5 ms·

Reading between the lines, I think this car is a trick and not meant to sell at all. They get fleet wide mileage credits by producing it, and they are losing mo

by marcell 10y ago

Reading between the lines, I think this car is a trick and not meant to sell at all. They get fleet wide mileage credits by producing it, and they are losing money on each car. Electric cars are easy to make, especially if you don't put much effort into it (example: regenerative brake paddle is separate from normal brake paddle). Dealers don't make as much from servicing electric cars. I suspect the fact that it's ugly is a feature: it will hamper sales a bit and reduce the chance that they'll need to produce lots of this car. Is the mileage credit on electric cars calculated as a formula of the range? If so, that would explain why they focused on getting a 200 mile range. Edit: selling this car will also eat into the U.S. limit on tax credits for electric cars, which hurts their competitor Tesla.

gozur88 10y ago
>I suspect the fact that it's ugly is a feature: it will hamper sales a bit and reduce the chance that they'll need to produce lots of this car. I doubt that. I'm sure GM would be perfectly happy selling millions of these things if consumers were willing to buy. They're in the business of selling cars, after all. But I also doubt they'll put much effort into it.
- mark-r 10y ago
  No, they're in the business of making money. Selling cars is the means to the end. If they can make more money selling fewer cars, they'll do it. You need to look at the overall fleet sales - somebody somewhere has calculated the exact number of each vehicle they need to sell to maximize the profit.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    It only hurts them to sell more Bolts if those sales cut into other vehicles or if they're selling at a loss.
    - mark-r 10y ago
      It's quite possible that either or both of those are true. Or it could be that they have limits on their manufacturing capacity and would have to cut back on production of something more profitable to make more Bolts. There are probably other factors that you and I wouldn't think of in a million years.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        Earlier I was trying to find some other takes on their output and 1 article mentioned that the plant they are building it at is only running 1 shift, which puts it at 90,000 vehicles per year. It's a mixed line with the Chevrolet Sonic, which probably isn't super profitable. So they can flexibly shift production from the Sonic or they could expand production by an awful lot, but I guess to add a shift they would need much higher sales volume. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-bolt-idUSKBN1300PM http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-bolt-idUSKBN1300PM GM has also recently announced that they are idling several plants in January because they aren't selling enough cars. http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2016/12/19/gm-idles-5-plants-jan-passenger-car-supply-swells/95625740/ http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2016/12...
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  That is what BMW did with i3. They don't like being forced into selling them. Make it look like a turd and then complain about how consumers don't really want them to get the quotas relaxed.
maxerickson 10y ago
The credit is structured to phase out on a per manufacturer basis. GM can't swipe it from Tesla. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-48_IRB/ar09.html#d0e2504 https://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-48_IRB/ar09.html#d0e2504 It's also not real clear to me if the regenerative braking paddle does more regenerative braking than pressing the brake peddle (I mean, it tautologically does if you entirely avoid using the friction brakes, but I mean it isn't clear that pressing the paddle operates the capture system at a higher power than depressing the peddle).
pkulak 10y ago
I seriously doubt they are losing money on each car. Someone calculated a loss per car by amortizing all the current R&D costs into some number they expect GM to sell this year. That doesn't mean parts+labor is more than the sale price. If they make and sell a 100,000 of these things in 2017, they'll make a boat load of profit, trust me. If they didn't want it to sell, they wouldn't have given it a 60 kWh battery. A car company can get all the fleet credits they need by selling a gasser with the engine ripped out and 20 kWh of batteries shoved in the trunk. I'm getting a little sick of people not giving GM _any_ props at all for doing something pretty amazing here.

by marcell 10y ago

gozur88 10y ago

>I suspect the fact that it's ugly is a feature: it will hamper sales a bit and reduce the chance that they'll need to produce lots of this car. I doubt that. I'm sure GM would be perfectly happy selling millions of these things if consumers were willing to buy. They're in the business of selling cars, after all. But I also doubt they'll put much effort into it.

mark-r 10y ago
No, they're in the business of making money. Selling cars is the means to the end. If they can make more money selling fewer cars, they'll do it. You need to look at the overall fleet sales - somebody somewhere has calculated the exact number of each vehicle they need to sell to maximize the profit.
- gozur88 10y ago
  It only hurts them to sell more Bolts if those sales cut into other vehicles or if they're selling at a loss.
  - mark-r 10y ago
    It's quite possible that either or both of those are true. Or it could be that they have limits on their manufacturing capacity and would have to cut back on production of something more profitable to make more Bolts. There are probably other factors that you and I wouldn't think of in a million years.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Earlier I was trying to find some other takes on their output and 1 article mentioned that the plant they are building it at is only running 1 shift, which puts it at 90,000 vehicles per year. It's a mixed line with the Chevrolet Sonic, which probably isn't super profitable. So they can flexibly shift production from the Sonic or they could expand production by an awful lot, but I guess to add a shift they would need much higher sales volume. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-bolt-idUSKBN1300PM http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-bolt-idUSKBN1300PM GM has also recently announced that they are idling several plants in January because they aren't selling enough cars. http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2016/12/19/gm-idles-5-plants-jan-passenger-car-supply-swells/95625740/ http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2016/12...
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
That is what BMW did with i3. They don't like being forced into selling them. Make it look like a turd and then complain about how consumers don't really want them to get the quotas relaxed.

maxerickson 10y ago

The credit is structured to phase out on a per manufacturer basis. GM can't swipe it from Tesla. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-48_IRB/ar09.html#d0e2504 https://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-48_IRB/ar09.html#d0e2504 It's also not real clear to me if the regenerative braking paddle does more regenerative braking than pressing the brake peddle (I mean, it tautologically does if you entirely avoid using the friction brakes, but I mean it isn't clear that pressing the paddle operates the capture system at a higher power than depressing the peddle).

pkulak 10y ago

I seriously doubt they are losing money on each car. Someone calculated a loss per car by amortizing all the current R&D costs into some number they expect GM to sell this year. That doesn't mean parts+labor is more than the sale price. If they make and sell a 100,000 of these things in 2017, they'll make a boat load of profit, trust me. If they didn't want it to sell, they wouldn't have given it a 60 kWh battery. A car company can get all the fleet credits they need by selling a gasser with the engine ripped out and 20 kWh of batteries shoved in the trunk. I'm getting a little sick of people not giving GM _any_ props at all for doing something pretty amazing here.