GM Reportedly Suffered $12,000 Loss Per Ampera-e (Bolt) Sold By Opel




Opel Ampera-e

Due diligence performed by PSA wasn’t diligent enough

The recent stop sale and massive price hikes of the Opel Ampera-e are all starting to make a bit more sense now. In a Reuters report detailing how PSA wants GM to refund them as much as 800 million Euros ($952,696,000 at today’s rates) from its purchase of Opel/Vauxhall, there is mention that, according to two separate sources, the European company was losing almost 10,000 Euros ($11,901) on each Ampera-e. Ouch!


Opel Ampera-e charging

The figure is especially damaging to Opel now, as the Ampere-e is (or possibly, was) a key part of PSA’s plan to reduce emissions to meet incoming EU standards. If they don’t meet the new CO2 limit standards, which come into effect in 2021, they will face hundreds of millions in fines each year until they do.

Now, this per unit loss on the Ampere-e doesn’t mean that GM is losing the same amount on its Chevy Bolt program here in the U.S., though it is quite likely it has a negative gross margin before accounting for ZEV credits. Costs for the Ampera-e are higher because it is subject to different expenses: shipping, obviously, as well as a tax for not being assembled in the EU.

Last year, an analysis undertaken by UBS suggested the per unit loss was “$7,400 in earnings before interest and tax on every Bolt sold today, mainly due to a lack of scale.” As we mentioned, this figure is offset by the gains GM makes in ZEV credits. For a little more color on this, we turn to a statement by someone who lives in California and knows a thing or two about the carbon credit system — Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla:

“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.”

In the same interview, Musk also dropped a strong hint as to why GM doesn’t really seem to be pushing the sale of its sweet, all-electric 238-mile Bolt:

“But the CARB credits are only effective at a production rate of about 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a year. So that’s why you’ll see, mark my words, it’s not going to be any higher than that for the Chevy Bolt. That’s on order of 25,000 units a year,…”

For its part, PSA doesn’t seem to have anyone to blame for its predicament but itself. Besides failing in its due diligence investigations, it is years behind in the development of low-carbon drivetrains, both traditional and hybrid/electric. For now, it seems, the French parent company is “…rushing out electric or plug-in hybrid versions of Opel’s Corsa, Grandland X and Crossland X models that were not part of the original plan it presented in March.” The redevelopment of its “vehicle architectures and engines” is also being moved up three years, to 2024.

Hat tip to JeremyK!

Source: Reuters

Categories: Chevrolet, Opel / Vauxhall

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

79 Comments on "GM Reportedly Suffered $12,000 Loss Per Ampera-e (Bolt) Sold By Opel"

newest oldest most voted

Not so surprising imo, I mean yes the Amount is bigger than expected on my Part, but just looking at Tesla..they have alot more expensive Cars and lose even more per Car and I dont see that changing anytime soon either.Im willing to bet that even end of 2018 assuming 5000/week Model3+ Model S/X they still will have big losses, even if you would exclude Capex.

You’re NOT really gonna go there, are you?! Yeah, I’m going to chock that whopper firmly in the ‘FOS’ file!


what exactely are you in disagreement with from my statement?

Another Euro point of view

IMO the only company that is going to make profits selling EVs in 2018 is Nissan/Renault. For the others you will need to wait 2020.
There is an obvious reason why so many OEMs mention 2020 as the starting date for their EVs. Some are making cars for 100+ years, when they calculate costs they don’t forget half of them like Tesla does. 2020 is the rate mass productions of EVs components will drive the cost low enough for EVs to be competitive with ICEs. For example in any car the cost of total components/parts is only 50% of total cost of a car, still there are many EV enthusiast here that believes that like 80% of the cost of a car is composed by the total of its parts. It hurts the eyes to read that. For an EV to be competitive with iCE, the battery for example needs to be dirt cheap. for a Nissam Leaf sold $30K, the total cost of its parts including battery needs to be $15K approx., and that is only to break even.

Audi is adamant that the etron will be profitable.

Another Euro point of view

It might be but likely not in 2018 (too few cars sold probably). I took the Nissan Leaf example as its development costs/tooling are likely mostly amortized yet (Leaf 2 being somewhat a refreshed version of Leaf 1).
Also it is said that pack cost of Leaf is the lowest of the EV industry (Tesla not being the leader as so many small cells needing to be assembled to form a pack + elaborate cooling system).

Audi wants you to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

If VW Group actually exploited what’s possible with electric drive, and packaged it right, they could easily make a profit. It simply isn’t hard to do, in this price range (Audi/Porsche).

If you want to avoid serving your customers and make money, however, you avoid what including batteries does to your **profit margin**. Instead you focus on those extra revenue streams from your customer, like parts, proprietary fluids (oil/af/coolants), and service visits.

It can be tough, to let go.

ALL Nissan Leaf’s are cheaper because they didn’t bother to manage the temperature on the battery which is the MOST EXPENSIVE PART OF A BEV!

Thus compromising and prematurely shortening the life of the battery.

Even then I doubt Nissan/Renault is the most profitable EV maker on their products since they have to discount them heavily in order to move them because of their design flaws.

If that is the real case then they need new buyers for components. They must have done a poor job.

Tesla has positive gross margins on both Model S and Model X – north of 20% in each case. The Model 3 has negative margins right now and will continue to have them until mass production ramps up into the thousands per week.

Don’t take the word of a random internet person like me for it, though. You can actually look up these numbers in official documents that Tesla as a publicly traded company is required to put out.

These margins will come under pressure as soon as there is real competition. That will start next year.

I see that the Seeking Liars shorter crowd is trolling here again.

Is that you trollfft posting your same discredited FUD under another username?

Another Euro point of view

The Seeking Alpha shorters are biased, so they somewhat distort the information in their favor but not more than Elon. Both (Elon & shorters) are seldom downright lying, they distort/amplify. It’s business.

Another Euro point of view
Omicron, here an example of why gross margin as published in Q-10s are useless for comparison as each company decides which costs they decide to include or not in their gross margin calculation. Here it’s Mc Donalds but it is exactly the same for Tesla. An excerpt of the article: “Note that McDonald’s does not include selling, general and administrative expenses while calculating its operating margins. We have included these expenses while subtracting depreciation and amortization costs while calculating EBITDA. That is why, the figures mentioned here might differ from what the company reported” and here the link to this article: Now as you mention Tesla’s own publications as your source for Tesla’s 20% gross margins, let’s have a look. Page 56 of Tesla’s 10-K shows the 2016 gross profit ($1.599 billion), 3 lines below it also shows the”Selling, general and administrative” expenses post ($1.432 billion). Why do you think, this “Selling, general and administrative” is proportionally so huge as compared to other car makers ??? Look at GM’s “Selling, general and administrative” item for same year (2016) here: What do you see ? Gross profit: $21.22 billion “Selling, general and administrative expenses”: $11.710 billion So GM… Read more »

I think your comment boils down to how much SG&A should be expected to rise, out of proportion to a GM, when you’re capitalizing assembly-line growth at, what, ~400% units, for 2018.

You arrive at a profit to SG&A ratio, and seem to accurately reflect Tesla’s much higher SG&A, but someone’s gotta get paid to design and build the machine that builds the machine, before several hundred thousand cars come off the line.

I am NOT and analyst in this space, but would ask for GM’s year over year (YOY) unit growth, to control for why their SG&A looks relatively low.

This claim is misleading. Yes Tesla has a positive gross margin on sales of its $100K cars (in fact I believe it’s significantly higher than the 20% you state), but there are two caveats. The first is that Tesla calculates margins differently than other auto auto manufacturers by excluding costs which other manufacturers include in the cost of the car. This isn’t a problem per se. In fact Tesla’s method makes more sense. However, it overstates Tesla’s gross margin as compared to other manufacturers.

The second is that a positive gross margin doesn’t mean the cars aren’t sold at a loss. Gross margin is more or less the difference between revenue and cost of goods sold. To figure out whether selling the car is profitable you have to subtract from gross margin the other costs attributable to developing, servicing, and selling the car.

This is why the post above says you need to sell the car at double the variable factory cost to be profitable. Not sure if this is accurate. I’ve seen numbers more in the 40% range. But whatever the number, it’s way above the cost of making the car.

Omicron: You can indeed find out that Gross Margins are exactly what you stated. Then you can keep orking your way doen the page to include Operating Expenses and INterest and find that they lose a LOT of money selling cars.

Never mind that: they’re spending R&D, yes? So add back ALL of R&D expense for all Tesla ventures: still lose about $230M. Well then add back negative gross margin from energy storage sales, and add back share based compensation (excepting R&D, which we’ve already excluded). Still loses money.

So yes: Tesla loses money on S&X, which, as you point out, can be seen if you “look up these numbers in official documents that Tesla as a publicly traded company is required to put out.”

Only someone really full of themselves thinks they they know something that career financial analysts and fund managers are too stupid to find. Call the SEC because you have just discovered that Tesla falsified their reports and its all based off of your hunch.

Career financial analysts already know all this; that’s why they’re (finally) projecting record Q4 and FY17 losses and ever-worsening FY2018.

Tesla “loses” are totally driven by CAPEX spending. With assets growing Geometrically for the last 5 years.

If you don’t like Growth Companies, and American Innovators don’t buy the stock, no one’s forcing you.

Not true. If you want to include capex, spending doubles, but without capex you’re still looking at a four billion dollar cumulative loss.

Where do Tesla fanboys get this stuff?

Another Euro point of view

Tesla fanboys are sweet but I noticed they know NOTHING about finances. That’s part of the reason they are fanboys. To be a fanboy of whatever (be it rock stars/sport teams/companies) one needs a good dose of naivety and a very simplified way of analyzing things. Often it goes along with youth (as being naïve and having limited experience).

Yeah but what about 63 year old Seniors entering their “Second Childhood” who constantly accuse others of shorting the Tesla Stock? They may have 6 year old mental capacity, but you certainly can’t blame it on their ‘relative youth’.

Yes–Tesla has lost four billion dollars excluding CapEx, or $20K per car sold to date.

4 billion divided by 250,000 is not 20 000!

You can’t even do a simple division and you expect us to believe your BS?

Yes, imagine that–shorter trolls like 5E fudging the numbers to protect his weak-ass FUD.

IIRC when I did the calculation for the last quarter I think Tesla lost something like $25K per car ($695M loss divided by 25K vehicles sold = $27800 loss per vehicle). Not completely relevant but it does suggest that the $20K number isn’t crazy and that the time period chosen makes a huge difference.

Looks like it, yes. Especially if the build quality of Tesla cars doesn’t improve. Pumping out cars at a rapid rate and then almost immediately have them come back for servicing is a very expensive way of doing business.

Another Euro point of view

“Pumping out cars at a rapid rate and then almost immediately have them come back for servicing is a very expensive way of doing business”

It is indeed hugely expensive (“Tesla Björn Model X has probably about costed twice, once to build it and once to fix it).

Huge losses can seldom be only explained by capex.

As capex impact expenses only for its depreciation part (about 1/5 for tooling for example if a useful life of 5 years is considered), company the somewhat modest size of Tesla would need a HUGE but HUUUUGE growth rate to loose more than a billion per year only by capex. Tesla has a large growth rate but nothing to explain that type of loss. Investors don’t mind tesla lack of profitability becomes what matters to them is what Tesla will be in 2022, not the clumsy loss making 2017 Tesla. In that sense they are possibly right (with Elon out of the picture by then and a more operations orientated CEO).

Moreover, look at BYD, also decent fast growth and it reports profits.

Most of the manufacturing equipment Tesla has is really good. They have a top of the line stamping line, top of the line robotics and welding machines. They should invest in precision calibration equipment, and for panel placements (sort gaps), and panel alignment (so two panels have the same hight where they meet). You can look at older VWs for example, and then suddenly some new models (several years ago) had improved panel alignment and the panel gaps got clearly tighter than the previous model. It will take time to implement, and will reduce production speed over a period of time before they got it all right. Panel gaps are no direct indicator for the quality of a vehicle – but it gives a nice and tight impression to the customers. It is after all not the panel gaps that stop working on a vehicle. Is is just perceived quality, and customers feel they got a product that was created with care and precision. Also, it they take the time and care to focus on the panel gaps, alignment and stuff like that – it is likely they have control of the rest of the production cycle. They should also… Read more »

I’d say most of the people buying Tesla stock either don’t know what they’re doing, or they believe in the greater fool theory. It’s a very high risk stock and at current valuations you’re not being adequately compensated for that risk.

The company can even be successful and still end up being a poor investment since it’s so expensive. If it fails, of course, it’s even worse.

That being said, one way or another Tesla is here to stay. Worst case scenario it ends up a brand owned by another company.

But I wouldn’t touch the stock with a ten foot pole, although I would choose it over Bitcoin which is even more ridiculous.


CapEx is not part of profit/loss. Depreciation is.

Nobody cares about it in Silicon Valley anyway – the way to do business there is to pump as much hype as possible & dump it to new investors, leaving them to worry about losses.

PSA should have kicked the tires on the deal a little more. Buyer beware. They dropped the ball. Too bad, so sad.

Also saw in another article that about 1,500 Ampera-E’s have been sold this year in Europe. Who would have thought a year ago that Ampera-E sales alone would handily eclipse Model 3 sales entering Dec of 2017? Lol!

True. But if the 10k to 15k net loss per BOLT and/or Ampera continues, then the writing is on the wall for GM BOLT EV. Particularly factored with a break even or profitable Model 3 …

It doesn’t mean the writings on the wall for the Bolt at all. GM hasn’t been profitable making ICE cars in Europe for decades. But they have been in the US.

There is a reason GM has been trying to get rid of Opel for about 10 years now…

I’m pretty sure this includes development costs. Just on what it costs to build the Bolt definitely brakes even.

Otherwise I really can’t see how Tesla could make any profit with the Model 3. And since I don’t think Tesla is going to kill itself, the Bolt must cost less to produce, than what it brings in.

Yes, GM has an engineering staff, that needs to do something. That’s why the design cost should not be included in the price of the car. That’s economic “Sunk Cost”.

But, if you’re only going to sell 30,000 because of CARB, you’re going to have a problem with unit cost.

No way. Bolt is core to creating a testbed for autonomous vehicle development with Cruise, and is also a key vehicle used for Maven and Lyft. $7k, $10K, whatever….small price to pay for EV visibility, and other less tangible benefits to being first to market in the sub $40K price range.

To kill the Bolt would be to lock in that loss per vehicle; but that loss decreases as more and more Bolts are produced.

The Gen I Volt was claimed to be a money loser when it launched, yet somehow GM found a way to lower the price and improve performance during its 5 year production run.

Another Euro point of view


“Particularly factored with a break even or profitable Model 3 …”

Not really much for GM to worry about there.

Well, for the US that would definitly hold true, for the EU it was always set for somewhere in 2018 afaik.

Yeah, they bought a pig in a poke, cheated by GM, how unusual.

Yeah great sales except no deliveries, or very few, and they stopped taking orders for them because they don’t have any, and now they want to charge you $10k for one.

What a marvelous job. Almost as if it was handled GM themselves, but somehow you try to spin it as a positive. Oh bro1999!

GM took sent the ICE Spark to Korea to EV it then tried the same to do the same for the Sonic hatchback…Then for some reason, Korea convinced corporate that an all new subcompact platform makes sense…End result? It looks worse than the sonic hatchback, it looks like a minivan and feels like a minivan with the dash layout but they’ll call it urban crossover…GM has already admitted the platform was a waste and their next gen platform will be larger and more flexible…Imagine how much money could have been saved by simply EVing the Sonic hatchback (which even has more comfortable seats?)…A lot of Bolt EV owner hate this fact, over half lease their Bolt EVs, it should also be noted that GM will be taking huge losses on their heavily subsidized leases…Come 2-3 years from now, resale will be awful… To create the Gen2 Volt and Bolt EV vehicles, GM relied too heavily on input from Gen1 Volt owners…”more range!”, “comfortable power seats? Too heavy! Give us 3 extra miles of range!”…Tesla Model 3 has less range but over a half million reservations…GM should have reached out to every Leaf owner to ask why they bought a Leaf… Read more »
I’m sure this has been a learning experience from GM that will benefit them later. I always suspected they lost money on the car, since they were not able to meet demant in Europe. They could sell almost 5000 in one day in Norway alone.. GM has production capabilities to meet whatever demand there is, it has to do with will. At the same time, GM showed they could beat Tesla to the market, and rushed this car. Then they kind of drop the ball, by not producing enough EVs. People know Tesla tries to make EVs, and would sell as many Model 3s they possibly can. Of course they would prefer top models, to make money – since they may loose money on the low spec version. Just wait and see when they get control of the M3 production. They want volumes, to cut cost, and to get paid for their development and work. GMs approach to EVs was made this way, BMW used niche models with highly automated manufacturing to learn this way, VW electrified an existing ICE model, made in the same factory and production line to cut cost. 3 ways to get to the same goal..… Read more »

They could also be constrained by battery pricing, since they don’t build their own. Their supplier needs to make a profit on the battery.

There is only one problem with Bolt, and that is pricing. If it’s gas car, it’d sell for about $25K, roughly the price of VW GTI, etc (mid range hot hatches). But the sticker shock of $37.5K and post subsidy of $30K makes it too rich for many.

Had they priced it at $30K (or even $31415) to result in post subsidy of about $22K, it’d be highly competitive against ALL gassers of similar price. That pricing would have people consider Bolt without supercharger access as alternative to Tesla 3.

Total cost of ownership over 10 years on the Bolt would be probably less than that $25k ICE though.

Selling dollar bills for 80 cents would generate huge revenue in no time. Tesla has already proven it and will prove again. At least until they’ll run out of other people’s money.

Not sure if GM was losing 10k, or if PSA would be losing 10k. I read an interview with Tavares where he said they had to pay licencing fees for every GM platform.

So it could be that an Ampera-e would have been a zero sum game for GM, but not for PSA.

MSRP in Europe is higher than in US. They could simply buy in US and ship it to Europe, and it’d cost less than $12K extra in transaction. $12K figure is simply “corporate accounting” not based on reality.

If PSA is buying Bolts at $12K premium from GM, that could open up huge opportunities for savvy people to buy Bolts in US and sell to PSA for $11K premium. GM wins, PSA wins, savvy EV seller wins, everybody wins. Such should be how capitalism work.

Not that trivial to import a Bolt into Europe; it’s not homologated for European standards.

Charging ports are different, and I don’t believe anyopne even sells CCS sockets to consumers on a regular basis (I’ve seen people mention buying them off wrecked cars for $1000+).
You’d need to modify lights & possibly bumpers, pass special inspections, lots of paperwork, VAT and duties.
And after all that you’d have no warranty… A big deal, esp. w.r.t. the drivetrain.

If you’re importing just one, problems you cite matter. But when you’re buying thousands to sell to PSA (who will provide warranty), the cost isn’t all that much. If you look at CCS port, it’s nothing more than few pounds of plastic and aluminum. If I’m selling by the thousands, I’d get a discount or even make it myself.

Well, PSA stopped accepting orders for the Bolt in Europe…

I wish stories like this wouldn’t be printed. You’re quoting Elon that can’t manage the expenses at his own company talking about anothers cost. Also basing money lost per vehicle due to development cost doesn’t make sense if you don’t know what GM basis was.

It easy to do this type of analysis for Tesla because it’s an easy one to one relationship between development cost and product. For GM we know the Bolt will spawn at least a Buick version and potentially another. So GM wouldn’t see all the development cost as being only assigned to the Bolt and definitely not in a single year.

GM’s export pricing strategy looked wonky from the start.
Mark Reuss is on record that GM will not make money on EVs until the next platform.

No. What he is on record is saying that people don’t want to pay a premium on an EV over an ICE. And that their next gen EV will be affordable compared to an ICE and profitable. The Bolt MSRP is higher than the average MSRP for an ICE vehcicle and much higher than its nearest ICE competition (the Golf GTI).

…and people get upset Tesla gets so much for its EVs.

Batteries are great. You get what you pay for and sometimes even more 😉

That’s probably why so many people want one, but can’t get one in Europe.
Exactly as I predicted months ago.

I’m curious about Musk comment about 20K to 30K cars. What happens when a MFR make more than 30K cars? Do they start losing CARB credits or get less credits per car?

Look it up, but I think it’s based on how many emission vehicles you sell, so you have to offset those. Once offset any further credits only have value if sold to others, like
Tesla does, though the selling of credits is not worth as much.

In addition there is a link in the story body which gives past stories regarding ZEV credits:

And that ZEV credit only makes sense if they are only selling in CARB credit states. But GM is selling the Bolt nationwide.

GM also has enough BEV and PHEV credits to last them for years in all CARB states.

Right. And that’s what’s confusing about Musk comment. GM already had enough credits via Volt + SparkEV, so even 0 Bolt sales wouldn’t matter. But going forward, and assuming they want ZEV credits, GM would want to sell as many Bolts as possible to stockpile the credits or sell to others. Why stop at 20K to 30K?

Hrm, well. Yes they have PHEV-based credit out the whazoo…but not so much for ZEV/BEV ones without the Bolt EV. GM has done a pretty good job at pegging the max number of Bolt EVs it can sell at ~25k for MY 2017 in the US…yes the roll-out and current national inventory isn’t perfect, but they haven’t left all that many sales on the table. And they have demonstrated as demand as strengthened in the US they are going to cut back on international production in 2017 (more on that later). — Just to put the numbers out there. Disclaimer: lots of napkin math ahead GM will sell ~525,000 odd vehicles into “CARB” states, which will require ~4,150 credits (based on the .79% ZEV credit requirement for 2017). They had between ~21,000 and ~24,000 credits heading into 2017, of ~18,000-22,000 were remnants from the Spark EV (the flux depending on when/if they allocated ZEV credits already for 2016 MY yet, of which we just don’t know..and won’t for another ~9 months or so) For 2018, assuming GM sells about 525,000 again, the ZEV credit requirements start to really ‘get moving’. After 6 MY years at .79% (2012-2017), it goes to… Read more »

“So GM not only needs all the Bolt EV credits it can get for overall compliance”

And that’s the confusing part. If GM needs all the EV credits, why stop at 20K to 30K that Musk was talking about? If anything, they’d want to sell as many Bolts as possible to stock pile the credits in case Bolt sales get destroyed by better EV.

Only reason to limit 20K-30K per year is if the credits expire, which I don’t think is the case. That’s why I asked initially if they lose excess credits.

I’d consider it a serious possibility that Musk doesn’t know what he’s talking about on this issue.

Regarding the limit of 30k, it could be that they didn’t want to commit to a larger battery purchase than that and risk getting stuck with unwanted cars rotting on dealer lots, resulting in absolutely huge discounts.

Also with costs coming down, maybe it simply makes more sense to wait, rather than to stockpile credits since future EVs will be (more) profitable.

“give a net of 74k (which would keep them in the black through ~ Feb 2020) if they sold nothing moving forward.”

This makes sense. That means that GM needs to have a profitable EV by 2020. And there is very little incentives for GM to boost the “money losing” EVs in the next couple years.

that is why GM is working on expanding the Bolt EV platform to more products.

I believe Bolt was expensive because GM outsourced much of the components to LG for “speed to market”. The next generation will be truly telling to see how GM is approaching the future.

GM traded profit for speed in getting the Bolt to market faster than Tesla.

No. There is no limit. I suspect what he’s saying is that in order to meet the ZEV mandates GM doesn’t need more credits than what it can get by selling 20K or 30K units a year.

The carbon credit economy should be abolished.

I agree. Replace carbon credits and the EV tax credit with a CO2 tax on all CO2 emitted in all sectors including ocean freight, and then levy a fee on any good imported from a country that doesn’t have an equivalent CO2 tax.

It’ll never fly, it makes too much sense.

Carbon tax makes no sense unless you’re completely happy with the way government (aka guys like Donald trUMP) is using the tax money. If carbon tax is instituted, they’d probably give more subsidy to oil/gas while taking the tax from the consumers, just like they are doing with gasoline right now.

The Senate is poised to open ANWR for oil drilling, on a vote of 51 for the tax package.

What you’re suggesting would take 60 votes.

60 to preserve, 51 to destroy. That’s evidently how our country works, now. Not even a Trump thing.

Why? It actually seems like it’s working really well to encourage EV production.

This should be a wake up call. From everything I’ve seen GM can produce the Bolt EV at a lower cost than Tesla can produce a base (not the higher trim level) Model 3.

The fact that GM loses money before credits on the Bolt EV is not exactly news. That’s been clear for a while.

The takeaway should be that electric vehicles are more expensive to produce than the vast majority of consumers are prepared to pay. Pretending that the problem lies with GM engineering or that Tesla can magically change the cost structure just distracts from the actual issue.

The ZEV credits and the CAFE standards definitely help. Big time. They may be a temporary solution but they are the best solution until we see more scale and lower cell and component prices.

Another Euro point of view


True, but some mitigating factors for Tesla:
-Much more expensive options
-The $9k battery
-Potential for low, or “managed” availability of the shorter range M3. A long-range, $60k Model 3 can subsidize a “stripper”.
-A more vertical structure. Yes, LG Chem could be to GM what Panasonic is to Tesla, but we know Tesla/Panasonic’s gigafactory uses an entirely different (more commoditized) process and is more heavily shared between its two partners.
-$143/KWh (Bolt, if memory serves) is great, but not as cheap as where folks expect GF to produce for M3.

the same analysts point to the model 3 being a loss at anything under $42k. what’s elon’s defense for his supposedly affordable model 3 being put on hold in favor of more expensive ones? only calling out others is fair game? sounds about right. that guy gets on my last nerve.