Should someone call CNN and let them know that the overall effect of Magrider's decision is being cancelled by an update from ZoomZoom? How does that equate to what NewsCoulomb was trying to say? How many people bought a Model 3 instead of a Bolt in the last quarter? According to the most recent numbers, more then 50k. So what, you and NewsCoulomb are going to keep a scratch pad with sets of four vertical lines followed by a fifth line diagonally striking through them to indicate groups of five? Lets see, In September after ZoomZoom and Magrider cancel each other out, that makes Tesla = 22k; Bolt = 1500; Leaf = 1500. Fingers ready guys, start counting!

Way to engage the hyperbole to Ludicrous mode like Elon. Are you actually saying all 50k Model 3 buyers would have bought a Bolt if not for their Model 3 number coming up? Ridiculous. Probably only a small % of those 50k Model 3 owners seriously cross-shopped a Bolt and considered it for purchase. According to the Tesla forums and all the fanbois on there, NO ONE seriously interested in a Tesla considers a Bolt as an alternative to a Tesla, since the Bolt is a *insert insult of choice*.

I am willing to bet that the number of people that bought/leased a Bolt after getting tired of the constant lies from Elon about when their base Model 3 would be ready for delivery and ditched their reservations outnumber the people that spurned the Bolt for a Model 3.

 

[bro1999]

You might be right. Tesla might be slow to roll out the $35,000 Model 3 because they know they won't be able to sell it at a profit (or not much of one, anyway). Right now, it certainly doesn't look like Tesla is that interested in actually selling a $35,000 Model 3. I still maintain that price point was simply published so that Tesla could claim not to be "out done" by GM with the Bolt EV.

Tesla (and probably mainly Elon) pushed the $35k price point because they knew they couldn't collect as many interest free $1k loans from suck--er, I mean reservation holders if they advertised the actual Model 3 they could get into consumer hands in 2017, the $49k version. Elon admitted that when he said if they were to sell the base Model 3, Tesla would "die". Which begs the question of whether the $35k price announcement was purely a ploy to inflate the stock as high as possible.....reverse FUD, as I would call it. I hear the DoJ is looking into that matter, along with several other questionable statements made by Elon and Tesla about Model 3 production.

The first Model 3 deliveries were over 16 months ago, and still not a sniff of the "$35k" Model 3. Too bad for all those folks that were duped into standing in line in the middle of the night on 31 March, 2016 forking over $1,000 to Tesla with the belief they would be able to snag a "$35k Model 3" before the tax credit started phasing out. By the way it looks, those people that truly wanted a $35k 3 won't be able to cash in on any of the tax credit, let alone $7,500.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Way to engage the hyperbole to Ludicrous mode like Elon. Are you actually saying all 50k Model 3 buyers would have bought a Bolt if not for their Model 3 number coming up? Ridiculous. Probably only a small % of those 50k Model 3 owners seriously cross-shopped a Bolt and considered it for purchase.

It is ridiculous. Remember, most of those 50,000 people have been waiting (with a $1,000 reservation) for 2.5 years. It was part of Elon's strategy, I believe, to preemptively steal away prospective Bolt EV owners. If you ask for $1,000 up front, people are not likely to even consider other products that are released later.

Now, if the Bolt EV were already available for purchase, asking for a $1,000 deposit at that point wouldn't be as effective. Get out in front. Get people to commit. Convince them to wait. And you'll eventually have a sale.

So no, very few of those owners cross shopped with the Bolt EV. Half the members of my local EV advocacy group now own Model 3s. Most of them knew next to nothing about the Bolt EV, and really, most of what they know about it now is from what they've heard from me, which for some reason gives them the polar opposite impression from what they've read on CleanTechnica, Electrek, Evannex, and Teslarati. It really sucks to be in a room full of EV advocates and owners and have to fact check every other statement (typically negative) about the Bolt EV.

 

[bro1999]

It is ridiculous. Remember, most of those 50,000 people have been waiting (with a $1,000 reservation) for 2.5 years. It was part of Elon's strategy, I believe, to preemptively steal away prospective Bolt EV owners. If you ask for $1,000 up front, people are not likely to even consider other products that are released later.

Now, if the Bolt EV were already available for purchase, asking for a $1,000 deposit at that point wouldn't be as effective. Get out in front. Get people to commit. Convince them to wait. And you'll eventually have a sale.

So no, very few of those owners cross shopped with the Bolt EV. Half the members of my local EV advocacy group now own Model 3s. Most of them knew next to nothing about the Bolt EV, and really, most of what they know about it now is from what they've heard from me, which for some reason gives them the polar opposite impression from what they've read on CleanTechnica, Electrek, Evannex, and Teslarati. It really sucks to be in a room full of EV advocates and owners and have to fact check every other statement (typically negative) about the Bolt EV.

The anti-GM FUD machine has been working overtime these days. The day the Bolt EV concept was revealed (and the subsequent production announcement a month later), the TSLA cultist crowd has been doing whatever they could to denigrate the Bolt (as well as pretty much any other EV offering put out by a competitor).