5 ms·

Sorry, I don't believe it. I just sold my GM stock at 10% loss. I bought it thinking they were actually going to invest in EVs and self driving. Instead they

Sorry, I don't believe it. I just sold my GM stock at 10% loss. I bought it thinking they were actually going to invest in EVs and self driving. Instead they have been pumping out trucks and SUV, while killing the Volt. Screw GM; the federal government should have let them sink.

magduf 7y ago
From GM's point-of-view, they're probably doing the right thing. The kind of people who are interested in GM vehicles generally only want trucks and giant SUVs. It'd be nice if GM made more smaller cars, but the kind of Americans who want cars don't want GM cars; GM has ruined their reputation there for many decades now. Why buy a GM car when you can get a Japanese car that's so much better? Even when the powertrain is good (GM powertrains actually seem to be very reliable these days), GM always gives its cars terrible interiors that age poorly. Ford already saw the writing on the wall and gave up on making cars altogether. I do agree however that the government should not have bailed them out. Their suppliers would have turned to other automakers, and their assets would have been bought up by other companies and put to better use. The GM brand really isn't worth much (it might even have negative value), so bailing it out, while in the short-term interest of the people working there, was not good in the long term for the nation overall. They failed because of their own choices, and should have been allowed to die.
- bronco21016 7y ago
  I wonder what the market is for someone who wants something that GM does well (trucks) but in EV form factor? Don’t get me wrong I like the Tesla Model S and 3 but as someone with a family and a large pickup it’d be an adjustment to drive something as small as a Model 3. That doesn’t mean I’m not cognizant of the amount of fuel we’re unnecessarily burning. I’d love to have an EV truck and I suspect many truck owners would be interested in the same. Maybe I’m wrong though.
  - hwillis 7y ago
    Probably quite high- many pickups are utility vehicles for contractors etc. and drive less than a couple hundred miles a day. Electric trucks might need a low range gear for extra payload torque, but they'll be much more torquey than normal trucks regardless and much more fun. The savings will be several times higher than for normal EVs since fuel consumption and driving distance are so much higher. It is a tricky technical problem though. Aerodynamics are not valued in trucks but would be required for an EV. Trucks have low beds and big engines, which is very non-ideal for batteries. Putting the batteries in the front is bad for driveability. Putting them in the normal skateboard spot raises the bed. The huge leftover space where the engine was is a big part of the look, but it's so high up that it would be hard to use as a frunk, very bad for aero, and increase the cost and size of the truck for no good reason. There are good reasons the telsa truck looks like it does- the low nose avoids the problems with normal pickups without making it look like a cabover. The cover in the back allows them to have a deeper bed even though they had to raise it a bunch to put in batteries. There aren't many concepts of what a pickup without a giant, long hood would look like.
    - WorldMaker 7y ago
      Face it though: the vast majority of truck consumers never use a truck as a utility vehicle, they use it as a family car with occasional hauling. As much "size comparisons" go on between average Americans and their truck engines, very little of it matters beyond marketing and bragging rights. American car companies seem to have been reluctant to put EV engines in trucks for exactly those same sorts of marketing and bragging rights. "Guys" know how to "compare sizes" when it comes to wacky ICE engine numbers and descriptors like V8 and "ultra boosted turbocharged", but no one is actually really paying attention to physics or day-to-day commute reality. To announce that they were finally going to build an electric F-150, Ford pulled a marketing stunt of "towing a train" with it, because they felt they needed some way to brag about how powerful it was that looked interesting for ads. Meanwhile Rivian is the interesting EV truck company not enough people are currently paying attention to. Tesla's truck looks as ridiculous as it does for its own reasons of wanting to look futuristic and gather PR attention. They could have picked a more "traditional" form factor if they wanted (look at Rivian's projects or Ford using a traditional F-150 look), but they as much wanted to do their own version of "we can tow a train with it", albeit in this case it was probably more "we remembered Blade Runner was set in 2019 and were sad there weren't enough dystopian looking futuristic car models on the road like we were all promised".
WhompingWindows 7y ago
One could argue they needed to continue making some trucks and SUVs until they have a positive margin on their EVs...They can't just shutter all their profit-makers immediately, how would they fund their EV future? What I DO agree about, though, is that they should have kept the Volt and they should have made the Bolt look less ugly.
- Tempest1981 7y ago
  > Bolt look less ugly People I talk to say that it looks "tiny" and toy-like. Not so much ugly. Also, fun to drive. Maybe they can beef up the look a bit -- this Hyundai Kona EV is the same size, but looks better (the SUV look may appeal to GM buyers): https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/2019-hyundai-kona-ev-first-drive-review/ https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/2019-hyundai-kon...
  - danans 7y ago
    I test drove the Kona EV and it's quite a fun car. Hard to find one, though.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  The Volt was an interesting case of short-term mismanagement versus long-term goals that was almost shameful. The Gen 1 Volt was lauded for being a more "cross-over-like" assembly for the Hamtramck plant, with the long-term goal of moving Hamtramck away from traditional sedans and more towards cross-overs because the American writing was already in the wind (why the Gen 1 Volt was made there and not a plant already more familiar with cross-overs). But then the Gen 2 Volt for short term efficiency retooled to be a more sedan-like car to better fit the rest of Hamtramck's production, instead of the original plan to push at least one more Hamtramck vehicle towards the cross-over form factor. The Gen 1 Volt could have easily been sent back to another plant, but the Gen 2 Volt was doomed when bean counters thought closing Hamtramck the best bet.

magduf 7y ago

From GM's point-of-view, they're probably doing the right thing. The kind of people who are interested in GM vehicles generally only want trucks and giant SUVs. It'd be nice if GM made more smaller cars, but the kind of Americans who want cars don't want GM cars; GM has ruined their reputation there for many decades now. Why buy a GM car when you can get a Japanese car that's so much better? Even when the powertrain is good (GM powertrains actually seem to be very reliable these days), GM always gives its cars terrible interiors that age poorly. Ford already saw the writing on the wall and gave up on making cars altogether. I do agree however that the government should not have bailed them out. Their suppliers would have turned to other automakers, and their assets would have been bought up by other companies and put to better use. The GM brand really isn't worth much (it might even have negative value), so bailing it out, while in the short-term interest of the people working there, was not good in the long term for the nation overall. They failed because of their own choices, and should have been allowed to die.

bronco21016 7y ago
I wonder what the market is for someone who wants something that GM does well (trucks) but in EV form factor? Don’t get me wrong I like the Tesla Model S and 3 but as someone with a family and a large pickup it’d be an adjustment to drive something as small as a Model 3. That doesn’t mean I’m not cognizant of the amount of fuel we’re unnecessarily burning. I’d love to have an EV truck and I suspect many truck owners would be interested in the same. Maybe I’m wrong though.
- hwillis 7y ago
  Probably quite high- many pickups are utility vehicles for contractors etc. and drive less than a couple hundred miles a day. Electric trucks might need a low range gear for extra payload torque, but they'll be much more torquey than normal trucks regardless and much more fun. The savings will be several times higher than for normal EVs since fuel consumption and driving distance are so much higher. It is a tricky technical problem though. Aerodynamics are not valued in trucks but would be required for an EV. Trucks have low beds and big engines, which is very non-ideal for batteries. Putting the batteries in the front is bad for driveability. Putting them in the normal skateboard spot raises the bed. The huge leftover space where the engine was is a big part of the look, but it's so high up that it would be hard to use as a frunk, very bad for aero, and increase the cost and size of the truck for no good reason. There are good reasons the telsa truck looks like it does- the low nose avoids the problems with normal pickups without making it look like a cabover. The cover in the back allows them to have a deeper bed even though they had to raise it a bunch to put in batteries. There aren't many concepts of what a pickup without a giant, long hood would look like.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    Face it though: the vast majority of truck consumers never use a truck as a utility vehicle, they use it as a family car with occasional hauling. As much "size comparisons" go on between average Americans and their truck engines, very little of it matters beyond marketing and bragging rights. American car companies seem to have been reluctant to put EV engines in trucks for exactly those same sorts of marketing and bragging rights. "Guys" know how to "compare sizes" when it comes to wacky ICE engine numbers and descriptors like V8 and "ultra boosted turbocharged", but no one is actually really paying attention to physics or day-to-day commute reality. To announce that they were finally going to build an electric F-150, Ford pulled a marketing stunt of "towing a train" with it, because they felt they needed some way to brag about how powerful it was that looked interesting for ads. Meanwhile Rivian is the interesting EV truck company not enough people are currently paying attention to. Tesla's truck looks as ridiculous as it does for its own reasons of wanting to look futuristic and gather PR attention. They could have picked a more "traditional" form factor if they wanted (look at Rivian's projects or Ford using a traditional F-150 look), but they as much wanted to do their own version of "we can tow a train with it", albeit in this case it was probably more "we remembered Blade Runner was set in 2019 and were sad there weren't enough dystopian looking futuristic car models on the road like we were all promised".

WhompingWindows 7y ago

One could argue they needed to continue making some trucks and SUVs until they have a positive margin on their EVs...They can't just shutter all their profit-makers immediately, how would they fund their EV future? What I DO agree about, though, is that they should have kept the Volt and they should have made the Bolt look less ugly.

Tempest1981 7y ago
> Bolt look less ugly People I talk to say that it looks "tiny" and toy-like. Not so much ugly. Also, fun to drive. Maybe they can beef up the look a bit -- this Hyundai Kona EV is the same size, but looks better (the SUV look may appeal to GM buyers): https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/2019-hyundai-kona-ev-first-drive-review/ https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/2019-hyundai-kon...
- danans 7y ago
  I test drove the Kona EV and it's quite a fun car. Hard to find one, though.
WorldMaker 7y ago
The Volt was an interesting case of short-term mismanagement versus long-term goals that was almost shameful. The Gen 1 Volt was lauded for being a more "cross-over-like" assembly for the Hamtramck plant, with the long-term goal of moving Hamtramck away from traditional sedans and more towards cross-overs because the American writing was already in the wind (why the Gen 1 Volt was made there and not a plant already more familiar with cross-overs). But then the Gen 2 Volt for short term efficiency retooled to be a more sedan-like car to better fit the rest of Hamtramck's production, instead of the original plan to push at least one more Hamtramck vehicle towards the cross-over form factor. The Gen 1 Volt could have easily been sent back to another plant, but the Gen 2 Volt was doomed when bean counters thought closing Hamtramck the best bet.