Unfortunately Bolt is still a compliance car from GM

[phil0909]

Just because this is a Bolt forum, some of you are getting all defensive for all the wrong reasons, and missing the point, missing the big picture.

It's about global warming, not so much which car or which company or which personality.

What an odd, self-contradictory thing to say! This is a Bolt forum, so quite obviously it is mainly about 'which car'.

Sounds like what you're looking for is a good global warming forum. I highly recommend this one: http://climateaudit.org/

 

[boltage]

One can argue that all EVs (Teslas included) fulfill compliance needs, but that does not mean that every EV exists only for compliance purposes (Teslas being the most obvious example of EVs that have other reasons for existence besides compliance reasons).

 

[user 1034]

What an odd, self-contradictory thing to say! This is a Bolt forum, so quite obviously it is mainly about 'which car'.

Sounds like what you're looking for is a good global warming forum. I highly recommend this one: http://climateaudit.org/

Word brother!

I have this Bolt NOT because of "global climate change" but because I wanted an electric car I could afford. There are NO other reasons for me. I am not buying stickers with dinosaurs on them to lord over everyone else like those Toyota Pious drivers. I'm not buying a trendy brand like those Tesla drivers. A "boring" old Chevy is what I wanted.

 

[SeanNelson]

The topic of this thread isn't the relative popularity of the Bolt vs. the Model 3. It's whether or not the Bolt is a "compliance car". That has nothing to do with how many people want one.

Normally I'd agree. But in this case I think that GM may have planned for both possibilities: that the Bolt would sell very well, in which case they'd run more shifts and ramp up production, or that it wouldn't, and they would then try to just meet the 30k per year target, or whatever figure would be right for a compliance car.

If Bolts don't sell very well because nobody wants them then that's less damning than if GM is deliberately constraining the supply of them. That's why I say the argument over the term "compliance car" isn't as important as whether GM is going to make enough Bolts to meet demand. It certainly isn't doing so in foreign markets, at least not so far.

 

[ipassgas]

IMO. The Bolt is clearly not a compliance car. It is not an ICE automobile with a battery in the trunk to earn CARB credits but a full on BEV from the asphalt up. But... GM wants to make money, get tax payer money (either CARB credits or any other credit that reduces the price of their product so that they can sell more), have bragging rights and to make automobiles. And right now making Bolts is interfering with making money and not hurting their other goals much. From their comments to the press lately they have poor control of their costs currently and are not making the money they want on the Bolt. Putting cars into the hands of individuals who order them will only worsen the situation as Bolt owners are certainly the best sellers of more Bolts and will drive demand even higher. Bragging rights and money will suffer. Hence 15000 to 18000 Bolts in 2017, not 25000 to 30000 or even higher.

 

[SparkE]

IMO. The Bolt is clearly not a compliance car. It is not an ICE automobile with a battery in the trunk to earn CARB credits but a full on BEV from the asphalt up. But... GM wants to make money, get tax payer money (either CARB credits or any other credit that reduces the price of their product so that they can sell more), have bragging rights and to make automobiles. And right now making Bolts is interfering with making money and not hurting their other goals much. From their comments to the press lately they have poor control of their costs currently and are not making the money they want on the Bolt. Putting cars into the hands of individuals who order them will only worsen the situation as Bolt owners are certainly the best sellers of more Bolts and will drive demand even higher. Bragging rights and money will suffer. Hence 15000 to 18000 Bolts in 2017, not 25000 to 30000 or even higher.

Could you please supply sources for (links to) the 'interfering with making money', 'comments to the press', and '15000 to 18000 Bolts in 2017, not 25000 to 30000' comments that you made? I'd love to read the original reporting/press releases.

Thanks!

 

[ScooterCT]

>> Could you please supply sources for (links to) the 'interfering with making money', 'comments to the press',

I don't have a dog in this fight, but your request is easily answered with a simple Google search (see below). Note that the GM VP in question didn't say in clear language "The Bolt is losing money". He said...

“We know the customers would like to drive electric but are unwilling to pay,” Mr. Reuss told reporters. “And that’s why we’re going to be the first company to [build] electric vehicles that people can afford at a profit.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/05/gm-product-development-chief-predicts-company-will-be-first-to-make-evs-profitable/

I think he's talking about vehicles in the $20,000 range, no subsidies. Just a guess.

 

[ipassgas]

SparkE.
Thanks for reading my post.
The post starts with "in my opinion" or "no facts here, just hot air".
The comments to the press that I referred to were the ones by VP of product development Mark Reuss. You do not need to read between the lines when he talks about the things GM needs to do to be the first to make money on an BEV to understand that they are not making money on the Bolt. One of the two things is controlling costs (bring manufacturing in-house). I am not able to find the original interview but wonder why it was done in the first place. Unusual for an Exec to want to tell the world what you need to do in order to make money from your next battery electric car for everyone. (Maybe just because he was on the way to the bank to cash in $2.5 million in GM stocks. Sorry, could not help it. I have no access to Mr. Reuss' bank account, just read it in the news.)
To guess the number of Bolts to be made in 2017 I looked at the monthly sales report posted at many sites and multiplied by 3. (4384 x 3 = 13152). Then I added a bit for maybe increased production/sales for the US and a bit for sales to Canada, Korea and Europe. In Canada I have an order that GM accepted over 4 months ago for a car they promised to produce. I hope that I will see a car in 2017. Maybe, maybe not. GM does not seem to be in a rush to make Bolts.

 

[ScooterCT]

These disputes over the Bolt and compliance car stuff have been going on since it was released. I think the most honest answer is that the Bolt exists in a fuzzy zone between a compliance car and a full-fledged money making program (like a Honda Civic).

I think a fair person would say GM clearly has no intention of selling 400,000 Bolts in the first year, because they just aren't making the moves needed to do that. But you surely can say that Tesla intends to sell 400,000 Model 3 (whether they will or not is for the future to say). So the Bolt ain't no Model 3 (not the car, the program).

I'd argue, instead of calling the Bolt a "compliance car", which is just guaranteed to start an emotionally loaded argument, that you should instead call the Bolt a "let's dip our toes in the BEV market and see what we can learn" car. So I'd label it a "experiment car" or a "learning car" or a "throw something on the wall and see if it sticks" car. So far, the Bolt seems to be sticking but dripping.

 

[oilerlord]

If someone has a logical definition for "compliance car" that fits the Bolt, I'm all ears. The fact that Elon Musk said it was doesn't make it true.

But if Mary Barra said the Bolt isn't a compliance car - we should believe it? Give me a break. Elon Musk knows a thing or two about CARB credits. Tesla survived on them for years.

We've been around the block on this compliance debate. You want to pick nits about a checklist for what car earns a "compliance" label but it isn't as black & white as you claim it to be...the truth is somewhere in the middle. We all know that compliance is still the biggest reason why the GM is selling the Bolt.

We can continue debating semantics but In one way or another, all EV's are compliance cars...just on different levels.

 

[boltage]

We can continue debating semantics but In one way or another, all EV's are compliance cars...just on different levels.

All EVs are compliance cars, but some EVs have intended purposes beyond being compliance cars.

 

[oilerlord]

It's about global warming, not so much which car or which company or which personality.

For me, the rules are simple, going forward I will lease the cheapest EV with range of over 200 miles. After 3 years, lease the next one.

If it's "about global warming", honestly...you aren't doing the planet any favors by replacing a perfectly good car every three years. We tend to ignore how much CO2 is released from the energy & materials required to create a brand new, two-ton hunk of steel, plastic, and glass every three years. We may prefer the EV experience, but the case for reducing CO2 by leasing a new EV every three years is at best - dubious. Mother nature is telling us to build fewer cars, not more of them. A lot of us aren't listening.

I always buy used, and keep my cars for 8+ years through simple maintenance. I don't even think about selling them until at least 100,000 miles go by.

 

[sparkyps]

It is faulty logic to think that when a 3 yr lease is up the car disappears.

Leasing is like renting. If you rent a car from Avis for a week you aren't causing any more damage to the environment than if you kept the car after the week was up.

You sell your used car, someone buys your used car. The benefits from the leased vehicle get passed on to the next owner and then the next owner until the car is used up. Irrelevant if you keep it 10 years or 3 people keep it a total of 10 years.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

It's about global warming, not so much which car or which company or which personality.

For me, the rules are simple, going forward I will lease the cheapest EV with range of over 200 miles. After 3 years, lease the next one.

If it's "about global warming", honestly...you aren't doing the planet any favors by replacing a perfectly good car every three years. We tend to ignore how much CO2 is released from the energy & materials required to create a brand new, two-ton hunk of steel, plastic, and glass every three years. We may prefer the EV experience, but the case for reducing CO2 by leasing a new EV every three years is at best - dubious. Mother nature is telling us to build fewer cars, not more of them. A lot of us aren't listening.

I always buy used, and keep my cars for 8+ years through simple maintenance. I don't even think about selling them until at least 100,000 miles go by.

Where do you think your used cars come from? Most of them come from off-lease returns. You and d2170 have a symbiotic relationship.

At this point in the game, getting more EVs on the road is beneficial. We cannot all buy used EVs - where would they come from? I'm glad that there are tons of people leasing Bolts. I hope that 3 years from now, the next best thing comes out, many people return their Bolts, and I can trade up from my then-8-year-old Leaf while they trade up for a shiny new 300-mile BEV.

 

[d2170]

Just because this is a Bolt forum, some of you are getting all defensive for all the wrong reasons, and missing the point, missing the big picture.

It's about global warming, not so much which car or which company or which personality.

FYI, I plan to lease a Bolt after my current EV lease runs out -- simply because its lease will be much cheaper than the Model 3. Range of 250 miles in the city will be great. But if it turns out in 2018 the Model 3's lease will cost about the same as the Bolt then I will lease the Model 3. Model 3 clearly is much more desirable than the Bolt to most people.

There is nothing special about making electric cars. All auto manufactures know how to make them. The only issue is the price and performance of the battery.

This is not a religious war folks, but many here seems hell bend on a religious war. Same kind of religious war over at the Tesla forum.

For me, the rules are simple, going forward I will lease the cheapest EV with range of over 200 miles. After 3 years, lease the next one.

You speak my mind. Thanks.

A few observations:

1) On average, pure EVs emit about half as much CO2 as ICE cars. But the grid will get cleaner each year going forward.
2) There is nothing special about making electric cars. All auto manufactures know how to make them. The only issue is the price and performance of the battery.
3) All auto makers hate electric cars because they can't make money selling them, and they can't make money servicing them.
4) All auto dealers hate electric cars because they can't make money selling them, and they can't make money servicing them.
5) Batteries are getting a lot better. Very soon, EV batteries will be able to last for 300,000 miles or 25 years:
https://electrek.co/2017/05/04/tesla-battery-researcher-chemistry-lifcycle/
6) The Chinese government is getting very serious about electric cars. They are mandating it. Quote from article: "China’s electric vehicle mandate requires automakers’ EV sales to represent at least 8% of their total sales in 2018, 10% in 2019 and 12% in 2020". Link:
https://electrek.co/2017/05/09/china-gac-electric-vehicle-industrial-park/

My family have leased 5 EVs in the past 5 years, they have all been 100% trouble free (& I drive them very aggressively because it's not my car). All we did was change tires, not even brake pads. Local car dealers hate me.

I haven't done the math carefully, but it's my guess the TOC of the Chevy Bolt is already on par with the ICE Toyota Camry.

Batteries will get cheaper and better each year. The transition from ICE to pure EVs should occur en mass soon.

Imagine how the world will be different because of this. For example, imagine a world where less and less money flows to the middle east oil producing countries.

There is hope!

 

[user 124]

Unfortunately, Bolt's volume will be very limited, still a compliance car ...

...

Given current global warming issues, I say GM's Mary Barra is evil.

That's right - Mary Barra is totally evil because her company produces a 200+ mile BEV and a serial plug-in hybrid. She should do the right thing and terminate production of these cars and buy CARB credits from TESLA instead, the One and Only True Evangelical EV Company led by Our Savior Elon Musk!

Yeah.

 

[boltage]

3) All auto makers hate electric cars because they can't make money selling them, and they can't make money servicing them.

Whether or not Tesla can make money selling and servicing electric cars is one thing. But it seems like Tesla does not hate electric cars since it is all Tesla offers in terms of cars and can help drive demand for its other products.

 

[oilerlord]

You sell your used car, someone buys your used car. The benefits from the leased vehicle get passed on to the next owner and then the next owner until the car is used up. Irrelevant if you keep it 10 years or 3 people keep it a total of 10 years.

In terms of global warming / global rise in CO2, it's faulty logic not to consider the initial CO2 footprint that each new car begins with.

"A 2004 analysis by Toyota found that as much as 28 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the lifecycle of a typical gasoline-powered car can occur during its manufacture and its transportation to the dealer; the remaining emissions occur during driving once its new owner takes possession. "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-used-cars-are-more-ecofriendly/

Do you believe it's environmentally sound to churning out as many new cars as possible? If so, You're missing the point. Remember the environmental three "R's"? Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. While I'd agree that person that returns their leased car is "recycling" the car, they are shifting the responsibility to Reduce & Reuse to someone else. As individuals, wouldn't it be better to commit to the three R's on our own, instead of relying on someone else to bail us out on the other two?

Consider that the person that buys a new car, and keeps it for 10 years has caused the manufacturing of one car. At year 9, the person that leases every three years has necessitated the manufacturing of four cars. I think Mother nature cares more about the number of cars being manufactured, and less about who owns them. Fewer is better, not more.

 

[LeftieBiker]

That's right - Mary Barra is totally evil because her company produces a 200+ mile BEV and a serial plug-in hybrid. She should do the right thing and terminate production of these cars and buy CARB credits from Tesla instead, the One and Only True Evangelical EV Company led by Our Savior Elon Musk!

Leaving aside opinions about Musk, GM clearly had no intention of actually producing the Volt. They wanted to do some damage control after the EV-1 Crushing Debacle, so they slapped a golf cart drivetrain (yes, an actual golf cart drivetrain - no hyperbole) into a Camaro show car, and despite having the car (never meant to be driven on roads) break down and at best barely manage 15MPH*, they were swamped with public demand they they produce the car. That they actually managed to build a nice, high-quality PHEV after that is one of the most remarkable achievements in American automobile manufacturing in the last 50 years. Nonetheless, GM did NOT want to build another EV. The public just happened to call their bluff. Once CARB rules were ensconced they then decided to build the Bolt. What their intentions were with this car is still not entirely clear.


* PBS had a film crew there when the "Volt EV" was driven for them. When asked why the car was moving so slowly, the GM reps suggested that the crew "speed the film up" to make the car look more exciting.

 

[SeanNelson]

Do you believe it's environmentally sound to churning out as many new cars as possible? If so, You're missing the point. ... Consider that the person that buys a new car, and keeps it for 10 years has caused the manufacturing of one car. At year 9, the person that leases every three years has necessitated the manufacturing of four cars.

The flaw in this argument is that if the 3-year-lease people decided instead to hold on to their cars for 10 years then there would be no cars for the "buy-it-when-it-comes-off-lease" crowd. Those people still need cars too. Just because buyers of new cars decide to hold onto them longer doesn't mean those other drivers are going to go away. So if those other drivers can't afford to buy new it means they're going to end up having to buy older cars than is the case today and that means they won't be able to drive them as long before they wear out.

So it all balances out. Instead of the new car drivers only driving their cars for 3 years, it would be the old car drivers doing that. (Obviously I'm not claiming exact lifespans here, but you get the idea). It's not how long the individual people own a particular vehicle that counts, it's the number of vehicles in use across the country and the percentage of them that die each year and require replacement.

The best possible way to reduce the economic footprint of cars is to encourage as many people as possible to use transit or at least car pooling instead of single occupancy vehicles for their commute. Even if that doesn't reduce the overall count of cars it will reduce the wear and tear on them so that they last longer. Similarly, building cars that simply last longer is also good - they wouldn't have to be scrapped so quickly and replaced (in overall terms, not necessarily by the same owner) by a new car.

Of course it's not in the industry's best interest to build cars that last forever, so that's not gonna happen... :roll: