Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

28 of 466 comments (clear)

  1. betteridge's law of headline by poetmatt · · 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 · · 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 TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, but I refused to buy genetically-modified cars.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    3. Re:betteridge's law of headline by NinePenny · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like you are the perfect candidate for an all electric Pontiac Aztek!

    4. Re:betteridge's law of headline by Nadaka · · 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.

    5. Re:betteridge's law of headline by amiga3D · · 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.

    6. Re:betteridge's law of headline by Teancum · · 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.

    7. Re:betteridge's law of headline by jedidiah · · 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.
    8. Re:betteridge's law of headline by CastrTroy · · 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.
    9. Re:betteridge's law of headline by poetmatt · · 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.

    10. Re:betteridge's law of headline by guises · · 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.

  2. They're just attempting to stay relevant by djupedal · · 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.

  3. Sure they could. by Kenja · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But they would be lease only, GM would refuse to sell them to anyone and then they would for no reason take them all back and destroy them.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Sure they could. by Kenja · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And yet... GM refused to sell them to people with the money and willingness to buy them. GM decided they would rather destroy the cars then sell them (shrug).

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. Re:Nissan Leaf by Ralph+Wiggam · · 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.

  5. Re:No. by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    GM wants to make cars that people want to buy. Most people don't want to buy electric cars that are twice the cost of a Civic and can only drive a couple of hundred miles before they have to stop for an hour to 'refuel'.

  6. PR by TheUglyAmerican · · 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..."
  7. Re:The unpleasanteness of low energy density by rcotran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you driven a Model S? Do that, and then come back here. You'll understand.

  8. Re:Nissan Leaf by afidel · · 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.
  9. Re:Nissan Leaf by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Informative

    And even with a 250 mile range, road trips are not feasible in the near future regardless of what Elon Musk tells you.

    I saw a Tesla S with DC plates on it in Cape Cod over the 4th. While there are certainly other explanations it would appear that it was driven there.

  10. Re:it will market itself by afidel · · 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.
  11. Sell the car, lease the batteries. by jfisherwa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. then they could advertise much cheaper prices, get people in the door, and sell multiple range options based on the batteries they could afford/lease.

  12. Re:Nissan Leaf by bitt3n · · Score: 3, Funny

    I saw a Tesla S with DC plates on it in Cape Cod over the 4th. While there are certainly other explanations it would appear that it was driven there.

    was it towing a diesel generator?

  13. I don't believe that GM is serious about an EV by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 3, Informative

    Over twenty years ago GM made the EV-1 electric car. It was only available for lease. The leasees were so happy with it that they wanted to buy the car, but the cars were reclaimed and destroyed under very questionable circumstances and production lines were promptly shut down. There are GM executives who are known to be rabidly hostile to EVs. Chevron, in collusion with the automakers, ultimately bought the patent to the EV-ideal environmentally-friendly NiMh battery and refuses to license it in a format suitable for EVs.

    The oil and auto industries colluded to keep EVs and any other competitive technology from eroding the profits of Big Oil. They did it before when they conspired through shell companies to acquire and destroy streetcar companies. Streetcars were powered by electricity not fossil fuel, so by forcing consumers away from streetcars they had little choice but to buy cars. Auto makers fattened their profits, as did oil companies.

    I find it hard to believe that GM is at all serious about EVs.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    1. Re:I don't believe that GM is serious about an EV by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The EV-1 was an experiment, not a production car. They cost GM about $250,000 each to hand-build and they were leased only to people who already owned one or more petrol/gasoline cars as the EV-1's reliability couldn't be guaranteed and it might be recalled for upgrading or examination at any time during the lease.

      At the end of the experiment they were recalled and scrapped. If they had been sold on then GM would have been liable to provide a very expensive maintenance and parts supply operation for them for ten years minimum by law.

      The results were useful but proved that electric cars at that time were not quite ready for prime-time, not when gas cost less than a buck a gallon and the EV-1 had a range at full charge of about 80 miles or so. The original Ni-Cd and later Ni-MH batteries weren't up to the job but lithium tech batteries with their greater capacity, fast-charge capability and high current drain made the later development of hybrids and full-electric cars feasible.

  14. Re: Nissan Leaf by beltsbear · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have a bumper sticker that says, "my other car is a Hummer H1"

  15. Re:Nissan Leaf by emars · · 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
  16. Re:No. by beanpoppa · · 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.