The Tesla obviously has better mind share at the moment, but various aspects of the vehicles are pretty comparable (even though they aren't really aimed at the same market segments):
https://www.consumerreports.org/tesla-model-3/tesla-model-3-...
I don't see a generational advantage for Tesla when I compare the 2. I see Tesla having a very short amount of time to match quality levels and production volume.
It's based on media reports like https://electrek.co/2016/11/30/gm-chevy-bolt-ev-loss-before-... and http://gmauthority.com/blog/2017/06/ubs-gm-probably-loses-ab....
Electrek report is based on taking to GM insiders. gmauthority is based on a vehicle teardown.
For what it's worth during earnings calls Tesla discloses profit margins for their cars.
As I understand it, GM never publicly disclosed profit margin for Bolt so the unofficial guesses is all we have to go on.
It paints a hopeful picture if you're interested in the future of electric cars, I think. The Bolt is something GM threw together with the minimal amount of effort necessary, understanding that this generation would have pretty low volume, and it's honestly really good for what it is.
An additional 72 mile range for the Model 3. And a standard compact car form factor to Chevy’s sub sub-compact. I’m sure that yields some shoulder room and other comfort benefits.
The form factor is also not a technical thing, it's the sort of thing I was trying to head off with they aren't really aimed at the same market segments. I think it is fair to say that the Model 3 is the more desired car, but that's not the same as demonstrating a big lead in electric platforms.
Whatever Tesla is trying, they aren't actually delivering that, either. The model 3 may have curb appeal (the interior is another story) but it certainly isn't at a low price (the base price is above the median total—options and taxes included—transaction price of a US new car purchase.)
Before Tesla, EV were seen as clunky, not very convenient and half baked conversion from already existing gas vehicles chassis. A few people were buying them because "hey, I'm saving the planet" (not really, this sweet electricity is still coming from fossil fuel).
But Tesla made EV kind of sexy, partly due to Musk other adventures that made people dream, mainly SpaceX, but also because of the "sporty" feel of the Model S and the "high tech" image of it.
Frankly, personally, I'm a bit tired of all the "praise Musk like a god" thing. The guy is refreshing in a world where everything must summarized in Excel and companies seems to be managed more by accountants rather than technology.
The guy is interesting as it has made the public aware of new possibilities regarding cars. He has unlocked something. But should we deify him for that? no. EV are still under conventional cars in term of autonomy, cost and reloading time. And personally, I think that cars are kind of a waist of resources to begin with: it costs a ton, it consumes a lot of energy per passenger and it's a mostly underused complex piece of machinery (few hours of commute every day at most).
Nowadays, I kind of wish for Tesla to crash and burn. I know it's irrational (and I will probably be down voted for it), but at least, it will shut-up the other irrational part of the audience praising Musk constantly and without reserve.
Now the market exists where there are companies doing the infrastructure and companies doing the cars. I’d argue that jumpstarting the market was revolutionary. I’d also contend that we’re seeing the beginnings of the another market jumpstart from Tesla in the pairing of battery storage with renewables.
If you look closely, there is very little that's actually innovative about Tesla (and what is is mostly Panasonic battery tech).
Same deal with Tesla, if they can get Model 3 production up.
People don’t like to acknowledge this as an accomplishment. But the idea, and successful implementation, of selling an electric car that isn’t what a soy patty on gluten-free bread is to a burger was quite a revolution.
The only marketing activity Tesla hasn't actually used is paid TV commercials, unless you include Hulu or online streaming, in which case... Tesla has actually used every mode of advertising commonly used by its competitors.
The fact that Tesla doesn't actually categorize its marketing activities as marketing in its financial statements just means that Tesla isn't following GAAP.
Marketing, promotional and advertising costs are expensed as incurred and are included as an element of selling, general and administrative expense in the consolidated statement of operations. We incurred marketing, promotional and advertising costs of $66.5 million, $48.0 million and $58.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively.
Historically, we have been able to generate significant media coverage of our company and our vehicles, and we believe we will continue to do so. To date, for vehicle sales, media coverage and word of mouth have been the primary drivers of our sales leads and have helped us achieve sales without traditional advertising and at relatively low marketing costs.
In fact I would claim most technologies are like that. Hence to call something revolutionary, it makes most sense to talk about who has made a radical improvement.
It is kind of like how there were smart phones before iPhone, but iPhone was such a radical improvement that it represented a revolution.
In much the same manner, the Model S was a revolution, similar to iPhone. It pushed electric cars significantly forward and set the bar for what an electric car could be.
If you disregard labels, Tesla was the first company to place this particular, very risky, bet. And it has paid off.
Electric cars were considered either not practical, or not desirable. Tesla made a car which was both.
If you disregard that, than fine, nothing was revolutionary. But then, by that standard, nothing is revolutionary.
Not sure what you see as revolutionary, but 10% improvement is evolutionary, maybe 30%, but 100% improvement is a new level.
On range, Tesla Model 3 only has a slight advantage over the Chevy Bolt, 20 miles based on third party test. Tesla isn't remotely close to 2x on range unless you're comparing the Model 3 to a first generation Nissan Leaf.
Speed? Definitely not 2x, unless you're actually claiming Model 3 can do >180 mph (Bolt is rated a 91 mph max speed, and the first generation Nissan Leaf had a max speed of 93 mph. Model 3 is rated at 140mph max speed).
Acceleration? Chevy Bolt is 7 seconds 0-60, while the Tesla Model 3 is 4.6 seconds. Not 2x.
Comfort? Almost tied. Advantage? Bolt, considering that the most expensive Bolt (with all options) is still several thousand $$$ cheaper than the cheapest Model 3 available for the foreseeable future.
Brand recognition? Depends on where you are. Everyone has heard of Chevrolet. Not everyone has heard of Tesla.
Design? Depends on what you're looking at. If you mean just the lines of the vehicle as they were intended, sure, the Tesla wins. If you mean the lines of the vehicle as put into production, the Bolt wins, hands down. The Model 3 is already infamous for misaligned panels, large gaps in the exterior between panels, misaligned window panes, misaligned handles, etc, and these are all signs of poor design failing to account for manufacturing tolerances. You won't find a Bolt with any of those problems.
So...basically what it boils down to is that Tesla is evolutionary at best in some categories and a step backwards in others.
Tesla's branding tactics are no different than the other auto manufacturers. I don't think you can ding them on that. They all play to an audience or niche, it can be heavy handed. It can be GM talking about trucks and ruggedness or BMW talking about performance machines. Tesla focuses on "innovation." It can all be a bit cheesy.
I am waiting for the rest of the autos to catch up and deliver their flagship electric cars. I think consumers will wise up and choose the car that provides the right value for their $. Porsche will price their upcoming electric sports car cheaper than the Tesla roadster...I would take the Porsche.
But anyway, how often does the average driver drive around with their foot flat on the accelerator? I don't understand the obsession with getting to 100k/hr right now.
In these parts, most people seem to be quite content with a car that will get to 60m/hr in 15 seconds, as evidenced by all the Toyota Yaris and vehicles optimised for off-road four wheel driving. I imagine a Yaris owner would think it'd be nice if their tiny little car could do that, but it ain't happening without a set of tyres the defeats the purpose of owning a subcompact.
Also, Tesla is known to misrepresent in it's PR releases. See https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/insurance-institute-for-high..., in which the IIHS notes that Tesla only received an "acceptable" for the type of crash that actually results in the most fatalities.
Tesla started with a clean slate, of course they will repeat some mistakes but they have the prospect of building a revolutionary product. In a way, a bit of chaos comes with the territory.