I remember them pitching it as a Model 3 competitor. They were too EV naive to understand all the reasons that it didn’t really compete. DCFC was literally optional (why would people want to road trip EVs?).
It didn’t help that most people that I showed it to thought it was ugly. I never minded the appearance, but it wasn’t a selling point.
This is powerful circular logic. Literally something that hasn’t been done must not be profitable because they would have already done it in order to discover its profitability.
But how do you think they would know that it’s profitable if they’ve never done it? Do you really think they’re that much smarter than you? Because they do “market research”, which is why GM has never made a bad car before?
Maybe just recognize that they have no clue like the rest of us; they’re just the ones with control of the decisions being made.
Oh wow. You’re saying the decision making process at a large company is complex and we don’t know all the facts? That’s totally different… wait, no that’s pretty much what I said but you used more words.
This is the correct response to almost every poster in this sub. Armchair consultant, engineers, battery chemistry experts, manufacturing experts, powertrain design engineers, etc etc etc
Problem is that charging speed is dependent on battery size (and type). To make the Bolt charge faster you have to put in a way better (and more expensive) battery. Which negates the ‘Profit’ part unless you make it more expensive.
Literally this
I’m pretty sure the bolt was a compliance car, and they never actually made any money off of it.
I remember them pitching it as a Model 3 competitor. They were too EV naive to understand all the reasons that it didn’t really compete. DCFC was literally optional (why would people want to road trip EVs?).
It didn’t help that most people that I showed it to thought it was ugly. I never minded the appearance, but it wasn’t a selling point.
Wasn’t the Spark their compliance car?
“Why doesn’t the QB just throw a touchdown pass each time?”
If it were that simple to profit they’d have done it.
This is powerful circular logic. Literally something that hasn’t been done must not be profitable because they would have already done it in order to discover its profitability.
But how do you think they would know that it’s profitable if they’ve never done it? Do you really think they’re that much smarter than you? Because they do “market research”, which is why GM has never made a bad car before?
Maybe just recognize that they have no clue like the rest of us; they’re just the ones with control of the decisions being made.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
This sounds quite familiar
OMG. This video hurts. I’ve definitely had exactly this meeting
Oh wow. You’re saying the decision making process at a large company is complex and we don’t know all the facts? That’s totally different… wait, no that’s pretty much what I said but you used more words.
This is the correct response to almost every poster in this sub. Armchair consultant, engineers, battery chemistry experts, manufacturing experts, powertrain design engineers, etc etc etc
They’re doing that. The Bolt 2.0 will use a CATL LFP pack.
Note: not Ultium!
I predict the Bolt will be much more popular than their Ultiums, which will be overly expensive and potentially unreliable.
Aha. Does that mean they will be ineligible for a rebate?
I hope this thing comes out soon – it could be an ideal vehicle for me if it’s equally affordable and practical.
Change 3 to “add back CarPlay” and I agree.
The current bolt does have CarPlay. That’s why #3 is the best part of this plan
I’d also say make a station wagon version
Problem is that charging speed is dependent on battery size (and type). To make the Bolt charge faster you have to put in a way better (and more expensive) battery. Which negates the ‘Profit’ part unless you make it more expensive.