12 ms·

> My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certa

> My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certainly find better and worse, cheaper and more expensive, greater or fewer features, etc; but rarely does the market leave the field open for one player to run wild. That's really only true when the car is intended to be sold in volume. Many vehicles are introduced as compliance vehicles designed to bring down overall fleet emissions levels. The Volt and Bolt were both compliance vehicles and when the Bolt exceeded expectations in terms of popularity, GM's response was to eliminate the Volt platform entirely as it was redundant to the purpose of the vehicles.

WorldMaker 6y ago
Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. Also, GM argues that PHEVs were a no longer necessary transition technology for past years and the present is now full BEVs.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. The plant wouldn't have been closed if the Volt, which was a compliance car, were necessary. To my original point, the Bolt's popularity removed the need for the Volt as a compliance vehicle and thus made the plant closure feasible. > Also, GM argues That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    The plant closed because Ford decided Americans don't want an American-built sedan this decade, to great shareholder applause, and GM was forced by activist shareholders to follow suit. The Gen 2 Volt was a sedan in the sedan plant. It had nothing to do with the Volt itself and everything to do with killing the Cruise, with the Volt merely a casualty. (The Gen 1 Volt was a hatchback intended to push the Hamtramck sedan plant away from being entirely sedans. A huge mistake with the Gen 2 was sedan-ifying it to cut costs at that plant rather than moving it to another plant or following the original Gen 1 plan to move Hamtramck to mixing in more "light cross-overs".) > That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions. Who said anything about GM Marketing? I'm talking about GM Shareholder reports. It's an arm of marketing, sure, but with the activist parasites chumming the GM Shareholder waters, their Shareholder reports have been quite honest.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      My point is that, in the absence of the Bolt, there would have been a stronger argument for saving the Volt because of it's role as a compliance car. The success of the Bolt removed any argument for keeping the Volt around.
      - WorldMaker 6y ago
        The Volt wasn't a compliance car and the only argument you've presented from what I can read is a tautology focused around the fact that it was canceled so therefore was a compliance car, which doesn't make sense given the factors that were involved in it being canceled. It wasn't canceled because it was a compliance car. It wasn't canceled because the Bolt was successful. It was canceled because GM shuttered their entire lineup of sedans.
fma 6y ago
Volt was a stepping stone towards the Bolt. Bolt was intended to be mass volume, not a compliance vehicle. But you are right...once Bolt was good enough there was no need for Volt. "GM executives wanted an EV that could generate serious volume. The design should be expressive and distinct without veering into “science project” territory, Norris said." https://www.autonews.com/article/20160807/OEM03/160809904/gm-s-korea-studio-broke-the-mold-with-bolt https://www.autonews.com/article/20160807/OEM03/160809904/gm... Additionally, if it was only a compliance vehicle it would be sold only in the US. But it was first sold in Korea "The Bolt is making its commercial debut in Korea, albeit only 400 units initially are being distributed to winners of a lottery draw held among the few thousand applicants who had completed orders. Bolt sales have just begun in the U.S." https://www.wardsauto.com/technology/bolt-s-lead-designer-describes-clean-sheet-creation https://www.wardsauto.com/technology/bolt-s-lead-designer-de...
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > Volt was a stepping stone towards the Bolt. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, the "olt" in their name and the Chevy badge are the only things they shared in common between the two vehicles. The Volt was designed in Michigan where as the Bolt was designed in Korea. The Volt is a radically different platform with a completely different drive train, different battery chemistry and BMS, and different cooling solution. > Bolt was intended to be mass volume, not a compliance vehicle. Being a mass volume vehicle doesn't preclude it from also being a compliance car. In fact former vice chairman of Global Product Development at GM said it was a compliance car AND Steve Majoros, marketing director for Chevrolet cars, officially acknowledged it's role as a compliance car. > We can confidently say Bolt EV is not a exclusively “compliance play.” - https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103482_bob-lutz-called-2017-chevy-bolt-ev-a-compliance-car-is-it https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103482_bob-lutz-called... The term "not a exclusively" is official acknowledgement that it serves the role of a compliance car.
  - fma 6y ago
    Bolt was produced 7 years after Volt. I certainly hope it's a radically different platform. I have read previous articles years ago by GM execs acknowledging their battery tech at the time was not good enough for all electric, hence they created the Volt to gain electrification expertise. By your logic, ANY electric vehicle GM produced would have been a compliance car...because...any electric vehicle would also have met that requirement. Spark EV was manufacture for compliance. Bolt...no.

WorldMaker 6y ago

Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. Also, GM argues that PHEVs were a no longer necessary transition technology for past years and the present is now full BEVs.

cptskippy 6y ago
> Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. The plant wouldn't have been closed if the Volt, which was a compliance car, were necessary. To my original point, the Bolt's popularity removed the need for the Volt as a compliance vehicle and thus made the plant closure feasible. > Also, GM argues That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  The plant closed because Ford decided Americans don't want an American-built sedan this decade, to great shareholder applause, and GM was forced by activist shareholders to follow suit. The Gen 2 Volt was a sedan in the sedan plant. It had nothing to do with the Volt itself and everything to do with killing the Cruise, with the Volt merely a casualty. (The Gen 1 Volt was a hatchback intended to push the Hamtramck sedan plant away from being entirely sedans. A huge mistake with the Gen 2 was sedan-ifying it to cut costs at that plant rather than moving it to another plant or following the original Gen 1 plan to move Hamtramck to mixing in more "light cross-overs".) > That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions. Who said anything about GM Marketing? I'm talking about GM Shareholder reports. It's an arm of marketing, sure, but with the activist parasites chumming the GM Shareholder waters, their Shareholder reports have been quite honest.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    My point is that, in the absence of the Bolt, there would have been a stronger argument for saving the Volt because of it's role as a compliance car. The success of the Bolt removed any argument for keeping the Volt around.
    - WorldMaker 6y ago
      The Volt wasn't a compliance car and the only argument you've presented from what I can read is a tautology focused around the fact that it was canceled so therefore was a compliance car, which doesn't make sense given the factors that were involved in it being canceled. It wasn't canceled because it was a compliance car. It wasn't canceled because the Bolt was successful. It was canceled because GM shuttered their entire lineup of sedans.

fma 6y ago

Volt was a stepping stone towards the Bolt. Bolt was intended to be mass volume, not a compliance vehicle. But you are right...once Bolt was good enough there was no need for Volt. "GM executives wanted an EV that could generate serious volume. The design should be expressive and distinct without veering into “science project” territory, Norris said." https://www.autonews.com/article/20160807/OEM03/160809904/gm-s-korea-studio-broke-the-mold-with-bolt https://www.autonews.com/article/20160807/OEM03/160809904/gm... Additionally, if it was only a compliance vehicle it would be sold only in the US. But it was first sold in Korea "The Bolt is making its commercial debut in Korea, albeit only 400 units initially are being distributed to winners of a lottery draw held among the few thousand applicants who had completed orders. Bolt sales have just begun in the U.S." https://www.wardsauto.com/technology/bolt-s-lead-designer-describes-clean-sheet-creation https://www.wardsauto.com/technology/bolt-s-lead-designer-de...

cptskippy 6y ago
> Volt was a stepping stone towards the Bolt. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, the "olt" in their name and the Chevy badge are the only things they shared in common between the two vehicles. The Volt was designed in Michigan where as the Bolt was designed in Korea. The Volt is a radically different platform with a completely different drive train, different battery chemistry and BMS, and different cooling solution. > Bolt was intended to be mass volume, not a compliance vehicle. Being a mass volume vehicle doesn't preclude it from also being a compliance car. In fact former vice chairman of Global Product Development at GM said it was a compliance car AND Steve Majoros, marketing director for Chevrolet cars, officially acknowledged it's role as a compliance car. > We can confidently say Bolt EV is not a exclusively “compliance play.” - https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103482_bob-lutz-called-2017-chevy-bolt-ev-a-compliance-car-is-it https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103482_bob-lutz-called... The term "not a exclusively" is official acknowledgement that it serves the role of a compliance car.
- fma 6y ago
  Bolt was produced 7 years after Volt. I certainly hope it's a radically different platform. I have read previous articles years ago by GM execs acknowledging their battery tech at the time was not good enough for all electric, hence they created the Volt to gain electrification expertise. By your logic, ANY electric vehicle GM produced would have been a compliance car...because...any electric vehicle would also have met that requirement. Spark EV was manufacture for compliance. Bolt...no.