A compliance car is intended to Maximize ZEV credits at minimum cost. Why would you produce more than necessary if each additional one would increase profit loss?What if we define "compliance car" to mean any ZEV sold in volumes MAINLY to meet minimum ZEV requirements?
What if a manufacturer offers greater incentives in CARB states than in non-CARB states?
Is "compliance car" a purely binary thing?
You answered your own question about the Spark EV's true intent. When you read the SAE research paper on the Bolt's drive-train development, you learn just how vital the Spark EV was as a learning tool for GM's engineers. If GM only sold the Spark EV in California, then GM's engineers would only have had real-world data on Sparks driving in CA's relatively benign climate and with CA drivers. They needed MD drivers like you to give the Spark EV a REAL testhttp://www.greencarreports.com/news...olt-evs-to-be-sold-than-needed-for-compliance
Anyone claiming the Bolt is nothing but a CARB minimum ZEV credit grab play is plain wrong. Not only will the Bolt be sold in numbers waaaaay exceeding what's needed to cover ZEV requirements, by next summer it'll be sold in 38 states where GM gets *0* ZEV credits!
This is a very good point. There is, however, another way to look at this. When people claim that GM will lose money on the Bolt EV, they are talking not about Factory Variable Costs -- the direct costs of making the vehicle -- but about total costs. In economics FVC would be considered to be variable costs and all other costs fixed or sunk costs. This follows since, while In the long run all costs are variable, once you have expended money on tooling and research and so forth the ONLY way to recover the money you've spent is to sell the vehicle above FCV. Consequently, so long as GM can sell the Bolt EV above FCV every sale makes it better off than it would otherwise be, from a financial point of view.A compliance car is intended to Maximize ZEV credits at minimum cost. Why would you produce more than necessary if each additional one would increase profit loss?
In the case of the Chevy Bolt, even if GM is losing out on each vehicle, it is justifiable to make more because it is being used as a loss leader to become the leader in the new industry. In this case, it isn't a compliance car. It's a long term bet.
I think there's a qualitative difference between government regulations that require certain actions in order to be in "compliance" and government incentives which motivate people to choose electric. "Compliance" vehicles are built to satisfy the former.I don't believe the term "compliance car" even has meaning. Electrification is being driven by government regulation so ALL electrified cars are "compliance vehicles".
I dunno. Pull, push, carrots, sticks, carrots/sticks. I see the various regulations and requirements as being variations on a theme rather than distinctively different. I understand your point about absolute requirements and regulations that encourage certain outcomes. However, note that none of the programs aimed at increasing the adoption of zero emissions vehicles are absolute requirements in the sense that safety equipment like seatbelts or emissions controls are. For ZEV you can always just pay the fine or buy credits. So these actually would fall into your category of "government incentives" or perhaps "government disincentives". Yes?I think there's a qualitative difference between government regulations that require certain actions in order to be in "compliance" and government incentives which motivate people to choose electric. "Compliance" vehicles are built to satisfy the former.
Exactly, I bought the Volt as my first ever GM product for similar reasons. However, these buyers are buying because it is a certain type of product, in this case a technologically innovative car. This means you better have something else for them to buy when they go to replace it as the group is not particularly brand loyal and will be happy to buy something that they like from another company.GM had a program to study Tesla. After that, they produced Bolt ahead of Tesla's down-market offering (Model 3). Coincidence? Compliance? I'm thinking more forward-looking than that.
Volt/Bolt are gaining customers that were NEVER GM customers in the past. I believe this is the main corporate goal of these somewhat-halo cars. (Two of the three first Bolt buyers traded a Toyota and a BMW.)
Same here. I never owned an American car brand until the Volt. Now I'm looking at the Bolt EV as a stablemate. One of the considerations was the Volt experience I have had.Exactly, I bought the Volt as my first ever GM product for similar reasons. However, these buyers are buying because it is a certain type of product, in this case a technologically innovative car. This means you better have something else for them to buy when they go to replace it as the group is not particularly brand loyal and will be happy to buy something that they like from another company.
They caught them, now they have to fight to keep them. In otherwords they need to move to electrify more vehicles in their product lineup and keep highly competitive vehicles.
Straight from an analyst's mouth you mean.*ehem*
The Bolt EV is a compliance car. This is straight from the GM CFO's mouth:
It makes a bunch of financial sense for GM to make this, but you can see where their true priorities lie. Snatch one up, while you can!
Well then, it's an analyst's analysis of the CFO's statements. I wouldn't call it "unsubstantiated" by any means. Once the findings are complete and JPMC makes an official statement, it's going to have quotes from the CFO. It's probably against protocol for the analyst to quote directly.Straight from an analyst's mouth you mean.
"JP Morgan analyst Ryan Brinkman released a note to clients claiming that the Bolt EV is part of an “improving array of electric vehicles from automakers which are pricing such vehicles with the aim not to turn a profit but rather to sell in sufficient volume to subsidize the rest of their more lucrative portfolios of internal combustion engine vehicles from a regulatory compliance perspective.” Brinkman hasn’t released any particular information shared by GM’s Chief Financial Officer.
So an unsubstantiated opinion by an analyst is the same as "Straight from the GM CFO's mouth", lol