The cause and effect here makes no sense. The authors say one reason for the discount is the Tesla Model 3 is selling at $36,200, but "Tesla hasn't actually delivered any yet at that price point" (article quote, not mine) and that's why Chevy needs to discount the Bolt to $18,995.
That's like saying wireless chargers on Amazon have to discount down to $13.99 because Apple promised to sell the AirPower someday. Those two things are just unrelated: it might be plain old supply and demand.
My guess: Chevy has to discount the Bolt because it's simply not selling that well. They already had to discontinue the Volt, their plug-in hybrid.
I'm not sure it makes no sense. I bought a Model 3 because I didn't see enough of a price difference to be worth the difference in the cars. I would have been willing to go with a less capable car if I'd felt the price was right. When I was evaluating, a tricked out Bolt was over $40,000 and still wasn't as capable as a Model 3 which was admittedly more expensive but, to me, worth it.
I think it's maybe more likely a result of car sales being down in general. Nisan light vehicle sales are down 7.8% (~35,000 vehicles) when comparing the first 4 months of 2018 to the first 4 months of 2019.
> My guess: Chevy has to discount the Bolt because it's simply not selling that well. They already had to discontinue the Volt, their plug-in hybrid.
All auto-companies are showing declining sales. Ford, GM, Toyota, and Tesla.
I think your supposition here is most correct. The car market is declining, so the various car companies are now cutting prices and competing on price even more strongly. Some car models will be cut out and discontinued as a result.
I think one of the issues is that the average price of cars has risen so much. I was watching some financial podcast/guru person who had noted that the average car payment is now $550/month with a 69 month term for the loan.
> I think one of the issues is that the average price of cars has risen so much.
IMO, what explains the higher price is because reliability is so much better than 20 years ago. 100k miles is so cake that no one brags about reaching 100k miles anymore. In fact, most people today are bragging about "oil-change + tire maintenance only for 100k miles".
Its completely reasonable to buy a car with 100k miles on it, and hope for it to last another 100k miles on top of it (or ~7 years or so, depending on driving habits).
In effect, a 5-year old car today is approximately worth the same a brand-new car from the 90s. You're gonna get +100k miles off of it and not have to worry too much about maintenance issues.
Is it a US thing that this is a recent development?
If you bought a used BMW or Volvo in the 90s with 150k km on it, you would definitely have a reasonable expectation that it would last another 7-8 years. The people I've known with extreme mileage have been like 400k or 500k km.
Yes, some of the 80's vehicles from Detroit were very poor quality. Eg it was well known the water pump on a Skylark would only last 30k miles but that's what we put up with.
The manufacturing quality lessons of Honda and Toyota started to hit US in the 90s. I toured a Ford engineering division around then, where they just starting to adopt ideas like empowered workers and continuous measurable improvement. Anyone could stop the line if they saw a problem.
That's very interesting to me to read. My father worked for Ford in the late 70s, and claimed they never stopped the line, even when someone literally had a heart attack on the job.
That may well have been a bogus claim - this was a tour for engineering students they were trying to woo. There was definitely a sense of "look how hip we are, totally not old dinosaurs! Quality is job 1" Either way, they had to change, and they did.
I'm guessing the definition of "last" in the US is different. Pretty much any car will last 200k with enough maintenance but historically cars would have quite a bit of down time for repairs after the first 100k. When driving is not optional the lack of down time is MUCH more important. Newer cars will often go 200k without any unscheduled issues that force down time.
Thank you, the key here is Total Cost of Ownership. Can I spend 30k and not replace a thing of 120k, or spend 18k and spend 2k per year on random fixes and deal with things not working. How much time do I spend without my car while these things are being fixed? Do I get stranded on the highway once a year ? Can I hop in and drive across the country? Does it have knee airbags? Does the 200k Honda compare with modern cars on the crash test?
I'm going to bet its a US thing. Apparently, a lot of people didn't know how oil-changes worked and never changed their oil (and other such horror stories).
With service schedules, free warranties, and checkups... that's probably not a problem anymore in the USA. So it could be a change in culture that is allowing people to drive further these days. A lot of cars these days come with 3-years of free service at the dealership, allowing for oil changes (and other maintenance items) to be checked on regularly.
I dunno how it works in other countries, but my understanding is that it wasn't always like this in the USA. So buying used cars with bad maintenance problems was more common back in the 90s. In contrast, you can often get the service history of the used cars you buy today (if you're buying certified used, for example).
-------
So I don't really know why cars are lasting much longer these days. But I definitely know that back in the day, 100k miles was a thing worth bragging about.
My awareness in this subject only goes back to the mid-70s so maybe your comment references a time before then but I can definitively say that since then there has not been a time when people in the US didn't know how oil changes worked. In fact back then car owners probably had more awareness of how oil changes worked since tasks such as oil changes, spark plug replacement, tune ups, brake drum/pad replacement were much more commonly done by the car owner than they are today.
I've mostly heard horror stories from my dad about how some of his neighbors didn't know how to take care of their cars.
> In fact back then car owners probably had more awareness of how oil changes worked since tasks such as oil changes, spark plug replacement, tune ups, brake drum/pad replacement were much more commonly done by the car owner than they are today.
On that point, I think I can agree, at least based on the stories I've heard of that time. But the question is: what about all the car owners who didn't know how to do those things? The car owners who weren't in the know?
It wasn't like today where you could easily look this stuff up, you had to have been brought up correctly in the correct car culture to know those sorts of facts.
Only when cars broke down, they would come around to the "car guy" in the neighborhood to ask for help. And that's when you hear the crazy stories about how many people didn't know how to handle their cars.
Car owners that didn't know how to fix their cars themselves took them to garages or to dealers to be repaired or serviced. Unlike today most gas stations had garages with mechanics on staff.
Knowing that your car needed regular servicing wasn't some secret fact that you had to somehow search out or be raised in the proper household to know. Like today it was common knowledge and service information as such oil type and frequency of service was included in owners manuals just as it is today.
Did some people then not take care of their cars? Yes, but it is the same today.
As for how you learned to fix or service a car yourself if you weren't raised in the "correct car culture", you went to the library and looked it up in the Chilton repair manual for your vehicle. Most libraries had some physically and a more complete collection on microfilm from which you could print out the pages you needed.
I was in middle school and high school during the 80s. In this time it was common for middle school/junior high students to be required to take industrial arts along with home economics. Industrial arts included things like wood and metal working, printing and in many school districts small engine repair. In my school district during part of 7th grade all students tore down and rebuild a 4 stroke lawn mower engine.
I’m not sure this is it at all, personally. From what I’ve observed, it seems like the focus on leasing has driven average selling prices up. In recent years the car industry seems to have loved using leases to up-sell customers to vehicles they otherwise couldn’t afford on other purchase methods. Dealers appear to encourage this too, I’ve frequently had the “look at the model you could be driving if you leased instead” etc while trying to get a good deal on a purchase method that results in owning the car.
Increasingly many manufacturers apparently don’t really care about the final on the road price staying as low as possible all that much within reason; it’s more about how expensive a car can we push on people at lease rates their wallet will stretch to. The “you can drive this for just $xxx a month!” is the conversation the dealer typically focuses on, probably to obfuscate the true cost as much as anything else. This admittedly applies more to say luxury European brands, where many model lines have (adjusting for inflation) gotten more luxurious and expensive as the focus has primarily shifted to leasing in many markets. There’s similar issues with the truck market as well, and America still buys lots of these every year.
That sounds less like an impact of higher MSRP and more an impact of the median buyer biting off more than they can chew, incurring higher interest/financing costs.
That's also a likely issue too. I live in not the best neighborhood, and I've noticed that there are a lot more higher end cars then I'd expect for this area.
The average price of cars might have risen, but have the average price of a given car segment (size, trim level) really risen?
I have the feeling that people are just buying bigger (unnecessarily bigger) cars, and the high trim levels are also very expensive compared to what they offer.
Here in HI, the best selling vehicle is the Toyota Tacoma, selling for just over $30k. That is inconceivable to me.
Exactly this. I spend upwards of two hours in traffic every day so it makes sense for me allocate a lot of capital in that direction (as opposed to say, a vacation home I might visit a week a year).
Cars are more and more reliable so people can hang on to them for longer. We're also at a milestone, crossing from ICEs to EVs and this may discourage people from actually committing to a new car.
Simpler than that. The car market is cyclical. When people buy a car, it takes another 5+ years before those people decide to buy another car.
It seems the last "boom" cycle was 2018 or so. So we're now entering the years where most people are NOT buying cars. In 2023 or so, all of the buyers from 2018 will be buying cars again.
There's nothing mystical about this behavior, its just how the crowds work in general.
I don't see any self-synchronising effect in crowds... In fact, if anything, instant supply and demand would reward those who buy out-of-phase with the majority.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there's a big difference.
The car auto cycle is well known and well documented. I don't think there's any good economic theory to describe why it exists... it just... exists... for whatever reason.
> instant supply and demand
Instant supply and demand certainly doesn't exist in practice, even if we assume it to exist in theory. It takes over a year for factories to be built, and when people hear news about a new car, it can take months (or even years) before they decide they want that particular car.
Humans work on a monthly time-scale, even if we assume in economics that their decisions are made instantaneously.
I feel like EV sales are also going to be heavily segmented by the basic limitations of charger available for some markets. If you keep your car on street parking because you live in a condo, an EV won't work very well for you.
My fault, I should have checked the date of the article. I do wonder why this month old post from this amateurish looking car blog is currently the second highest post on HN.
Yeah, they obviously want an opportunity to upsell you so they make you speak to a person to get the $35k model. It is a bad business practice from a consumer perspective, but if you have ever purchased a car from a dealer you know this type of upselling is unfortunately standard for the industry. At least Tesla won't try to sell you on rustproofing and tire warranties.
I'm curious, can you "upgrade" your car after the fact? Buy it and then later on call Tesla and pay for the software-controlled 'upgrade' you declined before? Is there any negative financial impact to it (are there fees attached or is it basically the difference you didn't pay prior)?
I look forward to the day when there are enough EV models that it's not assumed all EVs are interchangeable. You wouldn't see an article suggesting that BMW 330i sales are cannibalizing Honda Civics.
If the 330i were the same price as the Civic, then wouldn't that be possible? Although it may be difficult to establish cause and effect.
I think it's more the case that EV pricing is in flux at the moment, so you get situations like this where 2 cars from different segments were priced the same.
I charge my hybrid for free at a ChargePoint station near my office. My wife likes to charge her electric car at an outlet mall when she goes into town. I don't take my car on long distance trips so I'm not sure if there would be a benefit to the Tesla network for that, but I've never had an issue finding a place to charge.
When driving five hundred miles or so, taking a quick break ever few hours to take a bio break and something to eat, is perfect for me. When I get back to the car it is ready to go again. No problems with payments, hardly a broken charger, not crowded (in Sweden). Friends who have other electric cars have big issues with these things. The Tesla Network makes a huge difference for me.
Same here. I have a gas truck but the Model 3 is much nicer on long trips. This wouldn't be possible without the charging network.
Last weekend I forgot to throw the charger in the trunk for 2 hour drive to my parents with 240V@30A. It almost but not quite short enough for round trip so I normally top off before the return trip.
Without the charger network I would have had to turn around early but with it I just made a 15 min stop to top off at the supercharger.
They discontinued the Volt because they closed the only plant that built it (Lordstown). That also included the Cruze, the Impala, two Cadillacs, and a Buick.
The Volt was built in Sterling Heights Michigan. It was discontinued because California changed the rules on ZEV credits to where PHEVs were not competitive anymore. I owned a 2017 and it was a great car and EV driving behavior led me to buy a TM3.
The REAL Tesla effect, TM3 if you want, is that the Bolt exists as a two hundred mile plug EV at all. I seriously doubt Chevrolet would have pushed so hard to rework the Spark EV into the Bolt if not for two reasons. First being the PR win over Tesla and second to score more ZEV credits which after 2017 year (2018+) rewarded EVs more points than other solutions.
I like the exterior of the Bolt but hate the interior, from dash to front seats. It is not a purpose built EV and while the packaging is good it could have been better.
GM's mention that future EVs would be around Cadillac were disappointing and there has been zero hint that they will refresh or tweak the current Bolt which is also disappointing.
Funny. I don't love the exterior of the Bolt, although appearance is essentially a nonfactor for me choosing a car, but prefer the interior strongly over competing EV/PHEVs for display and space. Strongly dislike the console on the Model 3 and the Prius Prime, and Leaf battery was a deal breaker.
I don't think it's that bad. The worst interiors I ever saw were circa-2010 Prius, but then again you get great fuel efficiency and a good shot at 300,000 miles with regular maintenance. Bolt has tradeoffs just like the Model 3 - not just the headrests - but it is a good car. Just happy there are EV choices and it's practical now. I'm grateful for every company that sells one.
It gets a mention quite a bit [1 as one of many examples]. I was kind of shocked at the forward-tilt and there's no way I could tolerate the car long term; likewise my sibling and a few others who tried it out with the intent of going all electric decided the seats were unacceptable. This is the passive version of anti-whiplash changes.
The Bolt is not derived from the Spark EV. The Spark is based on the Daewoo Matiz and is made in Korea. The Spark EV is quick hack on the gas Spark. I'm on my second Spark EV, they are great cars for what they are. A purpose built design could be so much better.
The Bolt is based on the Sonic I think. Built in the US. It's a bit bigger than a Honda Fit, and much bigger than the Spark EV which is more the size of the Toyota Yaris hatchback.
Sorry, hard to keep track of unallocations between there, Oshawa, and Detroit. Per your sibling comment (if you can answer) - was it the plant closure that led to the Volt being discontinued, or was that just coincident with it being discontinued because of the ZEV/PHEV credit rule change?
The Volt was discontinued with the plant closure and the decision to stop making all sedans, according to shareholder PR at the time of the plant closure.
(Still six degrees of stupid that made me as an extremely minor shareholder somewhat dissatisfied. The Gen 1 Volt was a hatchback and near the cross-over border line. An intent at building it at Hamtranck was to push the plant towards cross-overs. The Gen 2 retooled the Volt to a more traditional sedan and more clearly Cruze relative, which presumably was a cost savings at Hamtranck, but put the Volt right on the chopping block for the plant closure a couple years later. Even ignoring that GM probably only closed Sedans because they were playing shareholder-peer-pressure follow the leader since Ford did it, throwing away the Volt was so many orders of magnitude of stupid. Expect GM to announce a new cross-over in one or three years looking almost just like the Gen 1 Volt and with an entirely new name because that would be less confusing to consumers than not discontinuing the Volt at all.)
One of the big concerns for buying an electric car for someone like me is the range anxiety and not practical enough if I could not take it to long drives (SF to LA for ex). Tesla has actually solved this problem on 3 fronts: having its own charging n/w around the majority of US highways, having more energy efficient batteries that can drive to 300+ miles on a single charge, and making the charging process speedier with superchargers. Until other car manufacturers do this, I am not convinced to buy anything except a Tesla.
That's just it. My daily commute is quite normal, easily within the range of a Leaf or whatever, but I also enjoy frequent roadtrips to Chicago, Cleveland, Dayton, Toronto, occasionally Kansas City or Washington DC. Most of those are weekend jaunts, but there are longer trips too – I drove to Eagle Harbor last summer and Orlando over the holidays. I’ll probably drive to NYC this summer, as I have in 4 of the last 10 years. I love roadtrips and consider them a wonderful part of the American experience.
The standard EV-evangelist response to this is “take the train” or “rent a car for the weekend”, but I’m sorry, those just aren’t comfortable for me – the train lacks the freedom and sense of adventure, and rentals usually smell funny, among other things. Altering my lifestyle to suit the car’s limitations means it was the wrong car in the first place: The car should serve me, not the other way around. The Tesla’s longer range and presence of Supercharger stations along the routes are totally irrelevant for my daily commute, but they completely change the game when you include my other driving.
With any other EV, I would need a second car to address the other part of my usage, and that means twice the insurance, twice the registration cost, twice the driveway-space, and the chance of forgetting something important in the one car while I’m using the other. And feeling like a glutton for owning an “extra” vehicle.
That being said, I still haven't bought a Tesla for a handful of reasons, but nothing else even comes close to meeting my needs.
I'm curious, why aren't you looking into PHEVs? Prius, GM Volt, and Honda Clarity?
With 50 mile all-electric range available, these cars can be pure electric in most daily-driver situations. In fact, Volt drivers are reporting 85% electric to 15% gasoline usage, typically (with those gasoline usage being those long trips that rack up a lot of miles).
With Gen1 Volts hitting 100k miles, its more or less proven itself as a methodology and as a general technology. Unfortunately, Volt has been discontinued, but the Honda Clarity is basically an identical vehicle (albeit offered by a different car company).
You're right, a PHEV is exactly the right answer, and my next car will either be an EV or a PHEV. The Clarity PHEV looks comparable to the Prius Prime, and I'll have to test-drive one soon!
I did a lot of research when I went EV shopping. So many considerations!
For high speed DC Charging for trips, Tesla definitely got this right the first time; and still has the advantage for now. They’ve been the best for long road trips. That advantage is narrowing.
CCS or Chademo (the high speed charging standards everyone else use) equipment are catching up fast, being deployed in a similar fashion along interstates by Volkswagen; through their “electrify America” subsidiary.
And EVgo and Chargepoint have been extremely focused on Whole Foods, Walmart, Local Shopping malls, parking garages, etc.
I live in San Francisco and mostly drive my car in the Bay Area, with a few long trips here and there. I wanted to make sure that all my use cases were covered. I did a lot of homework.
I noticed that in San Francisco proper, not a single supercharger for Tesla has been opened yet - the nearest one is in Daly City. Anything available in SF currently is slower “destination charging.”
Seems that if one has the convenience of garage charging at home or charging at work, get a Tesla M3. One won’t need an abundance of superchargers available to them unless on road trips. Local coverage will be less important.
If one will be proudly parking their new Tesla M3 mostly on the street, can’t charge at work, and Will have to rely solely on public infrastructure, making sure there is a supercharger nearby that can fit into one’s routine is crucial.
In San Francisco, M3 owners will have to get used to shopping at Serramonte Center in Daly City until the San Francisco supercharger opens. The queue can be a pretty long from what my friend tells me, but they do have a nice Target.
One can charge a Tesla M3 at any low speed AC level 2 charger with the Tesla supplied J1772A adapter - adds about 11 to 30 miles of range every hour. These are pretty ubiquitous at this point.
In a pinch I am comforted by the ease of DC Fast charging everywhere; CCS on my Bolt EV gives me that. Since I know I can charge In all corners of SF and the Bay Area at high-speed, anxiety is nonexistent.
I maybe go on long trips (Los Angeles, etc.) only every six months or so with my Bolt EV. That’s been a pretty easy experience so far. Lots of ccs/chademo charging on 101 and 99. The 5 is getting up to speed as well. More importantly the daily convenience factor locally is key for me.
If one buys a Tesla model S or X, this problem can be alleviated with a $450 ChaDemo adapter; and can charge pretty much anywhere - Tesla Supercharger or not. This is probably ideal. Note this adapter is not compatible with the m3.
I would love a Model S if I could justify it. I would consider a long range model 3 when it DC fast charge on non Tesla hardware in the US. (European M3 have this connection instead of the supercharger connection.)
99% of the time I get by with overnight charging at home. Doing my “Buying an electric vehicle” homework suggested I take a look at my local Charging infrastructure by downloading the PlugShare app. Knowing what’s available where I usually go really made it easy to integrate EVs into my routine.
They were fairly cheap to begin with. A new battery is like 6k so that’s s big chunk of the price drop. If you can deal with old battery though you are golden.
Is there a catch to this? I know that Leaf batteries aren't liquid cooled which degrades them a lot quicker than liquid cooled batteries, but still that's an absurdly good deal.
No catch. A 2015 base model with fast charger option. Bought it in 2017. A ton of these 2015 were coming off 2 year leases in 2017, and I bought it off a guy who re-sells then from auctions.
Might just be the fact that they are quickly getting dated, especially the models with less than 100 miles of range new. Like back when you upgraded your computer every 18 months.
I don't think it's outdated, but it just doesn't have the features (semi-autonomous driving, slick minimalist if controversially-so interior, OTA updates, etc.) you get with a Tesla. It's like comparing an original 2007 Apple iPhone to a 2007 Palm Centro.
Is semi-autonomous driving really that big a deal to people? Driving in the carpool lane is the "killer app" for me.
The only situations where I would trust self-autonomous driving are: (a) 5mph bumper to bumper traffic and (b) I-5 between SF and LA on a dry, clear day with little traffic around.
Yes, nobody writes bug free code and that's why having a car that can't update software OTA is a good thing. Got it. I do enjoy knowing that if a bug crops up I have to schedule an appointment at the dealership and take a day off work to drop it off to be upgraded instead of waking up to a bugfix having been already deployed.
This is why they don't upgrade everyone at once. People in the early-access program get the updates earlier and do so with the understanding that there may be bugs.
I wish it was more controllable, but yeah, it is a feature. There are lots of almost unfixable bugs in my non-Tesla's software stack, but they don't improve. The situation for the rest of the industry is that they are adding increasingly large amounts of software driven features but are even worse off than Tesla's occasionally buggy updates.
According to Elon the model 3 will have a ROI of 200k if customers decide to participate in the robotaxi fleet. So it could be that this 10k is the robotaxi discount.
Speaking personally, this is pretty straightforward.
Why would I buy a Chevy Bolt for the same price as a Model 3, even if I have to buy it "off menu"? (And deliveries have started, BTW: https://electrek.co/2019/04/15/tesla-delivers-35000-model-3/) Or slightly more for the more available Standard Plus Model 3?
The Bolt is wonderful, but it's limited to 50kW charging and even more important it has no access to a consistent, strategically placed network of well-maintained chargers spanning the continent. Basically, the Bolt is still a city commuter which cannot feasibly take road trips of any significant length (outside of charging corridors in the Northeast and West coast), not too different from a Leaf, functionally.
At least with the Volt, you could still take road trips the same as any other car.
(And all of this ignores the panoramic glass roof, the autopilot features, the superior cosmetics, the improved per-mile efficiency, etc, etc.)
And yes, GM is in the same situation as Tesla, having the federal EV credit phased out. And that's a major shame. GM, with the Volt in particular, was a major pioneer in modern electric cars, along with Tesla. And now both are being almost punished for their foresight and initiative. Shows how very little the Congress/Administration/federal government currently values emissions reductions or even rational industrial policy... China very likely may end up owning the EV market.
From how you put it I think the analogy that resonates for me is from the world of mp3 players. Remember how Apple brought out the iPod with iTunes? You knew it was expensive and that there were cheaper and 'just as good' mp3 players out there but they all missed the mark. Even when Apple brought out the screenless (and useless) Shuffle thing nobody was buying Kodak's MC3 mp3 player with built in camera and speaker, even if it was a pretty good product.
Apple weren't out of the woods when the iPod came out, they weren't really making money. Kodak's revenue dwarfed that of Apple. Same with Sony, better known for audio products at the time.
I think your analysis of China taking control of the EV market is correct. China has a better culture for innovation and an extremely competitive domestic market. Whatever survives that will be something that legacy U.S. auto makers will not be able to compete against. Cheaper wages has nothing to do with it, lower environmental standards will have nothing to do with it, neither will patents. In China they have robotised factories making robots, these robots will be making our cars.
The Chargepoint network is woefully inadequate (both locations and charge speed, anything capable of less than 120kw-150kw might as well be a 120V outlet) compared to Tesla's Supercharger network. Electrify America's network is still in its infancy (and you can't charge a Tesla on it yet until CCS adapters are available).
I travel cross country in the US frequently on the Supercharger network (Model S), without any range anxiety or fear of getting to an inoperable station late at night with little battery range left. Many hotels also have destination chargers, so I can charge overnight at the hotel while I sleep and leave with a full charge. I could not do this with any other EV.
Here's my experience with various charging networks:
- EVGO is excellent. They have L3 (chademo/sae) chargers in lots of locations, and they work. I believe they own the chargers. The chargers seem to be 400v/100a = 40kw.
- Chargepoint is very good. They have reliable chargers, just not many L3 chargers. Most of their chargers are L2 (~6kw). I don't think they own chargers, or they own only some of them. But they are reliable and/or have good service.
- Blink has always disappointed me - L3 is unreliable and always broken. Some L2 chargers work.
I would argue that $10k Chevy Bolt discount wasn't originated from the pressure of Model 3's pricing and some low moving EV models have long been getting significant discounts off MSRP.
Back in 2017 when the first Bolt model year came out, I've got $4k cash offer mailer from GM and another stackable $5k off MSRP from a large regional GM volume dealership.
And Nissan Leaf have been having $10k off MSRP discounts that are subsidized by regional power utilities too.
This is a common trend way before $35k Model entered volume production.
Maybe you are in the KC area. KCP&L had $10k rebates in Leafs. I was going to buy a new one, but the dealers were total assholes, jacking up the prices to compensate for the rebate.
I ended up buying a used one. I’ll buy a Tesla next, or another used, just to not deal with scumbag dealerships.
I just bought a Model 3 yesterday. This is my second Tesla and I think it is actually better than my S and a whole 30K cheaper. This car cost me 37k after Fed tax credit, but still comes with Nav, premium audio, autopilot, tons of bells and whistles and safety feature. It is a no brainer - it is the best car in the market right now (yeah, I am biased)
Bolt is tiny. I hate how it looks. It doesn't have Autopilot, nor does it have a Supercharging infrastructure. It certainly doesn't have the hundreds of bells and whistle that comes with Tesla.
This is no particular surprise. The BMW i3 is being discounted about the same. The real takeaway of the article to me is that "Tesla hasn't actually delivered any yet at that price point" (the $35K Model 3). Tesla's cash starved, as has been discussed here, and that could easily push any such deliveries far down the road. The industry shakeouts will be interesting to watch.
Delivery is prioritized by price paid. The only way to get delivery on a tesla model 3 is to add every option which can basically double the cost of the car.
I'd really like to give the Bolt a chance, but isn't the Chevy Bolt's design really unappealing? Especially compared to the Tesla model 3. I wonder why they made it this way. It's a matter of personal taste but I find it less appealing than even a Honda Civic.
I think they did it to avoid competing with themselves. Before we bought our Telsa in 2017, we test drove a Bolt. The sales people tried really hard to steer us toward a Volt (which was more expensive). It seemed clear they were not really interested in selling the Bolt.
Speaking of the design: On the drive, we noticed that the seats in the Bolt were narrow and uncomfortable. The odd thing was that they had plenty of room to make the seats a few inches wider. Doug DeMuro noticed the same thing in his review: https://youtu.be/d2ogGZXmepY?t=624
The Tesla looks better from the outside, perhaps...but when I'm driving I'm not looking at the exterior, and I'm sufficiently misanthropic that I don't care what ugliness I'm subjecting people outside to. :-)
I've never been inside either car, but looking at interior pictures on the net, the Bolt looks a lot better. It looks like it still has physical knobs for things like climate control. Tesla appears to be all virtual controls.
The lack of physical controls is close to a deal breaker for me.
There's a single Model 3 in my neighborhood and I don't understand the appeal aesthetically.
I'm glad there are so many adopters for EVs (Tesla or otherwise) willing to put up with all the downsides until the technology and infrastructure matures to a point where it is competitive (price, charge time, range, charging station at every gas station, etc.)
Basically anywhere not unusually rich? They're no longer Maserati-uncommon around here like they were a few years ago (Maseratis: also rare most places) but they're still pretty uncommon. Might see one, maybe two a day on the road on a commute into the city and back. Some days a couple more, lots of days zero. I think I've seen one ever in my neighborhood of 100+ houses, and I'm not sure it belonged to anyone who lives here. And this is not an actually poor neighborhood, or even close. Just not rich.
Not OP, but I live outside a satellite city to Oslo and I feel like every 5th car I see on the road is a tesla and every other car is an EV of some kind. Many E-golfs, leafs and a ton of other ones. So there are some parts of the world where there are popular. Not having to pay "pollution tax" that can be up to 100% of the initial value of the car nor 25% vat helps drive adoption :)
Incidentally I ordered my first one today, a model x with the new drive trains etc. It will take a few months before it arrives.
The Bolt is a cute, small car. I don't think the Tesla Model 3 is trying to be a "cute small car", per se. I know several people with Volts and Bolts and the owners love those cars.
I'm a big believer in electric vehicles, and it really frustrates me that the Bolt is unknown to the general public.
This car is a gem. Cheaper than a Tesla M3, and available before.
It shows once more that car buying is more about to be in a cult//group than really about the car itself. 90% of the attraction of the Model3 is that people will think you are somehow hype.
Wait, locally discounted? Is that still how this works? Seriously, are cars still being sold where the price varies in those crazy ways? Because those things are sold for over $33,000 USD in Canada ($44,800 CAD). A quick check on car search shows dealers in Canada pricing the thing at $47,000 CAD ($35,000 USD)
Car makers and dealers learned a long time ago that consumers have wide access to the invoice price of a car (theoretically this is the price at "cost" which the car dealer pays) and have taken steps to obfuscate this with various fees, kickbacks, sales bonus programs and volume sales agreements such that you can't be sure how much margin is really in a car besides looking at the range of actual sales rates of the car.
This is the norm and always has been as far as I am aware. If you are buying a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord or other popular, value oriented (lower margin) car then there may be less wiggle room in the sticker, but for a car with an MSRP around 40k there's probably a fair amount of room to change the price.
Also, a car that never sells makes $0 in revenue. People tend to buy cars with their heart and the cool factor/brand value of a Tesla 3 is orders of magnitude higher than almost anything chevy makes.
$18,995 for a all-electric car is an amazing deal. It's got really incredible range (EPA rated 238 miles) for the price point. The other all-electric car at this price point, the VW e-Golf, has a mileage of 125 miles.
GM better have something up their sleeve. With the plant closings to divert $ to electric and driverless R&D, I have not read of any new EV models or AI progress.
That's like saying wireless chargers on Amazon have to discount down to $13.99 because Apple promised to sell the AirPower someday. Those two things are just unrelated: it might be plain old supply and demand.
My guess: Chevy has to discount the Bolt because it's simply not selling that well. They already had to discontinue the Volt, their plug-in hybrid.