EVs, Fanboyism, and Electrek's Slanted View of the Chevrolet Bolt

Michael Accardi
by Michael Accardi

Since General Motors showed the Chevrolet Bolt EV Concept at the 2015 North American International Auto Show, the company has been adamant the car would compete with Tesla’s upcoming Model 3 in terms of pricing, range and certainly in terms of consumer adoption.

The Teslarati, on the other hand, don’t seem to agree.

Tesla’s stated modus operandi since inception is “to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.” But for fans of the Silicon Valley brand the M.O has been twisted into Tesla or bust, leading to straw man arguments and arbitrary analysis.

Electrek’s latest Tesla versus Chevy op-ed by Fred Lambert is a perfect example.

Lambert is resolute in his proclamation that the battle between the two brands is nonexistent: “GM is making a $37,500 car that would sell for $20,000 if it wasn’t electric, while Tesla is trying to make a $35,000 car that would sell for $35,000 if it wasn’t electric.”

It’s a distinction Lambert created himself, based on the Bolt being sized similarly to the Chevrolet Sonic. “I don’t think it is too far-fetched to say that the Bolt is shaping up to be an electric Sonic,” he says.

But it is, Freddy, it is. See, GM itself said recently that despite the Bolt program being born out of GM Korea’s Gamma family architecture, it quickly evolved into its own bespoke platform, sharing no common parts with Gamma II.

Next, Lambert asserts (once again without proof), that “Model 3 reservation holders are informed customers and they know a lot about Tesla. They have been following the company for a while and they are fairly well-informed.” But are they?

There isn’t much information regarding exactly who Tesla Model 3 reservation holders are, but it would seem to be a healthy mix of existing Tesla clientele, first time EV buyers and shoppers who fear missing out.

Take Joel Moffitt for example, a Cascadia College design student who The Seattle Times described as waiting to “get in on something that has the power or opportunity to change the way we get around.”

Or Toby Nitzsche, who told Fortune that he spent the night outside a Tesla store in California because “it’s about supporting the technology and keeping it going.”

Neither of these two individuals sound like died-in-the-wool Teslarati who, in Lambert’s esteemed words, “know a lot about Tesla.” That’s perfectly okay, but what’s not okay is asserting that the Model 3’s entire audience is a well-informed member of the EV movement, when in reality most people don’t buy cars to save the world — they buy cars to get to work and buy groceries.

Some of those looking to switch to an EV cite abolishing fuel costs and oil changes as a major motivator, something Tesla does not have a monopoly over. These are shoppers who are selfishly looking to reduce user cost — again, little to do with saving the world.

In fact, using Tesla vs. Chevy pre-orders as a barometer of execution and future success is a straw man in itself, as pre-ordering for the Chevrolet Bolt won’t begin until next month, just a stone’s throw from its late 2016 market arrival date.

Inexplicably, Lambert goes on to say that GM’s previous foray into the EV market in the mid ’90s, the lease-only EV1 (which ended up as pile of crushed metal), will push shoppers towards the Model 3. What Lambert and some of the Tesla fanatics may not understand is that the EV1 was a “real-world engineering evaluation” into the feasibility of producing and selling an electric vehicle in the United States. The EV1 was literally the first of its kind.

The EV1 project can be traced back to 1990, a full 23 years before Tesla would become incorporated, let alone produce and sell an electric vehicle. Yes, the EV1 was a premature undertaking when it first became available in 1996, but it’s far from a “scandal” (as Lambert calls it).

Perhaps the source of Electrek’s Tesla tint comes courtesy of the fact “some writers of Electrek maintain positions in $TSLA and other green energy stocks.

Could that also be the reason Electrek completely ignored the launch of the Bolt’s sister car, the Opel Ampera-e during last week’s Paris Motor Show? A car which Opel actually drove 260 miles from the heart of London to the show floor, while still showing some 50 miles in reserve.

For a publication that claims to be “a news site tracking the transition from fossil fuel transportation to electric and the surrounding clean ecosystems,” that’s simply inexcusable.

If, as the old adage goes, a rising tide lifts all boats, the mainstream manufacturers wading into the EV arena should be applauded, not chided for sins of the past.

Maybe if the Bolt was a half-baked compliance car or conceptual idea existing in the minds of executives then yes, Lambert would have a point. But the Bolt is certainly not — it’s a very real product geared towards the modern consumer, with 94 cubic feet of passenger space (equal to the much larger Tesla Model S), technology to touch, and safety features in spades, all rolled into one emission-free vehicle costing less than $30,000 after incentives.

Isn’t that a good thing?

[Image: Tesla Motors]

This article originally appeared on GMInsideNews.

Michael Accardi
Michael Accardi

More by Michael Accardi

Comments
Join the conversation
7 of 80 comments
  • Rochester Rochester on Oct 07, 2016

    For the life of me, I genuinely don't understand why people compare the Tesla S to the Chevy Bolt. The Tesla has an artistic design appeal that Chevy will never, ever be able to compete with. There isn't a single Chevy that nails a design win in its segment... no, wait. The current Malibu is an exception, but only to look at, not to actually drive.

    • Adam Tonge Adam Tonge on Oct 07, 2016

      People are mostly comparing the Model 3 to the Bolt because they are supposed to be "entry level" EVs with a similar price point.

  • Whittaker Whittaker on Oct 07, 2016

    "all rolled into one emission-free vehicle costing less than $30,000 after incentives." There are many, many people who don't/won't qualify for the full tax credit. It would be more accurate to say this vehicle cost about $37,500 but there are federal tax rebates up to $7,500 depending on your tax situation. One must have at least $7,500 in tax liability to claim the full credit. Considering that about 45% of Americans pay zero federal tax, it is very likely that the vast majority of Americans cannot buy a Bolt for $30,000.

    • See 3 previous
    • JPWhite JPWhite on Oct 08, 2016

      @Becker I don't think anyone in this thread said that the tax credit is deducted from taxes owed. Whittaker correctly stated that the tax credit is deducted from your tax liability. Taxes owed is not the same as tax liability. As SCE to AUX points out, if there is any doubt as to a persons ability to qualify for the full $7,500 tax credit, leasing is the advisable purchasing decision.

  • Lorenzo Heh. The major powers, military or economic, set up these regulators for the smaller countries - the big guys do what they want, and always have. Are the Chinese that unaware?
  • Lorenzo The original 4-Runner, by its very name, promised something different in the future. What happened?
  • Lorenzo At my age, excitement is dangerous. one thing to note: the older models being displayed are more stylish than their current versions, and the old Subaru Forester looks more utilitarian than the current version. I thought the annual model change was dead.
  • Lorenzo Well, it was never an off-roader, much less a military vehicle, so let the people with too much money play make believe.
  • EBFlex The best gift would have been a huge bonfire of all the fak mustangs in inventory and shutting down the factory that makes them.Heck, nobody would even have to risk life and limb starting the fire, just park em close together and wait for the super environmentally friendly EV fire to commence.
Next