Can GM Challenge Tesla With a Long-Range Electric Car?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can GM Challenge Tesla With a Long-Range Electric Car?

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 17, 2013 @05:40AM from the build-some-space-rockets-while-you're-at-it dept.

cartechboy writes "GM may sell the Chevy Volt, but it's not a sexy electric car like Tesla Model S. It's a plug-in hybrid with muddled marketing (whose owners love it even though they burn gasoline sometimes). Product exec Doug Parks says GM is developing an electric car that does 200 miles on one charge, with a price around $30,000. But he wouldn't say when, falling back on the old excuse: 'Electric car batteries are really, really expensive!' Tesla's still the only maker to offer an electric car with more than 200 miles of range, so it will be interesting to see whether GM can really build a true Tesla rival. If so, the marketing must be better than the Volt's. Otherwise, it won't matter how good the car is."

19 of 466 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

betteridge's law of headline by poetmatt · 2013-09-17 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

why do people even try to submit shit articles with bad questions? Betteridge's law easily applies here. GM is not going to "Challenge" tesla, and they don't need to. It's an explicitly unnecessary question.
The correct question is: "is GM going to continue developing and improving electric cars?" to which the answer is already clearly yes.
1. Re:betteridge's law of headline by h4rr4r · 2013-09-17 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The S is a nice looking car. What do you not like about it?
  The roadster was just an Elise.
  Me personally I want a utilitarian vehicle. A small hatchback. I give not a single solitary fuck what it looks like, I don't spend my time staring at my car in the driveway.
2. Re:betteridge's law of headline by Nadaka · 2013-09-17 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A union is just a corporation that serves to equalize the negotiation power between employer and employee. The unions negotiates on behalf of the well being of its owners/clients... just like any corporation. Without a union, the absolute inequity of power between employer and employee is so disproportionate in almost every market that fair compensation can not virtually impossible to negotiate. The few exceptions are those markets that retain extremely low unemployment such as software development. Terms of a contract made under threat are invalid, without the backing of a union or extremely low unemployment in ones field, all employment contracts are made under threat on unemployment, which with America's economy and lack of welfare is a slow death sentence.
3. Re:betteridge's law of headline by amiga3D · 2013-09-17 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I can tell you've never worked a production line. If you had you'd know what a stupid comment you'd just made. Are auto workers overpaid? Maybe. Underworked? Hardly. Now executive salaries are an entirely different matter. How salaried execs at a company with such dismal records make the kind of bonuses these overpaid asshats collect is inexplicable.
4. Re:betteridge's law of headline by Teancum · 2013-09-17 07:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The advantage that GM has which far exceeds anything Tesla could do is simply access to massive amounts of capital and physical assembly plants, not to mention an army of employees who are very capable of not only designing but also building these vehicles.
  That said, this advantage is gradually diminishing as Tesla is selling vehicles and has an amazing assembly plant (one that GM even jointly owned in the past). The problems with labor unions is something that Tesla has to face in California (where labor unions do have considerable influence on state labor policy), not to mention that Tesla is not really able to have that much cheaper labor costs than GM.
  The question is if GM will be able to leverage their advantages knowing full well that the automobile industry is definitely changing? GM had all but written off the development of electric automobiles (just watch "Who killed the electric car?" for details) until the Tesla Roadster was built and the then CEO of GM interviewed Martin Eberhard about Tesla's view of electric automobiles. That was the foundation of the Volt... and the fact that the Volt was the only major automobile project from prior to the bankruptcy of GM that still exists today.
  For those complaining about the fact that Tesla doesn't have an "affordable automobile", that simply is a reflection of the fact that Tesla lacks the capital necessary to mass produce a quarter million automobiles in the 20k-30k price range. It takes those kind of production numbers in order to profitably build cheaper cars. I certainly don't fault Tesla for not building those low end cars first but instead sticking to high end/low volume niche markets first.
5. Re:betteridge's law of headline by Richy_T · 2013-09-17 07:20 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Have a twinkie.
6. Re:betteridge's law of headline by jedidiah · 2013-09-17 07:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If a company can't survive without abusing it's workers, then it should not survive. The argument of "but job creators", is not an open ended excuse for total narcissism in favor of a small class of social elites.
  A company with one of the key American brands couldn't keep it's doors open. That's a fundemental management failure. Trying to blame the unions is a pathetic red herring.
  I'm just pissed that they took Dolly Madison down with them.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
7. Re:betteridge's law of headline by CastrTroy · 2013-09-17 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You are correct in a way, but I think that unions tip the scales too far in the other direction. Now instead of the corporation holding all the power, the union holds all the power. There's been more than a few cases where the union priced the workers out of a job. "American" cars are now manufactured in Mexico. Hostess had to stop making Twinkies. Lots of other examples abound. When the option is to either give employees the desired wage increase, or shut down operations while you find and train new workers, the corporation doesn't have much of a choice but to give the workers what they want.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
8. Re:betteridge's law of headline by poetmatt · 2013-09-17 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  a union isn't automatically like you perceive. They can be good or bad, and it's up to the individual union. The function of a union as provided by Nadaka however, is correct. A union's intention is to equalize rights of the worker. Not "fuck people over" or "be lazy", as you have implied twice.
9. Re:betteridge's law of headline by guises · 2013-09-17 11:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Both of your examples are a little off. The auto unions certainly had influence, and it's true that ridiculous pension plans are a part of what brought down the US auto industry, but it wasn't because the unions were demanding ridiculous pension plans. Those happened because it was a concession that the auto execs could give to the unions that wouldn't negatively impact short-term investors.
  
  The hostess thing was a little different. Apparently the company had been so mismanaged that the baker's union couldn't bring themselves to believe the claims that the executives were making, they thought it was a bluff. And there's always the possibility that they were right - this could easily have been a case of the two sides playing chicken until they crashed and the company went belly-up.
  
  Regardless, it's very clear that the unions don't "hold all the power." That claim just doesn't make any sense in the face of these two events or any other. You could make the claim that the unions "hold some of the power" as opposed to the executives having all of it. I don't see that as a bad thing.
They're just attempting to stay relevant by djupedal · 2013-09-17 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

GM made wild promises about the Volt that it didn't follow thru on and now they're just making noise to try to convince investors to stick around. Until they do something that matters in this space, it's hard to take these types of statements seriously.
Re:Nissan Leaf by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-17 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nissan's way of hitting that lower price point is to use cheaper batteries than get more like 85-90 mile range. I have had my Nissan Leaf for about 4 months and I adore it. Not that many people need to drive more than 80 miles in a day. And even with a 250 mile range, road trips are not feasible in the near future regardless of what Elon Musk tells you.
PR by TheUglyAmerican · 2013-09-17 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sounds like they're trying to pump sugar daddy for more cash.

--
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
Re:The unpleasanteness of low energy density by rcotran · 2013-09-17 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Have you driven a Model S? Do that, and then come back here. You'll understand.
Re:Nissan Leaf by afidel · 2013-09-17 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem I have with the Leaf is that my 25 mile commute would be way too much for it in the winter where I often get stuck in 2 hour traffic jams at temps from 32 to 0F, if my employer had a charge station it might be enough to risk it but draining 70+% of the battery just for locomotion during ideal temp days doesn't leave enough safety margin for cold weather performance plus heater usage.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:it will market itself by afidel · 2013-09-17 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

For electric cars with a 200+ mile range there's a $7,500 federal tax credit so yeah, it would end up at ~$25k after discount but plus fees.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:gm is too out of touch to compete. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-17 06:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

For example: the PT Cruiser was such a collosal piece of shit, it was rebranded the Chevy HHR in what i can only imagine was a complete lack of respect for their customer.
The Dart is based on a version of the Fiat Compact platform
the Pontiac G6 is based on an Opel platform
the Ford Fiesta is based on a Mazda platform
I can't tell if you're trying to group all US auto manufactures together or are just ignorant.
PT Cruiser: Chrysler
HHR: Chevy (GM)
Dart: Dodge (Chrysler)
G6: Pontiac (GM, Retired)
Fiesta: Ford (Who has worked with Mazda since the 80's, not really news there)
Re:Nissan Leaf by emars · 2013-09-17 07:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

The LEAF would work in your scenario easily. The energy economy of the Nissan LEAF is greater at slow speeds.... actually, 12 MPH is the sweet spot.. you could likely get 200 miles from the LEAF if you kept it at 12 MPH. ;) Using the heater is a drain on the traction battery, but you've got seat heaters and a steering wheel heater and the ability to pre-heat the cabin before you leave. The 2013 model has a heat pump which is supposed to make heating the cabin more efficient.

--
...18...19...20 Submit
Re:No. by beanpoppa · 2013-09-17 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, most people are idiots. There are PLENTY of two-car households that could replace one of their 'commuter' cars with an all-electric car that has 100-200 mile range. Most people drive 50 miles, round-trip, for work. They plug in nightly, and are fine for their commute. Their other car can either be a regular ICE, or a hybrid, or a range-extended hybrid (if it would be justified), and would serve as the car to use when they have a long family road-trip.

People who think that electric cars are useless unless they can meet the needs of every car (300+ mile range and 5 minute recharge) are being silly. I need a car big enough to carry suitcases and seat my 6 person family, but only one of my cars has to meet this need. The other car only needs to be big enough and efficient to take me to work and back.