Jump to content
William Maley

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

Recommended Posts

Every Chevrolet Bolt that will be rolling off the assembly line will lose General Motors close to $9,000 once they are sold. This seems like madness, but according to a report from Bloomberg, there is some method to it. 

Thanks to new regulations done by California Air Resources Board, automakers have to sell a certain amount of zero-emission vehicles if they want to sell other vehicles - primarily crossovers, SUVs, and trucks - in the state. These new regulations say by 2025, zero-emission vehicles need to make up 15.4 percent of the market. Since then, nine other states including New York have adopted these regulations. All told, these ten states make up 30 percent of the total U.S. auto market.

Take for example Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. CEO Sergio Marchionne revealed a couple years back they take a hit of $14,000 on every Fiat 500e sold. But if they wanted to sell Ram pickups and Jeep SUVs in California, they need to take the hit.

How does Bloomberg get the $9,000 figure? That's due to a source at General Motors who revealed the estimate is based on the Bolt's $37,500 base price. A GM spokesman declined to comment.

If General Motors is able to sell enough Bolts, they'll be able to gather enough credits to not only sell other vehicles which will make up for the Bolt's loss, but also be able to sell extra credits to other automakers. Tesla has taken advantage of this to great effect. In the third quarter, Tesla made $139 million from selling credits.  

Source: Bloomberg

 

 

 


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Wings4Life
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

IMG_1519.JPG

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.

IMG_1520.JPG

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.

IMG_1559.JPG

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.

IMG_1521.JPG

IMG_1523.JPG

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!

IMG_1530.JPG

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

IMG_1565.JPG

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

IMG_1564.JPG

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

IMG_1547.JPG

One of the side mirrors

IMG_1573.JPG

Front of the car camera

IMG_1571.JPG

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.

IMG_1539.JPG

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?

IMG_1540.JPG

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.

IMG_1576.JPG

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!  :roflmao:

Edited by ocnblu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!  :roflmao:

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?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!  :roflmao:

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Today's Birthdays

    1. ToniCipriani
      ToniCipriani
      Age: 32
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      General Motors CEO Mary Barra spoke yesterday at the Barclays Global Automotive Conference in New York. During her talk, Barra said the company expects to make a profit off electric vehicles once they launch their next-generation EV platform.
      “We are working to provide desirable, obtainable and profitable vehicles that deliver a range of over 300 miles. There’s a lot of really creative things we’re doing to achieve that profitability point for that new platform,” Barra said to investors.
      The next-generation modular platform, due in 2021 will play a pivotal role in GM's plan to launch 20 all-new electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2023. The platform will help drop the total per-unit cost by 30 percent or more. It will be used across a number of GM brands and various segments.
      GM is also working on a new battery system that will cut the per-kilowatt-hour from $145 to under $100 by 2021.
      Before these two launches, GM will be introducing four new EV and hydrogen vehicles. Two of those will be launch by April 2019 according to a GM spokesman. At least two vehicles will be small crossovers according to Automotive News. It is expected the electric models will use the underpinnings of the Chevrolet Bolt.
      The company has a set a goal of a million electric vehicles by 2026 - with most happening in China due to their strict production quotas for EVs. 
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Reuters

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      General Motors CEO Mary Barra spoke yesterday at the Barclays Global Automotive Conference in New York. During her talk, Barra said the company expects to make a profit off electric vehicles once they launch their next-generation EV platform.
      “We are working to provide desirable, obtainable and profitable vehicles that deliver a range of over 300 miles. There’s a lot of really creative things we’re doing to achieve that profitability point for that new platform,” Barra said to investors.
      The next-generation modular platform, due in 2021 will play a pivotal role in GM's plan to launch 20 all-new electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2023. The platform will help drop the total per-unit cost by 30 percent or more. It will be used across a number of GM brands and various segments.
      GM is also working on a new battery system that will cut the per-kilowatt-hour from $145 to under $100 by 2021.
      Before these two launches, GM will be introducing four new EV and hydrogen vehicles. Two of those will be launch by April 2019 according to a GM spokesman. At least two vehicles will be small crossovers according to Automotive News. It is expected the electric models will use the underpinnings of the Chevrolet Bolt.
      The company has a set a goal of a million electric vehicles by 2026 - with most happening in China due to their strict production quotas for EVs. 
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Reuters
    • By William Maley
      After countless months of speculation, spy photos, and someone leaking out the cover of this month's Car and Driver, Chevrolet has revealed the 2019 Corvette ZR1. This is the maddest Corvette that Chevrolet has ever built.
      Beginning under the hood, the ZR1 packs an LT5 V8 engine. While carrying the same name as the engine found in the original ZR-1, the new ZR1 skips the dual-overhead cams found in the original LT5. Instead, Corvette engineers took the supercharged 6.2L V8 found in the Z06 and installed a larger Eaton supercharger that pumps in 52 percent more air into the engine. The LT5 also features direct and port fuel injection, upgraded crankshaft, dry sump lubrication, and a 4-inch throttle body (the largest ever fitted to a Corvette). The end result is action with 755 horsepower and 715 pound-feet of torque. Chevrolet is keeping quiet the 0-60 mph time, but did say the ZR1 can reach a top speed of 210 mph.
      Like the Z06, the ZR1 will be available with the choice of a seven-speed manual or eight-speed automatic. According to a report from Automobile, engineers tried to fit GM's new ten-speed automatic into the ZR1 but couldn't due to packaging issues with the Corvette's architecture.
      Polarizing is the best way to describe the Corvette ZR1's styling, especially in the front with large air ducts. This is to help maximize cooling with each duct featuring a radiator and intercooler. The front fenders are slightly wider to make space for wider tires. Unlike the previous ZR1 with a window on the hood showing off the supercharger assembly, the new model makes do with a carbon fiber “halo” hood featuring vents and a shaker piece covering the supercharger.
      The ZR1 shown in the photos provided by Chevrolet features the optional ZTK performance package which comes with an adjustable high-wing kit, front splitter with carbon-fiber end caps, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires, and special tuning for the chassis and magnetic ride control system. The large rear wing is said to provide 60 percent more downforce than the Z06 with the optional Z07 package. The standard ZR1 sticks with a fixed, low wing that is said to deliver the highest top speed.
      Those wanting to stand out further with their ZR1 can order the Sebring Orange Design Package. It includes a Sebring Orange Tintcoat for the exterior, brake calipers finished in orange, rocker panels and splitter featuring orange stripes; orange seatbelts and stitching for the interior; and bronze aluminum trim.
      The Corvette ZR1 arrives at dealers next spring. No word on pricing, but we wouldn't be shocked if it begins over $100,000.
      Source: Chevrolet
      Press Release is on Page 2



      2019 CORVETTE ZR1: RETURN OF THE KING
      The fastest, most powerful production Corvette ever retakes its supercar crown DUBAI — The King is returning, stronger than ever.
      Chevrolet today introduced the 2019 Corvette ZR1, a supercar that pushes Corvette’s performance legacy with the highest power, greatest track performance and most advanced technology in its production history.
      “I’ve never driven a Corvette like this before, and nobody else has either, because there’s never been one like this before,” said Mark Reuss, executive vice president, Global Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain. “Its unprecedented performance puts all other global supercars on notice that the ZR1 is back.”
      The Corvette ZR1’s exclusive LT5 supercharged engine, which is rated at an SAE-certified 755 horsepower (563 kW) and 715 lb-ft of torque (969 Nm), is establishing a new benchmark in performance. Further, the ZR1 elevates Corvette’s track capability with two wind tunnel-honed aerodynamics packages, including an available High Wing that provides an estimated 950 pounds of downforce.
      Most powerful ever
      The ZR1’s LT5 6.2L V-8 engine advances Corvette’s supercharging legacy, which began with the 2009 sixth-generation ZR1 and continued with the 2015 seventh-generation Z06. The LT5 delivers the highest output ever for a Chevrolet production vehicle, thanks in part to a new, more-efficient intercooled supercharger system that offers 52 percent more displacement than the Z06’s LT4 supercharger. GM’s first dual-fuel-injection system, which employs primary direct injection and supplemental port injection, helps the LT5 achieve its record output.
      Seven-speed manual and eight-speed paddle-shift automatic transmissions are available with the LT5. It’s the first time an automatic transmission has been offered in a ZR1.
      Fastest ever
      The 2019 Corvette ZR1’s aggressive appearance is driven by function, contributing to its distinction as the fastest production Corvette to date.
      An all-new front fascia is designed to channel air for propulsion-system and drivetrain cooling, with four new radiators bringing the heat-exchanger total to 13. A special carbon-fiber “halo” hood is open in the middle to clear the LT5 engine’s supercharger/intercooler assembly. Additional features, including aero packages with stanchion-mounted wings, help push the ZR1 harder onto the track for more confident handling and faster lap times. Top speed of the ZR1 is over 210 mph.
      “As the highest-performing Corvette ever, the ZR1’s design supports its capability in every way,” said Kirk Bennion, Exterior Design manager. “The new wings, for example, help generate more downforce without adding drag, enhancing road holding and top speed.”
      The ZR1 will offer two aero packages: a standard rear Low Wing, which delivers the highest top speed and helps generate up to 70 percent more downforce than the Z06’s base aero package, and an available two-way-adjustable High Wing that offers maximum downforce on the track for the quickest lap times — about 60 percent more downforce than the Z06 with the available Z07 Performance Package. All models also feature a Chevrolet-first, downforce-enhancing front underwing.
      The adjustable High Wing is part of the new ZTK Performance Package, which also includes a front splitter with carbon-fiber end caps, Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 summer-only tires, and specific chassis and Magnetic Ride Control tuning for greater cornering grip.
      Both of the ZR1’s wings are tied into the chassis, like the Corvette Racing C7.R racecar, for strength and stability.
      Sebring Orange Design Package
      The Corvette ZR1 introduced today also debuted a dynamic, available Sebring Orange Design Package. Centered on its Sebring Orange Tintcoat exterior color, the package also includes orange brake calipers, orange rocker and splitter accent stripes, orange seat belts, orange interior stitching and unique, bronze aluminum interior trim.
      The new design package complements the Corvette ZR1’s tradition of offering maximum performance with refinement and design distinction. The driver-focused, well-appointed cockpit includes standard leather-trimmed seats, with sueded microfiber inserts offered. Heated and vented Napa leather-trimmed seating is also available, as well as a carbon fiber-rimmed steering wheel, competition sport seats, Performance Data Recorder, Bose premium audio system and more.
      The 2019 Corvette ZR1 goes on sale next spring, poised to take on the world’s best.
      It’s good to be the King.
  • My Clubs

  • Who's Online (See full list)

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×