All of those characteristics are worse than Model 3, so I'm not sure what you mean by "what the Model 3 was supposed to be".
1) Bolt is $2500 more than Model 3 pre-credit.
2) How well it rides is debatable, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same performance as Model 3. For instance, it has a motor power of 150 kW vs 300 kW for Model 3, and its acceleration is significantly worse, too.
3) It looks like a typical boxy hatchback.
Finally, we already know GM loses $9,000 per Bolt and it seems to have been losing 10,000 euro for the Bolt-based Ampera-E in Europe. What this tells us is that it's more of a compliance car/EV mascot for GM than a model they actually intend to have everywhere.
GM has sold 3,000 Bolt units so far in 2017. Tesla will sell hundreds of thousands of Model 3s in 2018. I don't think GM will be in a hurry to catch up to them going by those losses.
Tesla will sell hundreds of thousands of Model 3s in 2018.
Well, if we're just going to pull stuff out of our arses, why not millions? Millions! of Model 3s sold in 2018!
For our readers at home, if you ever wondered what a real-life example of "FUD" looks like, this is as close as you'll come without a time machine to the 80s to witness IBM's marketing in person. Instead of making a valid comparison based on the reality of today, let's talk about what might happen tomorrow. And since tomorrow isn't here yet, we can make up whatever shit we want. Whether it's the capabilities of the new mainframe IBM's releasing next year, or how many cars Tesla is going to sell next year. Because comparing current products to what your company might produce next year is super easy when I can't buy a Model 3 today.
But more to the point, as a TSLA shareholder I find the idea of bringing up GM's losses laughable. Do you really want to go there, talking about who's making money manufacturing cars and who isn't? 'cuz I got some balance sheets you might want to take a look at.
Yes, parent poster was laughable. Though I will give him only this one thing. Tesla is positioned better than anybody else on battery supply. GM can produce as many EVs as they want when they decide to do it, as they have a lot of factories and sales channels, and as seen with the Bolt they have just-in-time production and mass manufacturing mostly figured out ... unlike Tesla. But GM is dependent on LG Chem to actually make the batteries, and from what i've ready LG Chem has already announced their plans and it's not enough to make hundreds of thousands of vehicles for next year (though maybe the year after...)
But I also do not think Tesla can pull off a significant ramp up on the Model 3. I think numbers for next year will be below 100,000.
But GM is dependent on LG Chem to actually make the batteries, and from what i've ready LG Chem has already announced their plans and it's not enough to make hundreds of thousands of vehicles for next year (though maybe the year after...)
That's a damned fine point, as it's the one part of the supply chain GM doesn't control and can't take in-house over the short term. So we end up with a company that can build the hell out of some cars, but is constrained on batteries. Another has lots of batteries, but is still wet behind the ears when it comes to making cars. Hey, I have an idea...
I know eh? But at Tesla's ridiculous market cap, it's more likely Tesla would buy them (crazy!) than the other way around. And I can't see that happening, or working well at all. Whatever departments put together the Volt and the Bolt seem like some kickass engineering teams. But not so much the rest of GM, which looks like a pretty typical internally dysfunctional mediocre large corp from a distance.
Then again, Tesla is showing all the signs of a company that has grown too fast and with too much hubris.
This was false. The plant was shut down for an extra two weeks to control Sonic supply. There's been more demand than inventory almost everywhere except California. They've basically sold everything they've made. LG Chem was contracted for 30k batteries and that's about what they will have sold by Jan or Feb or so at the current rate.
Yes, at a loss. Do you actually think GM who are "so good at manufacturing" will sell more EVs than Tesla will sell Model 3's by the end of next year? I won't even include Model S and X, to make it more fair.
Tesla also currently sells Model 3s at a loss using the same GAAP[1] accounting metrics GM uses. (Their latest quarterly report states that they're not even break even on a non-GAAP method of accounting.[2])
The difference is that GM can afford to absorb the loss while it ramps up production. Tesla needs the Model 3 to be profitable, or the company dies.
[1]GAAP = generally accepted accounting principles. In other words, standardized methods of accounting for profit and loss. Tesla uses non-standard (i.e., non-GAAP) accounting in its financial reports to paint a rosier picture of its financial state than GAAP reporting would provide. Some people say that non-GAAP reporting paints a more accurate picture of a company than GAAP. This might be true for new industries that don't have sufficient history to establish industry-specific GAAP. However, the auto industry has been around for more than 100+ years, so the use of non-GAAP accounting by Tesla and Faraday is generally indicative of unstable financial health.
Do you actually think GM who are "so good at manufacturing" will sell more EVs than Tesla will sell Model 3's by the end of next year?
GM could should they choose to do so. They can certainly manufacture them, whereas Tesla's ability is questionable. But one has to sell them once their made. Oh, sure, you might buy a Tesla. Hell, I bought a Leaf, I might buy a Tesla. But you know who won't buy a Tesla? Everyone after the early adopters. GM's been making cars for over 100 years. Odds are really good that a potential customer has owned a GM. Odds are near zero that a potential Tesla customer has owned a Tesla before. For good or for bad, GM is a known quantity. Personally, I go back and forth before laying out money for a $700 phone that is a switch from my current phone. Now scale that up to a $35K car. Maybe you'll just take that out of petty cash from your last liquidity event. The rest of us will scrape together a down payment and hope we can make that monthly nut. And if you're doing that, you're going with the safe bet. The safe bet has a nation-wide network of dealers to work on it, has sold cars for 100 years, and isn't going out of business any time soon. The less-safe bet can't even tell you when you're getting your car +/- six months. In short, when we bought our Leaf, I knew it could easily turn into a $35K mistake, but we have the means and the risk tolerance. I would not make the mistake of projecting that to Mr. and Mrs. Middle America.
You're already being downvoted, so not sure it's worth an extensive rebuttal, but since you're spreading misinformation.
As of the beginning of November, GM has sold ~20,000 units in the US, with an additional 2000 or so in Canada 2017, not "3,000." As of the end of the year it'll probably be about 30,000 units sold if you include those from last year: http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/chevrolet/chevrolet-bolt-ev/c...
Same people who tore down the Bolt and estimated these costs said it would cost far less in 2018, and also pointed out that Tesla's Model 3 costs are almost the same.
And indeed GM has already pre-announced a bunch of new models and says 20 electrified vehicles by the early 2020s, including two new ones late 2018, 2019.
LG Chem wouldn't be opening a brand new battery facility in Detroit if GM wasn't committing to production vehicles.
"Compliance" vehicles are vehicles like the Fiat 500e, or Rav 4 EV or Honda Clarity that sell only in states that mandate them. GM is selling the Bolt in all states and provinces, though has of course allocated more inventory to regions that have subsidies or incentives.
Demand has outstripped supply for the Bolt everywhere except California, where there is subsidized competition from above named compliance vehicles.
Unlike Tesla GM has to make a profit and doesn't have a seemingly infinite investor line of credit.
1) Bolt is $2500 more than Model 3 pre-credit.
2) How well it rides is debatable, but it doesn't have anywhere near the same performance as Model 3. For instance, it has a motor power of 150 kW vs 300 kW for Model 3, and its acceleration is significantly worse, too.
3) It looks like a typical boxy hatchback.
Finally, we already know GM loses $9,000 per Bolt and it seems to have been losing 10,000 euro for the Bolt-based Ampera-E in Europe. What this tells us is that it's more of a compliance car/EV mascot for GM than a model they actually intend to have everywhere.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/30/gm-stands-to-lose-9000-dolla...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-peugeot-gm-opel-exclusive...
GM has sold 3,000 Bolt units so far in 2017. Tesla will sell hundreds of thousands of Model 3s in 2018. I don't think GM will be in a hurry to catch up to them going by those losses.