GM Volt Forum banner
21 - 40 of 107 Posts
This is what a lot of folks have been claiming. I think any of them that tried would find it's not as simple as throwing money or people at the problem, and that Tesla is not so easily de-throned/buried. However, the traditional big dogs would really like you to believe Tesla has nothing special and they could easily beat Tesla if only they tried.

Of course, then they have to explain to you why they haven't tried in a fashion that sounds reasonable and not greedy/selfish...
I think that assertion was unquestionably true for a few years, but at this point, they let things go too long. The moment Tesla developed and image, they jumped years against most competitors. And Tesla's release of the Model 3, if successful, will put Tesla too far ahead for most manufacturers to catch them, let alone bury them.

GM is probably Tesla's most competent EV competitor, and so far, they haven't been competing in the same space. And honestly, this is why I dislike the bickering between GM and Tesla. The fact that they are both building competent EVs without overlapping products is good for everyone.

Nissan is the next biggest player in the EV scene, and all they've done is spend the last seven years building and selling the equivalent of a garage mechanic's EV project car.
 
I think that assertion was unquestionably true for a few years, but at this point, they let things go too long. The moment Tesla developed and image, they jumped years against most competitors. And Tesla's release of the Model 3, if successful, will put Tesla too far ahead for most manufacturers to catch them, let alone bury them.

GM is probably Tesla's most competent EV competitor, and so far, they haven't been competing in the same space. And honestly, this is why I dislike the bickering between GM and Tesla. The fact that they are both building competent EVs without overlapping products is good for everyone.

Nissan is the next biggest player in the EV scene, and all they've done is spend the last seven years building and selling the equivalent of a garage mechanic's EV project car.
We seem to always forget Ford who has an interesting lineup with the focus EV, c-max, a fusion energi. Alas, they all fall short in some way or another. For a short while, when there were $12k rebates on the focus EV, I tried hard to buy one and nobody in the area had one in stock. So the rebate offer was useless. But with the f150 and other vehicles on the way, this should prove interesting.

Strangely enough BMW has a ton of hybrids despite their goofy looking i3 and wonderful looking i8. I just wish they made their entire lineup equipped as EVs with a range extender that has a proper automobile engine and not a motorcycle engine.

Let's not forget Acura, who has the drop dead gorgeous NSX with both gas and electric powerplants. Sure, this isn't for fuel economy, but for raw performance, but I'll take it. My daughter saw me surfing around the Acura website, and she proclaimed that she wanted one as her first car.

I can't wait to see what Volvo does. I would love a Volvo v60 cross country PHEV.. part of me wishes they didn't discontinue the C30 and the eV prototype.

Missing from the game, Lexus, Infiniti, Mazda, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Dodge, Lincoln.

And surprisingly, the big 3 Japanese Toyota, Honda, and Nissan all have offerings, but they all seem to fall short compared to the competition,except for the fact Toyota keeps selling prii despite falling behind in the range/fuel economy war. I want to see the resurrection of the Z and the Supra electrified.
 
I'm not saying that there aren't others making EVs (especially if you count hybrid drives), but the big issue I had with pretty much every non-Tesla BEV up to this point was that the EV conversion I had planned 10 years ago (about $15,000 plus donor car) was more capable. How is it that the best a full-scale auto manufacturer could come up with for $30,000+ was an 80 mile range with less than 100 kW of power? It was pathetic watching the early EVs roll out.

Heck, GM decided to test out batteries and a drive train by swapping them into a Spark EV, and they accidentally made the best non-Tesla EV available at the time.
 
What everyone has said is true, but what I take from this (and it could apply to GM/Ford/FCA/MB/BMW) is this, if they wanted too (they have the financial capital) they could bury Tesla, but the question is this - do they want too? Do they have the guts to try?

My take on those questions is a NO.
If they could bury Tesla they would have. They can't. They certainly don't have the guts to try. Not to mention they are pretty much in bed with the fossil fuel industry.
 
My Spark EV was a nice car...but calling it the best non-Tesla EV isn't saying much considering the selection isn't exactly stellar.
That was my whole point. At the time it was released, it had one of the longest real-world ranges; was one of the most efficient EVs; had the lowest cost per mile of range; and had the best acceleration of the non-Tesla EVs. It wasn't until the i3 was released that it was surpassed by a non-Tesla.
 
That was my whole point. At the time it was released, it had one of the longest real-world ranges; was one of the most efficient EVs; had the lowest cost per mile of range; and had the best acceleration of the non-Tesla EVs. It wasn't until the i3 was released that it was surpassed by a non-Tesla.
Sadly, it was only sold in California, Oregon, and Maryland, so availability of the spark EV was a big issue. Why couldn't GM share the love? And why didn't that make it bigger? Oh wait, they did. I guess that means the bolt is the best EV not made by Tesla. But i', still waiting for availability in IL so it's not quite here yet. No matter, I don't want one anyway.
 
The more competition the merrier.

<snip>.
Um... the best way to stop feeding the bro is to not respond to the thread at all... then the thread dies and we move on. Whoops.
 
I think that assertion was unquestionably true for a few years, but at this point, they let things go too long. The moment Tesla developed and image, they jumped years against most competitors. And Tesla's release of the Model 3, if successful, will put Tesla too far ahead for most manufacturers to catch them, let alone bury them.

GM is probably Tesla's most competent EV competitor, and so far, they haven't been competing in the same space. And honestly, this is why I dislike the bickering between GM and Tesla. The fact that they are both building competent EVs without overlapping products is good for everyone...
GM's engineering is equal to whatever Tesla has done; the Volt remains an engineering tour-de-force, and the Bolt is the only other 200+ mile EV out there. I'm not sure why the Bolt and the forthcoming Model3 don't overlap; although we don't have the spec's on the M3 yet. Is it because the Model3 is a Sedan and the Bolt is a small CUV? I haven't seen a Bolt yet in Texas.

I hope somehow VW EPA penalty manages to put together an alternative CSS supercharging network that allows other automakers to compete with Tesla in the 200+ mile EV range bracket. Right now, the only EV's that can drive between the big cities in Texas are PHEV's and Teslas.
 
The more competition the merrier.

<snip>
I didn't write the article. <snip>

And please point out any incorrect statement in my original post.
TSLA had about $3.5 billion in cash and cash equivalents at the end of 2016
VW had 19.3 billion euro (so over $20 billion USD) at the end of 2016.
TSLA's net cash flow was -$674 million ending 2016
VW +5.3 billion

So what was trolling about my post again? Only trolling I see is you insinuating I didn't buy a Tesla because I couldn't afford one. Lol, about as far away from the truth as you can get. Totally makes sense that since I can't afford a $41k used Tesla, I buy a $43.5k new Bolt. :D
 
This is what a lot of folks have been claiming. I think any of them that tried would find it's not as simple as throwing money or people at the problem, and that Tesla is not so easily de-throned/buried. However, the traditional big dogs would really like you to believe Tesla has nothing special and they could easily beat Tesla if only they tried.
I don't think any major manufacturer can bury Tesla because they can't stand to lose so much money. If GM or BMW lost billions selling BEVs their shareholders would be in open revolt. You can see this dynamic at work at BMW, where the "i" line has been shelved in favor of electrifying its existing models. Tesla has managed because its stock is a story stock. As long a people believe the future is unlimited or they can find a bigger fool, Tesla can lose gobs of money. The minute they don't Tesla is cooked.

As far as having something special, the only thing I can think of is autonomy and it's not entirely clear whether Tesla is ahead or behind. When you look at human interventions per mile they seem pretty far behind. Certainly well behind Google on all metrics. But these things can be hard to judge. The fact BMW is collaborating with them suggests they have something.

And please point out any incorrect statement in my original post.
TSLA had about $3.5 billion in cash and cash equivalents at the end of 2016
VW had 19.3 billion euro (so over $20 billion USD) at the end of 2016.
TSLA's net cash flow was -$674 million ending 2016
VW +5.3 billion
All correct. The funny thing though is that Tesla can continue to lose tons of money making BEVs and VW can't. The equalizer for electrics, as it were, may be that VW has to make them because of its diesel scandal. So it may get more leeway than other manufacturers simply because its past misdeeds give it no choice, and everyone recognizes that.

The strangeness of life ... LOL
 
I don't think any major manufacturer can bury Tesla because they can't stand to lose so much money. If GM or BMW lost billions selling BEVs their shareholders would be in open revolt. You can see this dynamic at work at BMW, where the "i" line has been shelved in favor of electrifying its existing models. Tesla has managed because its stock is a story stock. As long a people believe the future is unlimited or they can find a bigger fool, Tesla can lose gobs of money. The minute they don't Tesla is cooked.

As far as having something special, the only thing I can think of is autonomy and it's not entirely clear whether Tesla is ahead or behind. When you look at human interventions per mile they seem pretty far behind. Certainly well behind Google on all metrics. But these things can be hard to judge. The fact BMW is collaborating with them suggests they have something.

All correct. The funny thing though is that Tesla can continue to lose tons of money making BEVs and VW can't. The equalizer for electrics, as it were, may be that VW has to make them because of its diesel scandal. So it may get more leeway than other manufacturers simply because its past misdeeds give it no choice, and everyone recognizes that.

The strangeness of life ... LOL
Creative logic.

Tesla gross margins are higher than almost anyone in the industry - twice the average. The only reason they are "losing money" is that they are pouring every dollar they have into the Gigafactory and expanding production. They continue to grow production year over year, and still find plenty of eager customers.

Tesla could show a profit any time that they wanted to, by slowing their investment in the future. They won't, because that's their end goal, not mere profit.
 
Creative logic.

Tesla gross margins are higher than almost anyone in the industry - twice the average. The only reason they are "losing money" is that they are pouring every dollar they have into the Gigafactory and expanding production. They continue to grow production year over year, and still find plenty of eager customers.

Tesla could show a profit any time that they wanted to, by slowing their investment in the future. They won't, because that's their end goal, not mere profit.
Given that Tesla needs to invest in factories, service centers, and battery plants to make their cars, you can't simply ignore those costs and conclude Tesla is profitable.
 
Discussion starter · #35 · (Edited)
Creative logic.

Tesla gross margins are higher than almost anyone in the industry - twice the average. The only reason they are "losing money" is that they are pouring every dollar they have into the Gigafactory and expanding production. They continue to grow production year over year, and still find plenty of eager customers.

Tesla could show a profit any time that they wanted to, by slowing their investment in the future. They won't, because that's their end goal, not mere profit.
Tesla did cook the books 2 times (once last year, once in 2013) to show a net profit. Of course the very next quarter losses were even greater since all Elon was doing is pushing off expenses from one quarter to the next (along with timing CARB credit sales to coincide with the expense shoveling to make the numbers look better). Tesla used to use non-GAAP figures to report earnings until the SEC warned them to stop using non-GAAP and to switch to GAAP accounting.

Without CARB ZEV credit sales, Tesla would not have recorded a single profitable quarter.
 
Bro and Jupiter, stop baiting and taunting each other. I'm deleting partial or whole comments in this thread.

Here's an idea, one of you start a new thread in the Politics mud pit forum and then you two and whoever else wants to join can spend the rest of your days in a Hatfield and McCoy battle debating Tesla vs GM religion. You can get snarky with each other, call each other's mother names, generally keep arguing ad nauseam as long as you want.
 
Re: CARB credits
Title: Elon Musk Talks Incentives, Explains Why Chevy Bolt Is CARB Credit Play
http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-talks-carb-zev-credits/

<snip>
Tesla has succeeded in spite of the incentives not because of them. But these incentives have limited lifetime and limited scale. Like, for example, the federal tax credit and then that caps out of the 200,000, the CARB credits, which, because the CARB rules are relatively weak, we can sell – there are some quarters where we can’t even sell CARB credits. And when we can, it’s maybe $0.50 on a dollar or something like that, whereas the other car companies get to fully absorb the value of the CARB credit. So just for example gives GM roughly – from my count, $7,000 to $10,000 advantage over Tesla for their Chevy Bolt.

That’s why you shouldn’t ask like why, well, GM appears to be losing $10,000 a car on the Bolt. No, they’re not. They are making it up on CARB credits. But they get the full retail value of the CARB credit, whereas we get the wholesale value when we’re lucky. But the CARB credits are only effective at a production rate of about 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a year.
<snip>
 
That was my whole point. At the time it was released, it had one of the longest real-world ranges; was one of the most efficient EVs; had the lowest cost per mile of range; and had the best acceleration of the non-Tesla EVs. It wasn't until the i3 was released that it was surpassed by a non-Tesla.
It was also in a tiny, half sized car.
 
Tesla gross margins are higher than almost anyone in the industry - twice the average. The only reason they are "losing money" is that they are pouring every dollar they have into the Gigafactory and expanding production. They continue to grow production year over year, and still find plenty of eager customers.
It's not so much reasoning as it is facts and arithmetic. Let's start with assertion that Tesla's gross margins are higher than anyone else's in the industry. AFAIK Tesla has reported gross margins -- meaning the margin between factory variable cost and sales price -- to be between 23% and 28%. That may sound good, but the gross margin for the auto industry as a whole is closer to 31%. IOW, for the industry as a whole, the cost of raw materials and finished parts, along with direct labor, constitute about 61% of all costs (the remainder of the costs go to to indirect production costs, sales (including warranties), and corporate overhead, and of course profit.) This means that Tesla's gross margin is lower than the industry average, not the highest in the industry.

Moreover, these numbers are actually worse for Tesla than it might appear at first blush. Tesla is only selling two models, both of which are luxury vehicles with transactions prices of $100K. The industry average is based on vehicles with an average transaction price of $41,000. Since factory variable costs do not rise in a linear fashion as you move from producing less to more expensive vehicles, the gross margin on more expensive vehicles is always considerably higher. The relatively lower costs of producing a more expensive vehicle is why automakers make the vast majority of their profit from trucks and luxury brands. Hence it wouldn't be surprising if Mercedes or BMW or Audi had gross margins of 50% or more on their sales of $100K vehicles as compared to Tesla's 23% or 28%.

The second fallacy is thinking that Tesla is unique in incurring development costs and that this cost will go away over time. It's not and they won't. All car makers have development costs. It's the principle reason why the car makers are so capital intensive. In the car business you develop a car, produce it, and then go back to developing the next generation. If car makers didn't have the development and tooling costs every five years for every model they'd all be swimming in dough. But they do so they aren't. Additionally, because of the need for new models and the development cycles of all vehicles, Tesla's development costs are not going to diminish over time. Tesla is already talking about the Model Y and the Model S will soon need a major update since, even today, it's getting long in the tooth. So as Tesla introduces more models and current models age, development costs will go up not down.

Finally Tesla has two huge hurdles going forward. One is even managing a 25% gross margin on a $50K car (I'm not even going to talk about a $35K car). Two is avoiding a huge loss on the battery factory, a loss that is virtually certain in the event of a technological breakthrough on the battery chemistry.
 
I, for one, agree with you. But what I don't understand is why you allow this troll to continue to destroy an otherwise great forum filled with excellent information and nice people? I'm fine with someone criticizing something so long as it's done in an equal manner. It's clear Bro is a bitter individual but why do the rest of us have to listen to that crap?
Uh, a little bit of pot meet kettle? Your continued name calling (trolling, bitter, crap) borders on ....trolling. Rather than ignore him, you bait him with words like that and he does the same to you. And on it goes, tit for tat. That's why I closed the last thread. If you two carry over your grudge match here, I may need to close this thread, or perhaps put you both in the time out corner for a week or two of no posting privileges (we haven't done that in well over a year, but...) Please stop the personal characterizations and keep to the topic at hand.
 
21 - 40 of 107 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top