GM Is Ready To Lose Close To $9,000 On Every Bolt Sold

This segment is not yet to a point that it is going to be a profitable one unless you charge a lot of money like on an Tesla S model even then they are struggling to show a profit or gain money to develop the 3 model.

The whole exercise here is to develop systems, nurture a segments to the point it is worth the cost of investment by vendors to make systems for these models.

It is the old Chicken and Egg deal. The vendors are not strong or large enough in most cases to fund this at a loss but larger companies still funded by ICE can better absorbed the loss to work to make better systems and cheaper parts for affordable cars in the future.

We must look at this as an investment.

Like the first Volt it was a money loser but the new one is cheaper and more of a break even car. It also is selling in greater numbers. Now the next Volt will move to the profit column.

Also as more cars used these parts and it is spread around it will make more and more cheaper.

It is kind of like in racing. Developing the first race car is the major cost the second and third are so much cheaper as you go. this is why so many teams are more than one car.

The media will jump all over this but never really put it into context as they have always been anti corporate and often anti GM.

EV is a slow growth segment and as we go things will get faster and cheaper. It is just growing pains in a segment that has had to grow with help.

I agree with what Hyper has said but also in reading the Bloomberg report and other repoirts including news releases from GM such as the plant that the BOLT is being assebled at has a capacity of 90,000 auto's for a single 6 day a week shift. They have already gone to 6 days since demand by dealers for the Bolt is stronger than expected. They will ship the BOLT / Ampe E to Europe from the US. If demand pics up to be more than the estimated 7698 units to break even with the carb board and to satisfy the emissions requirement, this could turn into a money maker for GM. I actually expect them to sell about 30,000 units in 2017 and even that I think is conservative. Course the story also does state that GM could also sell 10,082 Volts to get the emission credits so I think either way, GM is in a good spot.

Like Hyper states, this is an investment in the future direction that auto's are going.

How is this even remotely fair for automakers, being forced to sell a product that few want at a substantial loss, as price of admission to sell other products people actually want that are very profitable.  How about taking the Governments boot off their corporate necks and giving them some additional time and let capitalism work the way it works best.  I seriously doubt this planet will notice another decade of modest growth in EV.  It’s not like they have not made HUGE reductions in emissions already, selling many PZEV and clean Diesel advancements.  And honestly, if someone did a well to wheel cost and emissions analysis that compared a 15% EV state content against maybe a 50% hybrid content, you would probably come out ahead with PZEV hybrids.  Certainly for the automakers, that much is certain.

11 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

How is this even remotely fair for automakers, being forced to sell a product that few want at a substantial loss, as price of admission to sell other products people actually want that are very profitable.  How about taking the Governments boot off their corporate necks and giving them some additional time and let capitalism work the way it works best.  I seriously doubt this planet will notice another decade of modest growth in EV.  It’s not like they have not made HUGE reductions in emissions already, selling many PZEV and clean Diesel advancements.  And honestly, if someone did a well to wheel cost and emissions analysis that compared a 15% EV state content against maybe a 50% hybrid content, you would probably come out ahead with PZEV hybrids.  Certainly for the automakers, that much is certain.

 

If it was not for regulations we would still be choking on the unburned hydro carbons of the 70's. 

Many people want noiseless, clean EV's far more than I think you realize. Hold back has been battery technology. 

Yes many will still buy ICE auto's but you have to push along technology in the auto industry as unlike the tech industry where we try to obsolete each other, for some weird reason the auto industry seems to be happy to just do the same thing over and over till someone else bumps them. The biggest change in this industry has come from states and the gov pushing change. 

Otherwise like Europe, we would have terrible acid rain due to all the diesel.

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

If it was not for regulations we would still be choking on the unburned hydro carbons of the 70's. 

Many people want noiseless, clean EV's far more than I think you realize. Hold back has been battery technology. 

Yes many will still buy ICE auto's but you have to push along technology in the auto industry as unlike the tech industry where we try to obsolete each other, for some weird reason the auto industry seems to be happy to just do the same thing over and over till someone else bumps them. The biggest change in this industry has come from states and the gov pushing change. 

Otherwise like Europe, we would have terrible acid rain due to all the diesel.

Yeah some folks fail to realize that the same government regulations that are supposedly squeezing out companies today are the same ones responsible for emission reduction in the first place. 

20 minutes ago, dfelt said:

If it was not for regulations we would still be choking on the unburned hydro carbons of the 70's. 

Many people want noiseless, clean EV's far more than I think you realize. Hold back has been battery technology. 

Yes many will still buy ICE auto's but you have to push along technology in the auto industry as unlike the tech industry where we try to obsolete each other, for some weird reason the auto industry seems to be happy to just do the same thing over and over till someone else bumps them. The biggest change in this industry has come from states and the gov pushing change. 

Otherwise like Europe, we would have terrible acid rain due to all the diesel.

Capitalism would have put us roughly where we are today, through sheer competition.  Ford has stated many times that it does what it does because it is right, not because it is told.  The Government wants to take all the credit, yet they are not behind the many greening efforts Ford and other automakers undertake on their own.  If you truly believe we would have made no gains, then there is little I can tell you as you believe what you want.

1 hour ago, Wings4Life said:

 

Capitalism would have put us roughly where we are today, through sheer competition.  Ford has stated many times that it does what it does because it is right, not because it is told.  The Government wants to take all the credit, yet they are not behind the many greening efforts Ford and other automakers undertake on their own.  If you truly believe we would have made no gains, then there is little I can tell you as you believe what you want.

I have to disagree with you Wings. While I hate much of the Gov, especially the over kill on social services, the EPA could be scaled back and thinned out. Yet without these oversight groups, we would not be where we are today. 

Look at the oil industry and how little things have changed. Since Bush deregulated and allowed Oil Speculation, we have seen costs go up and yet no new plants have been built, nothing really has changed for the oil companies at the refineries in 40+ years. Exxon Mobile took in over 100 Billion profit last year. The stupid gov gives them billions in tax dollars for oil exploration and yet they clearly do not need it.

With out groups pushing the auto industry, things would have changed much slower and in some cases not at all. Not a single auto company was willing to add smog control equipment till California started CARB and said you have to have clean tail pipes equal to XXX to sell your auto in CA. 

The auto industry has been very slow to change in comparison to high tech industry where we love to obsolete ourselves every 90 days or so.

2 hours ago, Wings4Life said:

How is this even remotely fair for automakers, being forced to sell a product that few want at a substantial loss, as price of admission to sell other products people actually want that are very profitable.  How about taking the Governments boot off their corporate necks and giving them some additional time and let capitalism work the way it works best.  I seriously doubt this planet will notice another decade of modest growth in EV.  It’s not like they have not made HUGE reductions in emissions already, selling many PZEV and clean Diesel advancements.  And honestly, if someone did a well to wheel cost and emissions analysis that compared a 15% EV state content against maybe a 50% hybrid content, you would probably come out ahead with PZEV hybrids.  Certainly for the automakers, that much is certain.

 

It is not right and that is why it is a very good thing how Trump brought someone like Mary in on an advisory roll. Granted it may or may not change things but at least the Automakers will have a voice.

Here is the problem and the Obama EPA has really brought it to light in the last two years. Agencies like the EPA are appointed people that often have an agenda or in other cases just a pay back for political support and really have no clue.

The present EPA is made up of academics and people with green agenda and have no love for business and for how things are done. Case in point he recent changing of how even off road use race cars would be required to keep the emissions in place even a quarter mile at a time on a car never driven on the road.

This change would damage the performance aftermarket and the racing industry leaving more economic damage and have so little affect on the environment.

The problem here is the appointed people are pushing their agenda and reinterpreting the law to fit their needs and bypassing congress and the senate. Not only is that wrong it is illegal. Their claim is it was the original intent. Even many Democrats disagree here even with these people. I know as I had The same Rep Tim Ryan who just challenged Nancy Pelosi for minority house leader at my desk here to give us his support for the RPM act that SEMA is working on.

Now with that said for this to work and to do the least damage to business and the environment they need to work closer together and work to minimize the damage all the way around. They really need to take this and yearly look at how things are going and how advancements are coming a long with investments.

This way adjustments can be made on where we are at. This is a game both sides need to play with the cards faced up so both sides win.

If this continues as it does it will make these cars even more expensive to develop. It will force automaker into selling cars people do not want as they will not be large enough or developed enough as not to change their life styles.

The higher development cost will at some point have to be passed on and that will  make car that are already too much.

The real poison pill is the damage that will befall the truck segment that has been holding all this together.  The Half ton trucks are going to take a major hit in 2025. This is why the mid size is coming and there is no V8 option. To get a full size at some point I suspect you may have to move to a 3/4 ton or a light 3/4 rated truck at a higher price yet. Same for V8 options they will increase in cost.

I am hoping Trump as a business man will see this and try to get his people to work with and not against the auto industry as a good business man would do and not necessary toss everything out but make it a more workable situation to where progress is made for both sides as neither would be punished.

This deal where you have token elected officials that do not even drive themselves or have even bought a car recently making laws that have no clue about cars let alone the auto industry.

This has been a problem for so long with government and forcing things is a costly way of doing business. DC should only learn by what happened in the 70's when they force many regulations and so little time to implement them. It took the car companies about 10 years to get thing to where they got better after 1975.  Same even on the bumper laws.

3 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

This segment is not yet to a point that it is going to be a profitable one unless you charge a lot of money like on an Tesla S model even then they are struggling to show a profit or gain money to develop the 3 model.

The whole exercise here is to develop systems, nurture a segments to the point it is worth the cost of investment by vendors to make systems for these models.

It is the old Chicken and Egg deal. The vendors are not strong or large enough in most cases to fund this at a loss but larger companies still funded by ICE can better absorbed the loss to work to make better systems and cheaper parts for affordable cars in the future.

We must look at this as an investment.

Like the first Volt it was a money loser but the new one is cheaper and more of a break even car. It also is selling in greater numbers. Now the next Volt will move to the profit column.

Also as more cars used these parts and it is spread around it will make more and more cheaper.

It is kind of like in racing. Developing the first race car is the major cost the second and third are so much cheaper as you go. this is why so many teams are more than one car.

The media will jump all over this but never really put it into context as they have always been anti corporate and often anti GM.

EV is a slow growth segment and as we go things will get faster and cheaper. It is just growing pains in a segment that has had to grow with help.

 

 

Note too we also must understand too that many eviromental people have good intentions. But also many have turned this into a industry and a way to make big money off of this and are not always concerned about the economic damage they are doing to others. They see it as winners and loser and they don't want to lose.

@hyperv6 Nicely stated, working together as all politicians did in the 90's to achieve success and balance is what is really needed and very much missing in DC as well as State, county and city politics.

2 hours ago, dfelt said:

I have to disagree with you Wings. While I hate much of the Gov, especially the over kill on social services, the EPA could be scaled back and thinned out. Yet without these oversight groups, we would not be where we are today. 

Look at the oil industry and how little things have changed. Since Bush deregulated and allowed Oil Speculation, we have seen costs go up and yet no new plants have been built, nothing really has changed for the oil companies at the refineries in 40+ years. Exxon Mobile took in over 100 Billion profit last year. The stupid gov gives them billions in tax dollars for oil exploration and yet they clearly do not need it.

With out groups pushing the auto industry, things would have changed much slower and in some cases not at all. Not a single auto company was willing to add smog control equipment till California started CARB and said you have to have clean tail pipes equal to XXX to sell your auto in CA. 

The auto industry has been very slow to change in comparison to high tech industry where we love to obsolete ourselves every 90 days or so.

I'm also sure that Ford, like everyone else, did some things exactly because the government told them too. 

9 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

I'm also sure that Ford, like everyone else, did some things exactly because the government told them too. 

Very true, all companies will do what the GOV says to keep making a profit and hopefully keep the GOV out of other areas of their business.

Balance, give and take is what is required to make all things better.

dfelt,

regulations kicked off cleaner air and efficiency, but for Government to beat their chest and claim they are responsible for the state of the industry......would be like my father taking credit for my career, by his demanding I went to college within a time window.   Yes, he might be a factor, but I did 100% of the work, not him. Perhaps a silly analogy, but that's all I can think of.  No way to know where society would be had the Government backed off shortly after making the industry more aware, instead of making deadlines that the automaker themselves dictated in the first place.  That's right, automakers dictated what can be done and how soon.  It's not like the gov has any clue how long it takes to develop new powertrains, they all get together and agree on timelines, and maybe advance that date a bit, and then take credit.

Truth is, it was customer needs and competition that MOSTLY pushed the industry where it is today.  If Government went away completely, little would change.  Ford would continue to develop cleaner more efficient powertrains, vehicles and systems, not to mention the gazillion other  manufacturing and research efforts they improve on to for real long term environmental improvements --mostly because it is the right thing to do. Competition would of course be part of that decision.  That's right, capitalism at it's finest.

Have to say that the BOLT is quality BUILT and worth every penny.

I was very suprised at the Seattle 2016 Auto show where the Buick Encore I have always loved shocked me how inexpensive it felt and lack of interior room after having spent so much time in the Bolt.

The Doors are solid like a rock on the BOLT, the Encore was like a pop can.

The multiple seals allows for a very quiet ride plus a solid close.

The screen is much larger than Chevy pictures have shown it to be. Very happy with the feel of the buttons. Something SMK has said makes or breaks a quality built auto. Here they are solid and feel like a quality component.

Have to say I also like the feel of the shifter. While I would have liked it to be on the dash or steering column to free up space in the center. It worked and felt solid. I also like the electronic break as it frees up space for your feet, especially for us big guys.

Rear cargo space is huge. I was surprised that you have small storage cubbies under the bottom carpet pad that covers the spare tire, and of course the raised floor that levels out with the rear seats down, but if that floor piece is removed, you have a very deep big space.

So what does the motor bay or engine look like?Over all well packaged, clean and like everything else in life, full of electrically shocking stuff!

Fuse box is in the engine bay, no fuses at all in the passenger cabin that I could find.

Even the hood of the engine bay is insulated to help keep the auto even more quiet.

Loved the 360 vision surround. If your not sure where all the camera's are at, you have two in the back, 1 under each side mirror and one in the front. Ultra wide angle so you can see on the big nav screen a 360 picture of your auto before you go into drive or reverse.

Rear door

One of the side mirrors

Front of the car camera

The camera is in the bottom black section at the top and I missed it the first few times as it blend in real well until you get down to look closely.

Interesting that they went with the weird windshield wiper design that has them pivot from both sides. Never having driven an auto with wipers like this, anyone else know if they clean the window any better this way?

Final pick is that with the front seat set for my comfort of driving, here is what it is like when I get in the back seat. Yes all 6'6" of me. Enough room to still go for a drive, Yes it is actually a couple inches between my knees and the back of the seat.

My take on all this, is government regulations are good, it brought us cleaner cars, more efficient cars, safer cars, etc.  There was a time when seat belts weren't required too, so the regulations push progress.  That being said the regulations have to be realistic and attainable, and with consumer protection in mind.

One thing important to remember is CARB was around before the EPA, so they can regulate what they want because they pre-date EPA.  And if CARB says sell electric cars, every automaker will line up and do it, because California by itself is the 6th largest economy in the world, no automaker would even think for a second to leave.

GM is choosing to lose money on the Bolt.  They could price it higher, or they they could build electric cars in higher margin vehicles.  Small cars have the worst profit margins, yet car makers try to make electrics out of them which also have no margin.  Make the Escalade electric only, that thing already has a $10,000+ margin or it.  As far as V8 pickups go, they will be dead soon anyway, V8 luxury cars are pretty much dead unless you pay $100k, sports cars will soon follow, trucks as well.   Plus a 2007 era Silverado V8 had 315 hp, a Mustang 2.3 liter engine does that now, you can get the power of a early 2000s V8 from a 4 cylinder now, in 2025 4 cylinders will make 400 hp and there will be no reason for a light duty truck to have over 400 hp.  Plus electrics make massive torque, that is good for a pickup and you have lots of room for batteries too.

15 hours ago, hyperv6 said:

This segment is not yet to a point that it is going to be a profitable one unless you charge a lot of money like on an Tesla S model even then they are struggling to show a profit or gain money to develop the 3 model.

The whole exercise here is to develop systems, nurture a segments to the point it is worth the cost of investment by vendors to make systems for these models.

It is the old Chicken and Egg deal. The vendors are not strong or large enough in most cases to fund this at a loss but larger companies still funded by ICE can better absorbed the loss to work to make better systems and cheaper parts for affordable cars in the future.

We must look at this as an investment.

Like the first Volt it was a money loser but the new one is cheaper and more of a break even car. It also is selling in greater numbers. Now the next Volt will move to the profit column.

Also as more cars used these parts and it is spread around it will make more and more cheaper.

It is kind of like in racing. Developing the first race car is the major cost the second and third are so much cheaper as you go. this is why so many teams are more than one car.

The media will jump all over this but never really put it into context as they have always been anti corporate and often anti GM.

EV is a slow growth segment and as we go things will get faster and cheaper. It is just growing pains in a segment that has had to grow with help.

 

 

Pretty much dead on to what I was thinking after reading that.....

Totally ridiculous.  The stupidest thing I've ever heard.  Government is putting car companies out of business trying to regulate what people want.  Cannot be done with any measurable amount of success.

And listen to dfelt squirting all over the Bolt while trashing the Encore/Mokka/Trax/Tracker, a vehicle that has already sold hundreds of thousands of units all over the world BECAUSE IT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT.  How can a clear thinker reason with stuff like this?  Look at the picture of him in the back seat of the Bolt with his knees in his chest, saying how much ROOM is back there! 

13 hours ago, smk4565 said:

My take on all this, is government regulations are good, it brought us cleaner cars, more efficient cars, safer cars, etc.  There was a time when seat belts weren't required too, so the regulations push progress.  That being said the regulations have to be realistic and attainable, and with consumer protection in mind.

One thing important to remember is CARB was around before the EPA, so they can regulate what they want because they pre-date EPA.  And if CARB says sell electric cars, every automaker will line up and do it, because California by itself is the 6th largest economy in the world, no automaker would even think for a second to leave.

GM is choosing to lose money on the Bolt.  They could price it higher, or they they could build electric cars in higher margin vehicles.  Small cars have the worst profit margins, yet car makers try to make electrics out of them which also have no margin.  Make the Escalade electric only, that thing already has a $10,000+ margin or it.  As far as V8 pickups go, they will be dead soon anyway, V8 luxury cars are pretty much dead unless you pay $100k, sports cars will soon follow, trucks as well.   Plus a 2007 era Silverado V8 had 315 hp, a Mustang 2.3 liter engine does that now, you can get the power of a early 2000s V8 from a 4 cylinder now, in 2025 4 cylinders will make 400 hp and there will be no reason for a light duty truck to have over 400 hp.  Plus electrics make massive torque, that is good for a pickup and you have lots of room for batteries too.

 Government regulations are like Chemo. A little bit In good balance will cure you and too much will for sure kill you.

Regulations in all areas need to be done in moderation and never to the extreme. When you start to get to the point you are raising costs or killing jobs you need to moderate till the body or population can convert to the new ways.

The problem many who push the full cold turkey approach often are so far out there or too often it is someone that is lobbying government because they are making money from government funding for programs that often fail or are turning green into an industry with real no interest in the end results other than the money they collect.

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Totally ridiculous.  The stupidest thing I've ever heard.  Government is putting car companies out of business trying to regulate what people want.  Cannot be done with any measurable amount of success.

 

And listen to dfelt squirting all over the Bolt while trashing the Encore/Mokka/Trax/Tracker, a vehicle that has already sold hundreds of thousands of units all over the world BECAUSE IT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT.  How can a clear thinker reason with stuff like this?  Look at the picture of him in the back seat of the Bolt with his knees in his chest, saying how much ROOM is back there! 

You really believe this. Look around and see many cars people no longer want because they are not what they want. Trucks and Crossovers are selling because they are not what cars have become due to regulations. 

Regulations will kill the manual shift.

Regulations have pretty much killed the V8 as the number one engine and left most cars with 4 cylinders.

Regulations have killed most RWD cars.

Regulations have driven up development cost so high that automakers fear in the future many people will not be able to afford cars so they are looking to serve ride sharing.

It is not that government is trying to put them out but they are showing no regard for their financial futures by slapping on regulations with little consideration of the cost involved to meet these challenges. This is what happens when you have one side working on laws with no idea of what the other side faces.

I could continue. A weak company can fail. Just watch at FCA as their small cars failed and there is a good chance Chrysler cars could just fade away all together. FCA is one crash of the Euro market away from failing there.

As for the Bolt lets see your photo of you in the back seat. You did get one when you saw and sat in one?

We also would like to hear about your encounter with the same vehicle. You have at the very lease seen one in person?

Oh?

3 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Totally ridiculous.  The stupidest thing I've ever heard.  Government is putting car companies out of business trying to regulate what people want.  Cannot be done with any measurable amount of success.

 

And listen to dfelt squirting all over the Bolt while trashing the Encore/Mokka/Trax/Tracker, a vehicle that has already sold hundreds of thousands of units all over the world BECAUSE IT IS WHAT PEOPLE WANT.  How can a clear thinker reason with stuff like this?  Look at the picture of him in the back seat of the Bolt with his knees in his chest, saying how much ROOM is back there! 

Continue your hate racist spew against anything EV. My knees are not in my chest and I have plenty of room and if you understood photography you would realize it was a wide angle camera that allowed me to show that I was in the back seat. It is far roomier than you realize. 

Also if you had spent any real time with a Bolt and then gone to the new Encore you yourself as others also noticed that the doors on the encore are like a pop can, versus rock solid on the Bolt.

I truly believe GM is putting resources where they see the future.

Does this make the Encore bad? No, but when you see the encore as mid $20's and the Bolt at Mid $30's, I would expect a better feel of solid quality to it.

Your welcome to your opinion about the gov we all have our own views, but more and more people want less maintenance quiet auto's and many want what Tesla S has delivered but in a less expensive package. GM has led in giving the world the Bolt and it will be a success.

People have bought the Encore/Mokka/Trax/Tracker due to price, long range capable driving, life style and more. The Bolt will give them what this product line needs in a very quiet, solid well built package that will cost a fraction to fuel, cost less maintenance and give people an auto that meets the lifestyle needs.

I am sad for you Ocnblu as you really have become that old person with blinders on that can only see a narrow view of the future world and will fight to his grave to not have anything change.

Best of luck as at your resistance, the world will pass you by faster than you realize.

21 hours ago, Wings4Life said:

How is this even remotely fair for automakers, being forced to sell a product that few want at a substantial loss, as price of admission to sell other products people actually want that are very profitable.  How about taking the Governments boot off their corporate necks and giving them some additional time and let capitalism work the way it works best.  I seriously doubt this planet will notice another decade of modest growth in EV.  It’s not like they have not made HUGE reductions in emissions already, selling many PZEV and clean Diesel advancements.  And honestly, if someone did a well to wheel cost and emissions analysis that compared a 15% EV state content against maybe a 50% hybrid content, you would probably come out ahead with PZEV hybrids.  Certainly for the automakers, that much is certain.

 

Because if they didn't force companies to make changes, they never would. It costs money to invest in EV programs and balls to go ahead and go through with it. Something most companies wouldn't dare do on their own unless forced to. Companies don't just take billion dollar risks for the heck of it. Look at China for an absolutely perfect example of this. They're all choking on smog because there aren't regulations..so automakers don't spend money where they don't need to.

Just now, ccap41 said:

Because if they didn't force companies to make changes, they never would. It costs money to invest in EV programs and balls to go ahead and go through with it. Something most companies wouldn't dare do on their own unless forced to. Companies don't just take billion dollar risks for the heck of it. Look at China for an absolutely perfect example of this. They're all choking on smog because there aren't regulations..so automakers don't spend money where they don't need to.

The Prius was developed with the help of the Japanese government and it sells hugely world wide, although US sales are down.

20 hours ago, Wings4Life said:

 

Capitalism would have put us roughly where we are today, through sheer competition.  Ford has stated many times that it does what it does because it is right, not because it is told.  The Government wants to take all the credit, yet they are not behind the many greening efforts Ford and other automakers undertake on their own.  If you truly believe we would have made no gains, then there is little I can tell you as you believe what you want.

Then you shouldn't have anything to gripe about if they're doing it because they wanted to in the first place.

2 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Then you shouldn't have anything to gripe about if they're doing it because they wanted to in the first place.

Exactly.

Remembering the early 1970's before a lot of the EPA laws kicked in, I for one am glad we do regulate the auto industry.  The whining about electrics is the near exact same sort of whinging that happened in 1974 when Catalytic converters started in use and we did away with leaded fuel.

And the auto industry has responded and prospered just fine...

If anyone would have told us in the early 1970's that cars would often get over 40 mpg on the highway, that Camaro's, Mustangs, Corvettes, and Cadillac would become available with over 600 horsepower, and that cars would become orders of magnitude safer more reliable and less polluting as a result of the changes forced on the auto industry....

We would have told them that they were stoned.

Quite proud of both of our domestic car makers at this point actually...I think they have a lot of special things in store for us.  I for one am going to greet them with joy rather than whining.

5 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

The Prius was developed with the help of the Japanese government and it sells hugely world wide, although US sales are down.

Keep in mind that Japan being so small and having limited resources put in place regulations for pushing the EV / Hybrid auto to help their own country. This was them putting themselves first and then the world.

Having attended and graduated form Kobe University, I can tell you that if you ever visit japan, they are all about taking care of themselves first and at the expense of the world. They will and do move forward with technology to make their own place a better place to live. It is a very interesting and lovely place to visit. I will always go back to visit but love my state of Washington first. Plus as big as I am, it is so hard to get a big auto there.

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

Keep in mind that Japan being so small and having limited resources put in place regulations for pushing the EV / Hybrid auto to help their own country. This was them putting themselves first and then the world.

Having attended and graduated form Kobe University, I can tell you that if you ever visit japan, they are all about taking care of themselves first and at the expense of the world. They will and do move forward with technology to make their own place a better place to live. It is a very interesting and lovely place to visit. I will always go back to visit but love my state of Washington first. Plus as big as I am, it is so hard to get a big auto there.

Yeah, i have visited Japan several times....one of the times was with someone taller and larger than you....definitely not made for small people.

17 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

I'm also sure that Ford, like everyone else, did some things exactly because the government told them too. 

Ford Focus EV...  You can't tell me they did it this way because they wanted to.

43 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Ford Focus EV...  You can't tell me they did it this way because they wanted to.

Or seat belts, or crash test safety, or unleaded fuel, or emissions controls, or any number of other things...

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Because if they didn't force companies to make changes, they never would. It costs money to invest in EV programs and balls to go ahead and go through with it. Something most companies wouldn't dare do on their own unless forced to. Companies don't just take billion dollar risks for the heck of it. Look at China for an absolutely perfect example of this. They're all choking on smog because there aren't regulations..so automakers don't spend money where they don't need to.

You actually think that automakers would stop trying to make cars more efficient and cleaner?

Really?  Automakers need their hands held?  Really?  Competition combined with doing the right thing would never play into their decisions?  Really?

Sorry, the memo is out there, everyone knows what sells and what don't and everyone is trying to be as competitive as they can, while still remaining profitable.  That is the key. Mandates clearly keep them from profit when pushed to hard. Clearly.

If their goal was efficiency and competitiveness why in the world did it take 100+ years to get an EV to the market? The technology has been out there and prototypes have been out there.. why has nobody gone through with it until late?

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

If their goal was efficiency and competitiveness why in the world did it take 100+ years to get an EV to the market? The technology has been out there and prototypes have been out there.. why has nobody gone through with it until late?

I can think of one reason.

Poor battery technology. Quite frankly, its still not adequate for me to even consider for " daily " use in a practical sized and priced vehicle - 3 out of 5 days a week, my vehicle is my mobile office. 

7 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

If their goal was efficiency and competitiveness why in the world did it take 100+ years to get an EV to the market? The technology has been out there and prototypes have been out there.. why has nobody gone through with it until late?

Exactly...we have been given so much by people who came before us...the least we could do is pass forward decent air and water quality, along with the incredible personal freedom owning a car brings....to future generations.

1 minute ago, FordCosworth said:

I can think of one reason.

Poor battery technology. Quite frankly, its still not adequate for me to even consider for " daily " use in a practical sized and priced vehicle - 3 out of 5 days a week, my vehicle is my mobile office. 

 

 

Which is why the ICE motor will be around awhile....

3 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

I can think of one reason.

Poor battery technology. Quite frankly, its still not adequate for me to even consider for " daily " use in a practical sized and priced vehicle - 3 out of 5 days a week, my vehicle is my mobile office. 

 

 

I know what you mean but if they started research on that stuff 50 years ago instead of the last 10 could you imagine where we would be today? I'm also not suggesting companies should have poured incredible resources into the tech back then but if Wings is correct and these companies aren't in it for themselves but to do it for the good of the people and world then there should have been a mainstream EV out by the year 2000.

But no... They need the government to hold their hand because they can't do it for themselves. Again, Look at China's smog problem for proof that corporations will only do what they have to, to get by.

4 minutes ago, FordCosworth said:

I can think of one reason.

Poor battery technology. Quite frankly, its still not adequate for me to even consider for " daily " use in a practical sized and priced vehicle - 3 out of 5 days a week, my vehicle is my mobile office. 

 

 

True, we have had EV boats, auto's since the World fair in the early 1900's, but battery tech has been the one thing holding it back. I think we are in pretty good shape now and the Bolt will be the first low priced auto to help move the over all market in that direction.

So how many miles per day do you drive and what all do you need in your auto? Have you actually seen a Bolt in person? If you have no need for transporting people with the front seat and back seats down, a ton a space and the range is excellent. Testing in LA, Motor trend got 306 miles out of a single charge and yes that was on fairly flat ground compared to places like Seattle with plenty of hills. 

I still think most people can use this auto as a daily driver.

Just now, dfelt said:

Testing in LA, Motor trend got 306 miles out of a single charge and yes that was on fairly flat ground compared to places like Seattle with plenty of hills.

One issue I still have with EVs is the variation in weather efficiency. When it's in the teens and single digit temperatures I still have to drive the same distances daily/weekly, same in the summer when highs are in the 10X's. What kind of variation is there in range with those extremes?

5 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

One issue I still have with EVs is the variation in weather efficiency. When it's in the teens and single digit temperatures I still have to drive the same distances daily/weekly, same in the summer when highs are in the 10X's. What kind of variation is there in range with those extremes?

Quite a bit....

Oh yeah I meant to say that MT's test was in SoCal where the temperatures are pretty much PERFECT for EV range(or range for anything).

24 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

One issue I still have with EVs is the variation in weather efficiency. When it's in the teens and single digit temperatures I still have to drive the same distances daily/weekly, same in the summer when highs are in the 10X's. What kind of variation is there in range with those extremes?

Today the sun is shining and its -4 celsius. ( and thats nothing in the grand scheme of things.) EV battery range plummets here in the Great White North.

34 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

I know what you mean but if they started research on that stuff 50 years ago instead of the last 10 could you imagine where we would be today? I'm also not suggesting companies should have poured incredible resources into the tech back then but if Wings is correct and these companies aren't in it for themselves but to do it for the good of the people and world then there should have been a mainstream EV out by the year 2000.

But no... They need the government to hold their hand because they can't do it for themselves. Again, Look at China's smog problem for proof that corporations will only do what they have to, to get by.

 " Big Oil " and the lobbyists.

1 hour ago, FordCosworth said:

I can think of one reason.

Poor battery technology. Quite frankly, its still not adequate for me to even consider for " daily " use in a practical sized and priced vehicle - 3 out of 5 days a week, my vehicle is my mobile office. 

 

 

This 100%

Below is a top ten list of Ford’s environmental efforts, although dating back to 2008.  Not much in this list that was mandated by the government,  nearly all of it was attributed to Bill Ford’s decision for long term sustainability and environmental efforts.  The costs of doing all that and much more is way into the billions.  So yeah, pretty sure Ford would continue to do so if the Government got off their arse.  But that’s just Ford. I suspect most would do similar. Kind of a sink or swim market out there, afterall.  And yeah, lots more has been done since then.

http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/5906/green-initiatives-ford
 

Ford has a good PR team.

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Ford has a good PR team.

...and decent corporate ethics.  Methinks I will still be buying a GTI or WRX when I replace the Jetta though, as I like both better than the Focus ST.

But there is a lot to admire at Ford.

3 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Oh yeah I meant to say that MT's test was in SoCal where the temperatures are pretty much PERFECT for EV range(or range for anything).

True, but we will see the real results soon as these auto's become more main stream. Now I am interested in seeing how big a difference it really is as GM and the EPA have the Bolt range if memory serves me correct at 238 for a 32 to 90 degree range. So in a -4 below zero, it will be interesting to see how far that range really is.

This could also explain the added thickness in the over all doors, body panels, etc. Maybe better insulation to off set the affects of extreme temps. Remember,  The battery pack is a 60-kWh pack that uses liquid thermal conditioning to keep its operating temperature within the best range for long life.

Chevy is Live with the BOLT Build option!

Per GM own Media Department:

Battery system preliminary specifications include:

• 60 kWh lithium-ion battery pack.
• 288 lithium ion cells
  • Five sections
  • 10 modules
  • 96 cell groups – three cells per group
• 960 lbs. (435 kg) total weight

“You usually have a battery cell that delivers either the desired levels of energy or power, but not traditionally both.  With this cell design and chemistry we were able to deliver a battery system with 160 kilowatts of peak power and 60 kilowatts hours of energy,” said Gregory Smith, Bolt EV battery pack engineering group manager. 

The battery uses active thermal conditioning, similar to the Chevrolet Volt, to keep the battery operating at its optimum temperature, which results in solid battery life performance.  The Bolt EV battery will be covered by an 8-year/ 100,000 mile (whichever comes first) limited warranty.

Inside the battery pack – which spans the entire floor, from the front foot well to back of the rear seat – is a new cell design and chemistry.  The nickel-rich lithium-ion chemistry provides improved thermal operating performance over other chemistries, which requires a smaller active cooling system for more efficient packaging.  The chemistry allows the Bolt EV to maintain peak performance in varying climates and driver demands. 

The cells are arranged in a “landscape” format and each measures in at only 3.9 ins. (100 mms) high and 13.1 ins. (338 mms) wide providing improved packaging underfloor. The lower profile cell design enabled the vehicle structure team to maximize interior space. 

The battery system is mated to a standard equipment 7.2 kW onboard charger for regular overnight charging from a 240-V wall box.  A typical commute of 50 miles can be recharged in less than two hours.  Bolt EV also features an optional DC Fast Charging system using the industry standard SAE Combo connector.  Using DC Fast Charging, the Bolt EV battery can be charged up to 90 miles of range in 30 minutes.  Outside temperatures may affect charging times.

http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/Jan/naias/chevy/0111-bolt-du.html

Good information, dfelt.

Hybrid Cars web site dug into the battery and gear box with GM and has a great write up with comparison to both Tesla and BMW i3.

http://www.hybridcars.com/2017-chevy-bolt-battery-cooling-and-gearbox-details/

Well worth the read. 

Well ya know I'm pretty sure the sheetmetal gauge thickness will be the same between a Bolt and an Encore, and if it isn't, I would lean toward the Bolt having thinner metal (possibly of a different type of steel), if that would make any sense atall.  Also, according to Chevrolet's website, the Trax has 18.7 cu ft of cargo room with the seats up, while the Bolt has 16.9.  Also, on rear seat legroom, the Trax is listed at 35.7 and the Bolt at 36.5... both paltry when you consider the Honda HR-V has 23.2 cu ft of cargo space with the seat up and 39.3 inches of rear seat legroom.  Just examples from manufacturer websites if anyone is innerested. 

"Continue your hate racist spew against anything EV. "  Yer funny!

11 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Well ya know I'm pretty sure the sheetmetal gauge thickness will be the same between a Bolt and an Encore, and if it isn't, I would lean toward the Bolt having thinner metal (possibly of a different type of steel), if that would make any sense atall.  Also, according to Chevrolet's website, the Trax has 18.7 cu ft of cargo room with the seats up, while the Bolt has 16.9.  Also, on rear seat legroom, the Trax is listed at 35.7 and the Bolt at 36.5... both paltry when you consider the Honda HR-V has 23.2 cu ft of cargo space with the seat up and 39.3 inches of rear seat legroom.  Just examples from manufacturer websites if anyone is innerested. 

"Continue your hate racist spew against anything EV. "  Yer funny!

Pretty much speculation...I am just glad that GM is building a full line of competent and interesting vehicles...

22 hours ago, Wings4Life said:

You actually think that automakers would stop trying to make cars more efficient and cleaner?

Really?  Automakers need their hands held?  Really?  Competition combined with doing the right thing would never play into their decisions?  Really?

 

Sorry, the memo is out there, everyone knows what sells and what don't and everyone is trying to be as competitive as they can, while still remaining profitable.  That is the key. Mandates clearly keep them from profit when pushed to hard. Clearly.

Yes "Really" to all of it and anyone who is not beholden to their employer would know this already. Many examples have already been given to why this has been the case. Along with big oil, the big 3 were the biggest detriment to new technologies and changes that had to have government intervention later on to force their hands. This is not really a debatable point but if it makes you feel better, just continue on with this illusion that Ford is the lone exception to the truth.

Clarify, This is my take on reading the stories, watching the interviews and how I perceive Fords CEO take on this.

Interesting is the recent interview by Ford CEO Mark Fields which clearly states that if possible they would have trump stop all efforts moving forward to make cleaner auto's as he says that with 55 models on the market, which is only 2.8% of the auto sales, there is no market for EV's or hybrids. Yet earlier in the year he contradicts himself and even admits that everything FORD has built to date is compliance EV's / hybrids. 

On top of this Ford CEO says no reason to not move production to other countries unless tax breaks are given to FORD. Trump has clearly now made us hostage to companies to move jobs out of country without tax breaks being given.

Dec 2nd Bloomberg Story Pressure on auto companies without reducing EPA requirements for making auto's. Sees no market for EV's.

Bloomberg Interview Where Ford CEO says he will work with Trump to reduce requirements by states and gov to allow making autos more profitable. Pretty much says no market for EV's / Hybrids.

CleanTechnica Story where ford states that currently everything is compliance and by 2030 Ford is now reviewing on how to build real EV / Hybrid auto's.

Rueters Small Car production moving to Mexico along with Compliance EV / hybrid auto production.

Very interesting as this would tend to say that if they get money from the GOV, they will do all the right things in building EV / Hybrid auto's otherwise no need to build better auto's let us just build what we have.

GM on the other hand clean sheet the BOLT and from what I have seen it will be a big success for them. Battery tech was always the thing holding back EV auto's. The future will go to those that embrace it.