oilerlord
Well-known member
DucRider said:
Only because you don't believe it. The story doesn't fit your confirmation bias, so you immediately dismiss it. If it did, you would no doubt proclaim it as fact.
Is the Bolt a compliance car?
- Thread starter ScooterCT
- Start date
Help Support Chevy Bolt EV Forum:
Only because you don't believe it. The story doesn't fit your confirmation bias, so you immediately dismiss it. If it did, you would no doubt proclaim it as fact.
roundpeg
Well-known member
oilerlord said:
That seems unfair. This story was weak journalism at the very least for not citing any source for this estimate. An analyst? Someone with access to the Bill of Materials who might have a credible method for estimating the costs of production? Somebody in the industry guessing? A number plucked out of the air? What production costs were included? It isn't "confirmation bias" when critical reader of news stories asks themselves these questions. Seems like more the opposite.
oilerlord
Well-known member
roundpeg said:
I've already said that only GM knows for sure, and we're all merely guessing using the limited information we have. Journalists don't typically give up their sources.
The Detroit Free Press is the largest daily newspaper in Detroit, with roots that go back to 1831. What's unfair is dismissing the article as "click bait" - and not having the facts to back up that claim or to dispute it. At best, it shows a closed mind...at worst - slander.
oilerlord said:
I don't believe or disbelieve and that article offers no information to make a judgement either way. Just because someone writes something and posts it on the internet does not make it true (or false). But that is the type of article that will gain traction and become a "fact" on the internet.
I did not know if GM was "losing money" on the Bolt before I read the article. I still don't.
It is also important to consider the source - the Detroit News is not known for unbiased views on EV's. I also am skeptical of claims from EV news sites as they have their bias as well.
Also note that "losing money" is a null term unless at least some definition or framework is offered. Parts & Labor? Tooling? R&D? ZEV Credit Value? Meeting CAFE standards?
Every quarter that Tesla has shown a profit on paper, that profit is less than the revenue from the sale of ZEV credits. Is Tesla "losing money" on every car they sell? If GM is able to generate "Gold" ZEV credit to sell to companies like Toyota (no BEV's so they need to purchase Gold credits), does that count towards the Bolt "bottom line"?
Just because I challenge an unsubstantiated statement does not mean I believe the opposite.
roundpeg
Well-known member
Okay gentlemen, this is turning into a tempest in a teapot, but without the teapot. Seems we all acknowledge a lack of real knowledge. So why not just call it a draw? 
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
roundpeg said:Okay gentlemen, this is turning into a tempest in a teapot, but without the teapot. Seems we all acknowledge a lack of real knowledge. So why not just call it a draw?
Lol! Well said. Nobody on this forum knows whether GM is making or losing money on the Bolt. We have all expressed our opinions, and anyone can go read them. The multiple iterations of stating the same thing can make a forum unbearable.
oilerlord
Well-known member
DucRider said:
The bigger question is if it matters if GM is losing $9K per car sold. Perhaps that's a good thing. It could be a first step in GM evolving into a company that puts the environment ahead of profitability. Clearly, that vision is working for Tesla.
**Post edited for the sake of politeness, and respecting a colleague's point of view.
You cannot find a statement by me that GM is NOT losing money - so no backpedaling involved.oilerlord said:
I have and will continue to challenge misleading reports - the original Bloomberg article is being used (sometimes only part of it) and the headline is already morphing "GM ready to lose" .... "GM may lose" ... "GM will lose".
The $9K loss has become a fact to other journalists "Now Detroit News is corroborating today...."
Sloppy reporting all around.
There are many people that want to believe GM is losing money on the Bolt, and are ready to jump on any "legitimate" news source as proof.
"My suspicion and some whispers I’d heard pointed toward GM losing thousands of dollars ...... Detroit News is corroborating..." Sounds pretty legitimate, right? That article will also now likely be quoted and further establish a "fact" that has no identifiable source or framework.
Read the original article. I can say it is unsubstantiated because no credible source is quoted or identified - it could very well be Bob Lutz again (who has his own agenda re: EV's). "A person familiar with the matter"? Give me a break.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom
A better headline is more along the lines of:
"Why it would make perfect business sense for GM to 'lose' money on every Bolt". But then again that wouldn't drive as much traffic to the website would it? Click Bait
oilerlord
Well-known member
I've edited my post in the sake of politeness, and respecting a colleague's point of view...as clearly one-sided as it is
There are some reports of Model S's losing up to $19,000 per car. Right or wrong, and unless you own shares in TSLA, the amount of cash the company burns or loses per car it doesn't matter. If manufacturers choose to rebate / subsidize / take losses on EV's, more people can afford them, which puts more EV's on the road. That's something we both want to see.
There are some reports of Model S's losing up to $19,000 per car. Right or wrong, and unless you own shares in TSLA, the amount of cash the company burns or loses per car it doesn't matter. If manufacturers choose to rebate / subsidize / take losses on EV's, more people can afford them, which puts more EV's on the road. That's something we both want to see.
devbolt
Well-known member
Without knowing how exactly a manufacturer accounts for the cost of producing a vehicle, it's hard to say whether the article is accurate.
This all reminds me of the controversy that the Prius was met with when it was first introduced in the US. A similar large nebulous figure was bandied about as the amount that Toyota was losing on every Prius it sold. In reality, I bet the first Prius sold had a loss of over a billion dollars, and every Prius that came after it was profitable. I suspect the same will be true of the Bolt...
This all reminds me of the controversy that the Prius was met with when it was first introduced in the US. A similar large nebulous figure was bandied about as the amount that Toyota was losing on every Prius it sold. In reality, I bet the first Prius sold had a loss of over a billion dollars, and every Prius that came after it was profitable. I suspect the same will be true of the Bolt...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-30/gm-s-ready-to-lose-9-000-a-pop-and-chase-the-electric-car-boom
This Bloomberg article clarifies it a bit for me. They don't pick on the Bolt, and explain why it makes sense to build and sell them (and other manufacturers' EVs) at a loss (if that's actually the case).
I guess I don't really care whether it's a compliance car or not. I just care that GM sells them in large numbers and helps the EV revolution move forward. If some Yukon driver is indirectly fronting me that $8,000 - all the better.
This Bloomberg article clarifies it a bit for me. They don't pick on the Bolt, and explain why it makes sense to build and sell them (and other manufacturers' EVs) at a loss (if that's actually the case).
I guess I don't really care whether it's a compliance car or not. I just care that GM sells them in large numbers and helps the EV revolution move forward. If some Yukon driver is indirectly fronting me that $8,000 - all the better.
oilerlord
Well-known member
ScooterCT said:
It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here that it's challenging for any automaker to make a profit from EV's.
I don't own stock in TSLA, but I know how to read a 10Q earnings release. You can spin the numbers all you want (gigafactory costs, R&D, tooling, etc), but the fact remains is that the company continues to incinerate cash. They raised $1.75B though the sale of stock in Q2, but by the end of Q3, they burned through $332M of it. Their P/E is a NEGATIVE 28.76. All in all, their financials are a disaster and investors are getting impatient. That emotion is reflected in the stock price which hasn't been this low since February. The only thing keeping the company afloat is revenue growth. Growth is the cocaine of Wall Street. If Tesla's growth begins to level off, they won't be able to raise the cash they need to continue operations, and the Model 3 dies on the table. This is a very real risk as outlined in Tesla's risk factors statement:
http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1564590-16-26820&CIK=1318605
So when people make an off-the-cuff assumption that a sub $40,000 200 mile EV is going to be profitable, you need some serious creative accounting, and a measure of faith to back that up. Tesla, the recognized leader in EV's, has a tough time making that happen on cars priced at $68,000 and up.
If GM has limited the losses on the Bolt at $9,000 (or less) per unit; they have actually done an incredible job to keep costs under control. The rest of their model line may benefit from the investment they've made in electrification, and at the very least, help the company comply with environmental regulations going forward.
devbolt said:
These are the figures I heard for the Toyota Rav4ev:
Toyota provided the 'gliber' (car without engine/transmission)
paid Tesla $60k per vehicle for all the batteries/inverter/charger/electronics
assemble in toyota Canada factory.
They originally sold for $53k MSRP.
I leased mine for $35k to a $19k residual with 0% financing, for _unlimited_ miles contract
Clearly Toyota didn't make any profit on any rav4ev, but we can only guess about the extra tax that they should have had to pay on all the other cars they were selling with ICE's.
devbolt
Well-known member
fromport said:
Toyota was actually paying about $40K for the drivetrain, battery, and associated electronics for each RAV4-EV. $100M total to Tesla to help produce 2600 vehicles. I'm wondering if the intent behind the RAV4-EV was more about earning ZEV credits than producing a viable (and profitable) EV, even though Toyota had lots of PZEV credits from Prius sales. The RAV4-EV certainly was a compliance car based on numbers produced and the fact that it was only sold in CA.
My local Toyota dealership had a RAV4-EV in their rental fleet. Every chance I had I would rent that car while my car was being serviced. If I had known about the RAV4-EV coming out before I bought my Plug-in Prius, I might have ended up with the RAV4-EV instead. Was very tempted to sell the PiP at a loss to get it, but I think my wife would've objected. There's a few people at work who have them and I still see them being driven around the Bay Area. The only downside to them seems to be their less than stellar efficiency.
but they also got tesla shares in return for the $100M ?devbolt said:
In november I was
rav4ev#1: number 36 on the efficiency list with 3.56 Miles/kWh (non chademo so real numbers)
rav4ev#2: number 8 on the efficiency list with 4.83 Miles/kWh (with chademo so fake numbers)
The chademo addition tricks the onboard computer that regenerative breaking is used to fill the batteries, hence the optimistic figures.
Those numbers are not even close what I use to get with my nissan leaf. I've been able to do 150+ miles on a full charge.
devbolt
Well-known member
but they also got tesla shares in return for the $100M ?fromport said:
No, they made a separate $50M investment in Tesla on top of the $100M they paid for the powertrains from what I can tell.
fromport said:
Those are awesome numbers. Given where I live (lots of hills to traverse), and how I drive (70+), I think I would struggle to get 100 miles out a single charge to 100% on the RAV4-EV. I think I got maybe 3 miles per kWh, but then again, I was having fun seeing what I could do in the car, and only had it for a couple of days at a time, so I wasn't really trying for efficiency.
oilerlord
Well-known member
Breezy said:
The Bolt is also a compliance car, which is why GM is shipping the first batch to Oregon and California.
"According to Rick Alpern, the general manager of Keyes Chevrolet in Van Nuys, Southern Calif. which is getting 78, and has sold many already, his General Motors rep said only Oregon and California will get the initial allocation.
Plans for the Bolt EV are to make it for sale in all 50 states. Characteristic of GM, it is doing a staged roll-out, and it’s unclear what the timing is for first deliveries, or what the next states will be that get allocations."
http://www.hybridcars.com/2017-chevy-bolt-ev-ordering-has-begun-in-california-and-oregon/
So the Model 3 will be a compliance car because the first shipments will go to the West Coast (primarily CA)? The Model S is a compliance car because it has never sold 30K a year in the US?oilerlord said:
What, exactly, is your definition of a compliance car? Not a Tesla? Made by any company that also makes ICE vehicles? Is used to raise the fleet average for CAFE standards? Would not exist without the ZEV credit requirements?
The generally accepted definition (except for Tesla fan bois) definition is a car that is produced to primarily to garner ZEV credits. As such, it will only be offered for sale in ZEV states and in limited quantities to meet the minimum ZEV credit requirements.
The Bolt will be sold in all 50 States (plus exported to other markets).
GM has stated, repeatedly, that they can make as many Bolts as demand requires - they are not production constrained or limited to a specific production volume.
oilerlord
Well-known member
We've been through this Gary, and have beaten it to death. There are so many interpretations of the definition "compliance car" that no one is absolutely wrong or absolutely right. I'll make a motion that anyone that calls the Bolt a compliance car from this point forward be fined $50, as the term is clearly offensive to some people.
Similar threads
