Slashdot Mirror
Aiming To Beat Tesla's "3", Chevy Tests and Teases a Cheaper 200-Mile Electric Car
PC Magazine is one of many to note Chevrolet's upcoming effort to beat Tesla's Model 3 to market with a car that is "affordable" (a lot more affordable than the Model S) but which tops the 200-mile range that right now only Tesla beats in a widely available pure electric car. The Model 3 is expected to feature many of the features of the currently Tesla S variants, but in a smaller package and with a much lower price tag. The linked article features GM-supplied video of Chevy's all-elecric bolt, about which it says The car maker doesn't reveal much beyond what we already know: 200-plus-mile range and a starting price tag of $30,000. The video shows various Chevy engineers putting the camouflage-wrapped Bolt EV through its paces—climbing hills, accelerating, and coming to a stop, as well as enduring extreme heat and charging.
1) Dicedot keeps Musk & Co in the "news".
2) 7-digit users fellate him and wax scientific about technology they don't understand.
3) Profit?
Like most low end Chevy vehicles it'll probably be a complete shame and do the meaning of the word 'electric', that Tesla has worked so hard to craft prestige into, a disservice. 200 miles isn't enough. People will walk away from electric like they walked away from Atari going 'huh, video games are dumb'.
2.5). ???
which tops the 200-mile range
Sounds to me like Chevy is picking a range that they can beat, rather than competing with the Tesla. I have a friend with one and it's range is a little better than 280 miles on a full charge. And believe me, on a long trip that difference is critical. He's done several trips (and I've been on one with him) where a 200 mile range just wouldn't have cut it. But if you can't match the Tesla's range, I guess the next best thing is to pick a lower number and call the Tesla's range "over" that so that you can claim to be over that new lower number too.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Tesla Model 3 will not be in the same league as Bolt. Bolt is competing with Leaf. If still in doubt, knowing that Model 3 is said to be in the same class as BMW 3, ask yourself in what way Bolt can compete with BMW?
Based on size and look Bolt should really cost 20k. I predict here that Bolt will come out with $150 mile range and sub 20k price tag. There's no way it can compete with Tesla M3 on equal ground.
We need something that is much cheaper than the Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf, Smart EV or Chevrolet Bolt.
The first company which can make a 10000$ electric car (and that is road-legal in all countries) will dominate the market.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
not using safesearch
My problem with non Tesla full electrics has been there god awful style... Ok, some crazy people want boxes with wheels and other retarded car concepts... But Most people want a car that looks fun and interesting and most electrics outside Tesla seem to have had designers who wouldn't know a good looking car if it drove over their foot... This car form the single picture looks like more of the same.
Why can't I get an electric car that looks nice outside a Tesla I (so far) cannot afford?
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-transaction-price-3-kbb-kelley-blue-book/26690191/
"The estimated average transaction price of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. in April was $33,560"
Stop bitching about "expensive" electric cars. These new models from Chevy and Tesla are pretty much the same price as the old fashioned gasoline burning, fume belching models.
Don't you have a fucking spellchecker?
Please, PLEASE, do NOT make it dorky-looking. Tesla's cars are beautiful - electric and hybrid cars made by traditional car makers have so far been the kind of cars that scream "Look! Dork inside!".
Image.
That thing got beat with the nasty end of the ugly stick. I predict they won't sell many just because it's soooo damn ugly, no matter what the underpinnings might be or what kind of range it gets.
You don't make a car that ugly by accident. You make it that ugly because you WANT it to fail.
If it's a Chevy, it'll be a poorly-engineered piece of crap. I've had the opportunity to try a few chevys, and have NOT been impressed of late. Tesla will clean their clock (which won't work right, either).
Elon Musk Inc. is taking on water.
By and large Banks, Financial Capital and Venture Capital are getting wind of the Elon Mush Inc. Stink.
Just a matter of Time.
Ah! Time! SpaceX is scheduled to try to launch a rocket-resupply to ISIS in so few hours!
When SpaceX fails, Elon Musk Inc.'s bank accounts will be dry in 3 hours.
Ha ha
That is the UGLIEST paint job on a car, ever. Only General Motors, and only in America. It looks like a bunch of gray pubes. Really.
about outside are aate8ding a
GM has too many cars, but many of the cars they have are good and sellling well. Having many models is a winning strategy for BMW, which builds the many models out of pieces of other models; and it's going to be an even better strategy for them going forwards if they adopt the i3's construction methods for more of their low-production vehicles. Using their particular method of using carbon fiber is less expensive than typical processes (it saves less weight too, but still saves most of it) but eliminates most of the tooling costs. For limited production runs (like the i3) eliminating the tooling needed to stamp sheet metal panels saves hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Right now, Chevy has the Cruze, Sonic, Spark, Impala, and Malibu cars at a time when car sales are declining and crossover sales continue to rise. That is probably too many cars for a struggling (if venerable) marque to sustain while also marketing the Bolt and the Volt (ugh.)
With that said, the Bolt and the Volt are two of the most interesting cars on or near the road at the moment — not from an enthusiast standpoint, but from a sales standpoint. "Everybody" is interested in high-mileage EVs for low money, and the Volt is the hybrid of the hour. But Chevy's model strategy still seems a little confused.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is the company that murdered the EV1 (which, nearly everyone who leased one loved), buried the evidence in the desert, and sold their battery technology patents to Chevron. If there is any company less capable of embracing the future of automobiles, I don't know who that would be.
I'm not sure having a big network of dealerships (and forcing anyone who wants to buy your product to haggle with them) is necessarily such a big advantage anymore.
Oh, yeah, that's right. GM also killed the no-haggle non-stealership model (Saturn). Another mark against them. Seriously, they should just stick to making gas guzzling living rooms on wheels and leave innovation and quality to more capable people.
Given the EV1s apparently cost over $100k each, everyone who leased one for a fraction of its value sure should have loved it.
This looks like just another sucky electric car that costs more than a Civic and all the fuel the Civic will ever burn.
This is basically what the Volt should have been.
Even though the Volt degraded into a disappointing electromotive hybrid with engine assistance while still being far in advance of the Toyota HSG, it took least one billion dollars of research before GM went bankrupt. Hopefully, GM can recoup some of those lost dollars with the Bolt and give us the electric vehicle we were promised with the Volt, but this time, it will have no petroleum engine.
Kriston
Yes, they were so spot on with their predictions on the Volt there would be no reason why we shouldn't believe them now.
That was sarcasm if you're unaware of how much bull they flug over the 5+ years of marketing the Volt.
Here's my opinion on a 200 mile range:
For me, if I can get 200 miles per tank out of a conventional car, that is no problem whatsoever. I'd like it to be more, but 200 is honestly fine for me. I don't speak for everyone else but my suspicions is that for most people, they could live with having to refill their car with gasoline every 200 miles.
200 miles for an electric vehicle, specifically an electric-only vehicle... well it's just not the same. It sounds the same but it really isn't. When you have a conventional car, you can rest assured that no matter what direction you are going, you're probably never too far from a service station. That's just the infrastructure we have after generations of using gasoline-powered cars. Fair enough. There are exceptions, like expanses of sparsely-populated areas etc. but you're very rarely in a situation where you have to consciously think about the path you take, whether to alter it because you might run out, plan out a contingency if you can't find a service station, amongst other things. Hell, you could almost completely avoid the problem just by bringing a full jerry can along.
But with an electric vehicle, your options even today are still far more limited and your situation far more dire if you end up running out of juice. I live in Japan and I've started to see many electric recharge stations popping up, usually near large parking structures and/or newly constructed shopping malls in high-density urban areas. This is great to see but they're still not as common as a regular service station. Even more so once you head out of the cities.
So 200 mile range in an EV is still not comparable to 200 mile range in a conventional car. I'd probably need an EV to have 300 to 350 mile range before I considered it on an even keel with a conventional car in terms of 'empty tank anguish'. That said, I love that we are taking steps forward to pull away from conventional gasoline-powered cars. It requires patience, early adopters, investment and bridging steps (eg hybrid vehicles, government or manufacturer-sponsored incentive programs). Many Japanese cities provide reduced registration costs, sometimes free inspections (mandated by law for all cars every two years), partial reimbursement of inner-city parking fees, etc. I'm on my second hybrid vehicle and can't wait until the all-electrics become super-practical. Until then, I applaud attempts to market these advancements, even if they might be only baby-steps.
There was less curation in the market back then, and by 1983, retail shelves were full of poorly balanced games. In addition, some distributors were doing sleazy business deals where they'd offer a money-back guarantee for returned games but then go bankrupt in order not to have to honor the contract. These led up to the North American video game recession of 1983-1984, which is why consoles to this day have lockout chips.
It's 2015 and Americans are still dealing with the backlash over the terrible diesels that GM released in the 70s.
I laugh to myself every time someone tries to tell me how 'awesome' their 30 MPG is. I've been driving at 45-50MPG since I bought my first car 20 years ago.
Sadly we don't even get the best diesels Europe has to offer because there just isn't a big enough market.
GM had a much sought after electric car and declined to allow customers to keep the car or get access to new ones. In other words GM has shown a dedication to stopping electric cars. This is likely an attempt to ruin Tesla rather than any real commitment to advancing electric vehicles. So go buy a Chevy electric and learn that if you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.
In June 2011 a Volt that had been subjected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to a 20 mph (32 km/h) side pole impact crash test followed by a post-impact rollover, caught fire three weeks later in the test center parking lot, burning nearby vehicles.
Granted, it's been many years since i was an avid reader of PC Format and the likes, but it seems kind of weird for a computer magazine to write about a car. Is this common these days to have "PC" equal "techie things"?
But the IC engine tech and transmission technologies are essentially tapped out. They have been refined for so long, there is not much of cost savings you could squeeze there. Same is true for electric motors, they are 100 years old, but they are new for automobile traction application. Some small savings and fine tuning can be expected. And electric motors are inherently cheaper and more versatile than IC engine+transmission. The battery technology has just started and it is still in the exponential cost reduction phase. So electric cars are going to get much cheaper in the future.
The IC engine based car market has some inertia working for it. Lots of drivers, whose usage profile does not warrant 300 mile range and 10 minute fill up are still buying IC engine cars due to inertial, marketing, range anxiety etc. 90% of the cars put in less than 100 miles a day for 360 days out a year. They would be better of renting gasoline cars for the few days they do need it. But their traditional thinking and risk aversion if subsidizing and amortizing the IC engine market fixed costs.
This is not a pretty place to be from market share stand point for the IC engines. Market could just collapse rapidly. Remember the collapse of steam locomotives market to diesel electric in mere 10 years. Recall the collapse of public transit trolley and street car systems.
As people start taking up electric cars, the fixed costs of IC engine market will be borne by lesser and lesser number of people. Traction battery market would benefit by swelling ranks of new users.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Aside from making it cheaper, Tesla competitors could ditch some of the Big Brother aspects that seem to come along for the ride with Telsa's cars. Sure, some of these designs are inherently software-oriented and need updates; but I should be able to have some control over when and how my car gets patched.
I'm not too confident this will happen though. GM is a big pusher of OnStar, and is probably going to load in a bunch of infotainment crap that's improperly co-mingled with mission critical components. After cost and range, security and the ability to independently service the vehicle is a major concern for me.
caught fire three weeks later in the test center parking lot
There was and is no "battery fire issue".
Internal combustion engine cars catch on fire at a much higher rate than EVs do.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I have been following these two cars for years since they have been announced. I have seen nothing on the features offered on either car, outside of the price and range promises. The pictures of the bolt look nice (maybe) but until I can sit in one, I will withhold my judgement. They have not released any info on the model 3 so I can judge nothing.
My bets are: If we are talking tesla, it will be $30k but if you want any feature that makes a tesla a tesla, you will have to spend another $15k to make it right. If you are talking chevy, it will be pretty good, but another $2k for leather and heated seats and a sat nav. That is the difference between companies. Tesla is not going to give you self driving, or the IPAD style interior unless you pay for it. Chevy will give you most of it.
You are not even close to the Civic "math". ... 23K and uses around $1300 gas a year. 10 year cost is 36,000. ....23K and uses around $0 gas a year. 10 year cost is $23,000.
Today a Civic costs
Today a Leaf costs
Today a IMiev costs $15k and uses $0 gas a year. 10 year cost is $15,000
That is with gas at $2.81 / gallon. The numbers get so much better if it is $3.50 or $4/gallon
Is a civic a better car then a iMiev - yes, better then a Leaf .. hmmm .. better than the difference in savings ?
I'd say no.
Are you referring to the early 1980s video game crash? After Atari made TONS AND TONS AND TONS of money? .. and there were tons of really junky cartridges being put out.
Aside from leaving out all electricity costs and depreciation of the battery, that is.