Automotive News: In Just 3 Days, GM Sells More Vehicles Than Tesla Did In All Of 2016


In some months in 2016, the Chevrolet Volt alone outsold Tesla’s whole lineup of vehicles.

Chevy Volt, Tesla Model S & Tesla Model X Sales By Month In 2016

Or, to take a different perspective on it, Automotive News points out:

“Every three days, General Motors sells more vehicles than Tesla Inc. sold in all of 2016. GM earns nearly $1 billion a month, while Tesla has lost money every year of its existence.”

Tesla Model S P100D

How is it then that Tesla’s market capitalization shot higher than General Motors? Well, it seems market cap for Tesla is based largely on future expectations, whereas General Motors is mostly a constant and isn’t expect to really shake things up in the near future.

But here’s what’s lost in all this, per Automotive News:

“Unless you’re being bought out or borrowing money, market cap effectively has little bearing on a business.”

Alan Batey, General Motors’ North America president, commented on Tesla surpassing GM and on value of the automaker:

“I definitely believe we’re undervalued. I’m not going to lie to you and say I like it. Of course I don’t.”

Tesla’s cash burn continues though and that will have to stop at some point soon. John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, commented:

“At some point, you’ve got to turn cash-flow positive. They’re doing cool stuff, but the money’s got to come in at some point.”

These two metrics, outlined by Automotive News, show the differences between GM and Tesla:

Cash flow: Tesla burned through $448 million in cash during the fourth quarter of last year. GM’s automotive operating cash flow in the same period was $4.3 billion positive.

• ROIC: Return on invested capital measures a company’s cash flow in comparison to the capital put into it. Tesla has no net cash flow, so its ROIC was minus 19 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016. GM’s was a record 29 percent.

So clearly Tesla’s valuation is based up expectations, meaning Tesla must deliver on its promises.

Source: Automotive News

Categories: Chevrolet, Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

108 Comments on "Automotive News: In Just 3 Days, GM Sells More Vehicles Than Tesla Did In All Of 2016"

newest oldest most voted

Automotive News, a heavily sponsored article by GM.

Why? How about you try to address the arguments presented rather than only your conclusion? IMO you have to be extremely unreasonable not to accept that Tesla’s valuation bears no relation to its profitability today. There’s not much left then but expectations for the future. Of course, Tesla’s potential is huge. If it becomes as big a car company as GM is today, who’s to say it can’t be even more profitable? And there may be as big a business in solar/powerwall products for all I know. But it’s patently clear that the stock price is based on hope, however you look at it. Even if Tesla’s aggressive plans for the Model 3 go smoothly, that development cannot justify the valuation they have right now. And even Musk worshippers can admit that the Model 3 production plan isn’t guaranteed to go smoothly, right? Then again, the price need not be based on any expectation that profits will ever justify it. There’s this little thing called speculation, and plenty of people but stocks based simply on the hope that someone else will soon be willing to pay even more! And if Model 3 seems to go to plan I suppose the… Read more »
Can we at least agree that Tesla is attempting to follow’s very successful business plan? Here is part of what Wikipedia has to say about the history of Amazon’s initial business plan was unusual; it did not expect to make a profit for four to five years. This “slow” growth caused stockholders to complain about the company not reaching profitability fast enough to justify investing in, or to even survive in the long-term. The company went online as in 1995. When the dot-com bubble burst at the start of the 21st century, destroying many e-companies in the process, Amazon survived and grew on past the bubble burst to become a huge player in online sales. It finally turned its first profit in the fourth quarter of 2001… Anything you see here which appears to be similar to what investors and self-appointed “analysts” keep saying about Tesla Inc.? Wikipedia also says: In 2015, Amazon surpassed Walmart as the most valuable retailer in the United States by market capitalization, and was in the third quarter of 2016 the fourth most valuable public company. Of course,’s resounding success doesn’t guarantee that Tesla will succeed as spectacularly. But Tesla has… Read more »

I think there are a lot of Silicon Valley types that think Tesla profits will eventually be on-par with other tech companies, but the reality is that margins in automotive are painfully small by comparison. At the end of the day, Tesla is building cars and will be affected by the same cost constraints as other OEMs. They may, at some point, achieve significant market share but that doesn’t necessarily mean higher profits. Just as GM, who chased market share for years.

The stock market is FORWARD LOOKING.
Not only is Tesla Killing GM and FORD with ADVANCED VEHICLES, this little company is too.

Workhorse EV with Range Extender Pickup:

GM and Ford’s Incompetence to build future vehicles and deliver them, ( EV1, CMax, Escape Hybrid… ), gives Wall Street ZERO Confidence they can compete. Volt reliability falling.

And certainly the Bolt doesn’t compete with the Tesla Model 3.

Whereas Tesla has taken sales away from the most expensive brands being sold: BMW, Mercedes and Jag.

So what’s their valuation then? If Tesla’s price is based on their superior tech, why not this company as well?

Btw, what superior tech? Autonomy? I’ve seen a video of a Tesla driving itself on country roads. But I’ve also seen the Bolt navigate San Francisco by day, and of LEAF tackling London. And while most EVs aren’t as innovative as Tesla, it’s not actually the hard stuff that sets Tesla apart (except for making people crave an EV perhaps, but that’s about to change as well). Do you think it’s hard to replicate doing away with the start button? OTA updates? HEPA filters?

I love Tesla, and I’ve reserved a 3. But I’m really tired of Tesla fans who too often seem not to have a skeptical bone in their body, or even any interest in trying to make realistic assessments. It’s exasperating.

You make one of the points, “how hard is it too make OTA,…” which is why Tesla has captured the imagination and gotten such a following. If it is so easy, and it is obvious this is something that attracts customers, why hasn’t any other manufacturer done it very well yet? It’s not 2010 any more, they’ve had a long time to replicate these “simple” features, but haven’t. So they either don’t know how (because maybe it isn’t so simple) or they don’t want to change their existing model, or they don’t see this as one of the reasons for Tesla strength.

I drive a Leaf, it has some good features, but I suspect any graduate student with a week of programming could make some significant improvements to this vehicle. Yet for all their supposed profitability, the likes of Nissan can’t seem to make any software related UI improvements to their gen1 car. It will be interesting to see in coming years if GM make any significant improvements to the Bolt. Unlike Tesla, who use OTA updates that improve all their vehicles in this area, regardless of age (to a certain degree).

“I’ve seen a video of a Tesla driving itself on country roads. But I’ve also seen the Bolt navigate San Francisco by day, and of LEAF tackling London.”

The big difference is that Tesla’s features are live and in customer’s hands. Those videos of the Bolt and Leaf are not actually available in any car that any customer can buy, and they can only be legally operated with trained GM or Nissan testers behind the wheel. Tesla has those cars too, they just are getting much more vital information from actual millions of miles driven with their 2nd Generation hardware than those other companies could get in decades of photo-op videos like the ones you’ve seen. That means they are way behind, not ahead.

How hard is it to do OTA? Well, Tesla has been doing it for half a decade, since 2012. If other companies are MORE advanced, THEY would have come out with it BEFORE 2012. Yet half a decade later they are still haven’t duplicated Tesla’s success.
Again, way behind, not ahead.

Were you intentionally trying to bring up items that would undermine your point?

Terawatt said: “Do you think it’s hard to replicate doing away with the start button? OTA updates? HEPA filters?” If it’s so easy to replicate what Tesla is doing, then why isn’t any other auto maker doing it? The closest we’ve seen so far is the Chevy Bolt EV, and sales of that aren’t exactly spectacular, are they? Terawatt, you make the same mistake here that so many do, in focusing on what other auto makers could do, but ignoring what they are doing… or rather, are not doing. When Apple released the first iPhone, BlackBerry could have come out with a strong rival at a lower price, and could have run Apple out of the market. But they didn’t, did they? When Eastman Kodak invented the digital camera, they could have committed to R&D on the tech until they had a commercial product, and could have created a virtual monopoly in the digital camera revolution. But they didn’t, did they? They shelved their inventions, leaving it to other companies to commercialize the tech, and eventually former market leader Kodak was driven out of business — just like former market leader BlackBerry was driven out of the smartphone market it… Read more »

So it’s no wonder Elon is taking as many shortcuts as possible to launch the Model 3 on time (no AWD/Performance versions, inventory cars in lieu of custom orders at first, no traditional beta testing phase, etc…)

If there are serious quality issues with the Model 3s that go out to the first REAL (non-Tesla) customers, TSLA stock is gonna be in for a pounding.

Yea, lets completely ignore that this is the same way that the Model S worked when it came out.

Yes and the quality of those cars were terrible! Leaking water and needing to replace drivetrains several times. If model 3 follows that line Tesla is finished!

Why would they be finished in that case?

IDK how much trouble Tesla could survive with Model 3. But if the stock were to collapse and they still haven’t become profitable I think it really could sink the company. Valuations matter when you want to borrow, and even more when you try to raise capital through emissions (as Tesla has done many times; $1.2 billion in the last round).

So it’s not that complicated. Or what do you think happens to a company that can’t borrow or raise more capital that isn’t profitable?!?

“Or what do you think happens to a company that can’t borrow or raise more capital that isn’t profitable?!?” 1) They stop spending on expansion and new product development. A story has been posted many, many times showing that Tesla could be profitable on Model S sales alone if they stopped expansion and new product development and acted more like a traditional car company just churning out model updates every 4-6 years. If Tesla had to drop Model Y, pickup, diesel truck, and GEN 2 roadster development work, they could greatly cut costs. 2) Spin off unprofitable lines of business. For example, if for some reason Tesla Solar isn’t profitable, they could spin off or sell off that as a separate business. 3) Invest in cutting costs, to make sales more profitable. GM has announced they are doing this. Elon has already talked about cutting battery pack costs to $100/kWh by 2020. 4) Angel investors. If you don’t think Elon could attract money from investors willing to risk losing money just to get Tesla through a bad patch, you are crazy. 5) Sell business to another company and continue operating. Many examples including Saab, Volvo, Mini, Land Rover, etc, etc,… Read more »

“…what do you think happens to a company that can’t borrow or raise more capital that isn’t profitable?!?”

I think the answer to that depends a great deal on the company, and whether or not it has a popular and compelling product or service to sell. In Tesla’s case, the company would need to temporarily slow or stop its expansion, and concentrate on just making profits until would-be investors were reassured that yes, Tesla could be profitable if it wanted to timidly concentrate on short-term profits, rather than boldly investing all profits in future growth and a bigger market share.

It gets more than a bit tiresome reading all the Tesla bashing comments which ignore the fact that Tesla has a very real, and very popular, product to sell; cars which have received some of the very best reviews of any in history! The Tesla bashers and FUDsters seem to want us to believe that the only reason Tesla sells cars is because it’s part of an elaborate confidence game to sell stocks! 🙄

I rather think that the cars Tesla sells are very real, and not just Potemkin Village props.

I think the single biggest danger to Tesla is not Model 3 build quality, or Model 3 timelines, or Leaf 2.0, or anything related to the auto industry.

It is the current tech bubble and the 100+ “unicorn” startups valued at over $1bn each, based solely on rosy projections.

When this bubble pops – and it will – Tesla had better be ready to swim, because all of these startups are going to be expected to generate profit or go the way of

I think at that point tesla is going to be a pretty safe haven for all the money pulled out of those startups, because when you are starting to look at where the value really is, you really just have to own a tesla model S or X for a few months to know that you would never go back to cars with start/stop buttons.

GM’s Price to Earnings ratio is 5.5.
Fords is 11.
Proving Wall Street has Zero Confidence they’ll successfully compete long term.

So, it’s the typical Wall Street effect on established companies. Looking for short term profit, with No Long Term Plan.

Actually Fords P/E should be 2, it’s much Less Successful than GM at Future Vehicles.

Wall Street also had a lot of “confidence” in many companies in Dot Com bubbles as well mortgage melt down…

Basically Wall Street is full of Cow manure…

Great news! Shows the growth potential of Tesla once it really starts eating into ICE market share. Goes to show how grossly underrated Tesla’s stockvalue is;)

It’s pretty easy to understand. GM is in a three-way tie with Toyota and VW for highest sales volume. There isn’t much room for growth.

Tesla has nothing but growth ahead of it. Even if they grow 1000% in sales, they will still be a small manufacturer.

Good article!

Shame on you! This time for writing for a disreputable, zero credibility outlet like Seeking Alpha.

“Shame on you! This time for writing for a disreputable, zero credibility outlet like Seeking Alpha.”


Do you know that both long and short articles appear on SA? Here are a few recent articles from a TSLA bull if that suits you better:

PS: Needless to add I stronly disagree with most of his conclusions.

tftf said: “Do you know that both long and short articles appear on SA?” Well *I* certainly do. I spent long enough wading thru that sewer, in pursuit of that old adage “Know thine enemy”… the enemy being EV bashers with their cherry-picked or even faked “facts”, their half-truths, and their oft-repeated lies. Yeah, there are hundreds of comments posted over there every day about Tesla, and usually several Tesla-related blog posts per week. Since TSLA is quite volatile and is often the most-shorted of all stocks, that’s not exactly a surprise. Sadly, extremely few of those Seeking Alpha blog posts are worth taking the time to read, and nearly all the negative posts and comments about Tesla are full of outright B.S. and lies. Your own comments here are an excellent example of that, Tftf! The pro-Tesla cheerleader posts are almost invariably much more truthful; Tesla supporters don’t need to lie, because the truth serves us just fine! But the pro-Tesla blog posts and comments are pretty much just as biased. After all, the motive for nearly everyone posting there is greed, not sharing knowledge or seeking truth. Sturgeon’s Law: “Ninety percent of everything is crud.” But in the… Read more »

PP, interesting that you spend a long rant on crowd-sourced articles (does that apply to online comments?) but don’t name any specifics what’s wrong with my thesis.

PS: SA has detailed click stats. Several thousand people read my article in the first days (readership then drops off sharpyl as usual). I got about 30-40 clicks from InsideEVs, so a whopping 50 cents.

I certainly didn’t post the link here to gain anything – 30 to 40 cents (LOL) of gains.

It was an interesting article on topic (this and the link below to Tesla myths are the two only links to my own material ever posted here).

Great. Now we’ve got people spamming us with links that they personally profit from, a fraction of a penny per click.

Just when I thought the trolls couldn’t stoop any lower.

Hmmm, I thought on Seeking Alpha it was an entire penny-per-click? Of course, that makes Tftf vastly overpaid. 😐

Yes, it’s too bad that InsideEVs allows people to post links which directly generate revenue for them. You’d think the Terms of Service for the website would disallow that!

That’s a good point, but not a sufficient one IMO. Tesla has to become much more profitable in the future than GM is today (or expected to be in the not so distant future) in order to compensate for the fact that there is a risk it won’t.

Personally I think it’s just as much due to speculation. Loads of people buying the share don’t think the fundamentals defend the price, but they’re betting that there will be enough good news to bring the level of speculation even higher in the near future.

And since it’s all fiction anyway (hey, MONEY is a fiction!) they may end up making good money on their bet – quite regardless of whether Tesla ever does.

Loads of buyers are shorters trying to cover their losses before it bankrupts them. They certainly don’t believe in the price, but they have no choice. They have to buy.

Yes, the shorters are correct that the price is inflated. It is inflated because they keep having to buy shares at higher and higher prices. $3.7 Billion in losses already in 2017 and climbing.

Will TSLA shares peak? Heck yes. It is a volatile stock, made more volatile by 1 out of every 4 shares being borrowed for shorting by shorters. Anybody who looks at the charts can see how volatile it is.

The funny part, is that after the price is driven up by shorters covering their losses, it will dip back down. Then the shorters will shout “See, I told you it would go down!!”, while ignoring the fact that it just went up and up and up. Meanwhile share prices have grown by a full order of magnitude since the shorters first started. They will want you to ignore that full order of magnitude growth….

How many of these GM cars were sold with the fuel with it free for life?

How many cars has GM sold with flowers painted on the hood?

How many cars have they sold, that came with a free water gun?

How many of their cars come with a lifetime subscription to the NYT?

So many questions and all of them totally irrelevant to this topic…

Tesla is valued highly, because they are innovative and promise to become a big player. And they have a certain it-factor, that established companies just don’t have. Free fuel has very little to do with Teslas market cap.


GM light vehicle U.S. sales were 5.8% down in April from April a year ago – despite increased incentives, low-to-zero-rate financing, and low gas prices. Tesla will have quintupled its output by the end of 2018. And GM?

“And certainly the Bolt doesn’t compete with the Tesla Model 3.”

Probably not, since the Model 3 is still vaporware at this point. Tesla has yet to deliver a single one of them to a customer, so for now it’s all hopes instead of reality.

Highly speculative market caps like Tesla’s can turn out to be hollow. Not saying it is; maybe Tesla will be the Amazon of the automotive industry. But neither I nor anyone on this board has any idea.

I think the biggest thing the Model 3 has going for it is the Supercharger network, which GM hasn’t even tried to replicate. I’d still be leery of taking a Bolt on the road based on the unreliability of the third party fast charge network in these parts. (Though I’d have no problem taking a Volt.)

Musk may end up being the next Steve Jobs, building one of the most valuable companies in the world based on his bold personal vision. Or not.

Vaporware. And there’s a few hundred people who have received factory VIP tours for June for the official launch party. One Model III just reached Cincinnati last week. Has anyone driven a Bolt from San Francisco to Ohio yet? I think not, but hope it has been done by now.

I always stop reading after certain trigger words like “vaporware”.



From Wikipedia:

In the computer industry, vaporware is a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually manufactured nor officially cancelled. Use of the word has broadened to include products such as automobiles.

* * * * *

So Vexar either doesn’t know what the word means, or he actually believes Tesla isn’t in the process of putting the Model 3 into production.

In either case, there is no question he’s incorrect.

Uh, it sounded better in my head. Like “Vaporware, yeah right, you’ve got to be kidding.” I was refuting the use of the term, that’s all. During the Tesla earnings call, they said that they are doing everything they can to anti-sell the Model III and yet reservation numbers grow every week. They also said they are using components of the Model III in the development of the Tesla Semi.

I’ll take a little credit for a few Model III reservations myself, and I think I may have sold my neighbor on one last night when we chatted (it was garbage eve). So I do hope they stay on track for producing 10,000 Model III vehicles per week by 2018. They are going to need to do that.
Anyone calling the Bolt a mass-market vehicle ought to look at the demand and the manufacturing of them. GM has no interest in making the Bolt a mass-market vehicle. It’s a niche product to them, given their production numbers. Otherwise, they’d abandon the Cruze or the Malibu or just badge the Bolt as the CruzeEV.

Mostly agreed. But I think the superchargers are less of a long term advantage than you seem to think. VW is, thanks to the dieselgate settlement, starting to build a very capable public charging network this year.

The 2018 Bolt, the first to be rolled out nationwide, might not be far behind Teslas on terms of long distance travel convenience. The chargers are 150 kW (and a few 320 kW!) so the car will almost certainly be the limiting factor in this case. But it should be easy to allow the Bolt to charge at 120 kW. Thanks to greater efficiency that means more miles per hour replenished than Tesla’s quickly-tapering 130 kW nominal rate.

GM says the Bolt is limited to 80 kW charging.

And, remembering that one point, thus I made my comment. Also, folks are going to have to wait for that infrastructure, as most non-DC fast charging is 50kW in my area.

I wouldn’t be too hasty in writing off the likes of GM and the other OEM’s.

There are no prizes for being first to market in this game.

There’s also not much growth in being last to market.

That’s just silly. There’s literally zero logical connection and zero precedence for concluding that early to market is good for business. There is such a thing as a first mover advantage, but it mainly consists in having no competitors for a while and then having a lead for another short while. First mover is simply never a long-lasting advantage.

Who was the first mover who invented graphical user interfaces? Xerox. Who was an early adopter? Apple. Who for in late but was the only big winner from this innovative breakthrough in computer interfaces? Microsoft. The mouse? Same story. Digital cameras? Kodak invented it – and was bankrupted because of it! Smartphones? Don’t know who invented it, but I had two generations running Windows Mobile before the iPhone saw the light of day. Neither made any splash for Microsoft. Nor did Nokia’s smartphones, despite their dominant market position.

In the car industry, which is the most innovative incumbent? IDK, but I recall Top Gear doing a segment on this topic, and the conclusion was very clear: Lancia! With a long string of firsts. I’ll try to find it on YouTube…


Jump to 2:58 if in a hurry, for a short list of Lancia firsts. And it’s not small stuff.

Top gear is entertainment, not an actual source. Go look into everything that Mercedes Benz first launched in their S-Class cars that are now everywhere.

Oh, wait. That doesn’t fit your meme, so you don’t actually care about actual facts. I forgot.

Feel free to go back to your self entertainment.

Terawatt said: “There is such a thing as a first mover advantage, but it mainly consists in having no competitors for a while and then having a lead for another short while. First mover is simply never a long-lasting advantage.” I’m sure this will come as a great surprise to McDonald’s, which was the first mover to spread its fast food franchises nationwide in the USA, and is still far and away the largest restaurant chain in the world. /snark No doubt others can come up with similar counter-examples proving that there is often a big advantage to the first mover into a new market. Frankly, Terawatt, when you post highly one-sided arguments like this, it’s just annoying. You appear to think your readers are so clueless that we won’t notice when you post B.S. You could have done a real service here by comparing and contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of the “first movers” vs. the “fast followers”. Different strategies have succeeded in different markets. But instead, you’ve posted something that critical readers can easily see is full of holes, and probably as a result you have probably convinced a lot of your readers that exactly the opposite of… Read more »
I am a GM engineer, and I specialize in production automation using pneumatic components. I am very familiar with the Tesla Model S and think it is a fine effort. I wish I could tell you the things we are working on, and I wish I could give you stock market advise, but I can not. But trust me, if you think we are sitting around watching Tesla eat our media and product lunch, you are grossly mistaken. I am stunned at Tesla’s decision to bypass certain product testing on the Model 3. This in my opinion is unacceptable – no matter if some of the various components are shared with the Model S – the new vehicle takes on a totally different operating environment as the components come together. Making your customer base a testing project is again, unacceptable. I can not imagine the pressure the Tesla engineers must be under. Take a close look at our new Buick LaCrosse, Chevrolet Bolt, Volt and Equinox. Examine the build details – especially the panel gaps, fit and finish. I am very proud of our products. We are certainly not the GM of the past. I make no judgement about Telsa… Read more »
John, I for one do not really care if there is a gap between the panels or in the dash board. If I compare GM’s products with Mercedes I can see that the tolerance is higher in GM. Mercedes does not allow that, and they ask for the high price for that. Next time listen to the door of a Mercedes and when you close it. Not even the Cadillac comes close. So the point here is, people are willing to accept varying degrees of tolerance and the price plays a role here. When it comes to Tesla the story is different. If they come out with wooden chairs the car will sell very well. People now understand that the electric car is much better than the gasoline cars. So people will accept the gaps that you are talking about if these gaps exist. We have to wait and see. We all saw the Tesla robots that make the car and we saw the GM factories were humans put their fingers in, more than they should. In the case of Mercedes the quality control is higher. The bottom line is ANY electric car with a good range and an affordable… Read more »


Thank you for your comments. While electric propulsion is most probably the future, we are a long way from total marketplace acceptance. In the meantime, we can relax and enjoy what we have. In my case, that’s a company owned Chevy Volt, and a personal Jaguar F-Type convertible in Storm Gray with an S6-45 ZF manual transmission, and 19″ propeller type wheels. Oh the joy of driving.

You know John, it might be a good investment. These cars you mentioned will go up in price every day.

The finest buggy whips ever conceived by man. 😀

Your love for the past gives insight into GM vs Tesla’s market cap.

Um, don’t think that really makes sense. If you look in the Tesla car park you see every type and manufacturer vehicle, not just Tesla, so that is no difference. I would be VERY surprised if Elon didn’t have ICE cars in his garage, which I’m sure he loves almost as much as his Tesla’s.
I’ve got old Commodore Amiga in my shed that I love, doesn’t mean I don’t want i7’s and better. Just means I recognise what they were and how much joy they have me.

If you’re this:
John Samuels, you’re probably in management at GM. That would also explain why you like things I thought disappeared about the same time as pay phones: manual transmissions.

Is that the Jaguar Ford made or the Jaguar made by Tata of India?

If you are in management at GM, stop being slimy jerks and bank-rolling the anti-Tesla legislation (uncovered in the activities at Maryland). On top of just being genuinely difficult, it shows you have nothing competitive and have to resort to dirty tricks to hang onto market share. What’s an Equinox? Is that related to Solstice? Is it also a Pontiac? They don’t make those anymore, do they?

“What’s an Equinox?”
You don’t know what a Chevy Equinox is?

$23K, compact SUV, that gets 31mpg hwy.

Many would like an EREV version to be produced.

Equinox is also the 2nd highest selling GM vehicle after the Silverado pickup.

“On top of just being genuinely difficult, it shows you have nothing competitive and have to resort to dirty tricks to hang onto market share. What’s an Equinox? Is that related to Solstice? Is it also a Pontiac? They don’t make those anymore, do they?”

This shows your ignorance and discredit your criticism as a bunch of organic fertilizer.

Chevy Equinox is the #6 highest selling SUV/Crossover in the US with annual sales more than 200K/year.

Vexar said:

“…why you like things I thought disappeared about the same time as pay phones: manual transmissions.”

Hmph, speak for yourself. Personally, I have always preferred the greater control a stick shift gives over an automatic transmission.

EVs, of course, are a different kettle of fish, and don’t need the crutch of a multi-speed transmission.

Data warehouse developer huh? So you’re as much an expert on car engineering as I am, and yet you don’t think it problematic to say you’re “an engineer at GM” who has opinions about skipping the alpha cars, creating the impression you know something about this type of engineering!

That speaks volumes, but about you, not Model 3.

Or that not your position at GM? And your only position anywhere ever?

I love driving which is why I love the instant torque of an electric motor with no unnecessary transmission getting in the way or sapping the momentum.

Mr. Samuels – I’m the basically happy owner of a 2014 ELR and also a bare-bones 2017 BOLT ev. Each car I like in its own way – but GM’s arrogance in its decision making is unnerving: Item: ELR runs engine at 32 deg F – no way to disable it. Workarounds make for dangerous driving in cold weather. Totally silly and tragic that the car purchaser should have to endure this engineering arrogance. Item: BOLT constantly AUTOMATICALLY applies the parking brake ALL THE TIME during normal driving. Very disconcerting. Item: No way to shut off being bathed with WIFI radiation – the on/off slider is like the “CLOSE” button on NYC elevator doors – just for looks. (BOLT) Item: Heater controls basically do what they want – no way to manually control whether electric heat is on or off, on either car. – Most of the time the displays lie. (Both cars). That is one place where my former Tesla roadster was an improvement: The tiny display gave MUCH more info, and it rarely lied, unlike GM Products. The bolt has 2 screens, but with little info on either – other than dumb efficiency graphs. The thing that REALLY… Read more »

“We all saw the Tesla robots that make the car and we saw the GM factories were humans put their fingers in, more than they should. In the case of Mercedes the quality control is higher.”
Sorry, but you really have no clue about the automotive manufacturing business.

Thanks for giving your insights.

I know you can’t comment on future products, but there are TONS of people that would be interested in true CUV/SUV with the Voltec powertrain in it. Like a Voltec Equinox for example. Just sayin’. 😉

A Volt based Equinox would be nice indeed. However, may I direct your attention to the upcoming (September, 2017) Equinox turbo-diesel which has been given an estimated highway MPG figure of **40** by GM. Official EPA estimates will be available closer to the on-sale date. Oh, and it has 10 airbags – we are hoping for a perfect score in IIHS testing! Information here: And to those who say diesel is dead, VW sold 3,196 of (software reconfigured) new model TDI models last month. Word is they could have sold 3X as many if inventory was available.

Come on. A Cancer spewing diesel is your answer.
Get serious.

Ok, now I’m leaning towards this guy being an imposter.

Nope. He sounds exactly like a GM manager.

You have to remember that before the VW scandal, that so called “clean diesels” with high MPG were supposed to be part of the “all-above” solution to US oil independence and higher CAFE numbers.

He is just showing that GM still buys into that old trope. You and I are supposed to still want “clean diesels” for their superior MPG over gas cars, as if it were still the 2000’s and EV’s/PHEV’s didn’t exist.

This is how GM management is still behind the times.

The complete opposite…

Ask “Chevy Chat” why the Volt doesn’t have “home link” and they’ll say something like: “if you’re looking for homelink, I recommend the Malibu Hybrid, give me your zip code and I’ll tell you which friendly dealership are nearby”…

Diesel? Obviously, you haven’t experienced not going to gas stations. When you’re used to waking up in the morning with enough juice for the day, and DCFC as back up in case of unexpected trip, having a car that constantly need to go to the gas station is not appealing.

Sure, I might rent the new diesel if I have to take a long trip (or not; gasoline is more available), but definitely not for my primary vehicle that I drive daily.

This reply tells us what we already knew about PHEV/EV Chevys…

No PHEV/EV Equinox…
$40K+ Highly raked/geeky looking and small Trax based EV…
$50K+ FNR-FWD(no AWD) PHEV (ICE version will be at least $20K less)…
$80K+ E-Ray Vette…

Thank you for confirming… 🙂


If you really worked for GM in any relevant capacity you wouldn’t be posting here.

Yes, because management types never use the internet and browse websites us “commoners” browse. Lol


He never said, suggested or even implied a GM manager would not browse this site.

They were only talking about posting on such sites, making public statements.

Anyone can claim to be whoever in internet forum, so I have my doubts if you are indeed a GM engineer. However, your comment that GM engineers are great is no exaggeration. They have turned a little gas car conversion like SparkEV to kick butt of all cars in its price range, and much better than so-called dedicated EV platform Leaf. While Bolt is bit overpriced, it weighs almost 1000 lb less than Tesla S, not to mention far more efficient.

When it comes to making cars, I have no doubt that GM engineers are the best of the best in the world.

Thank you for your kind words. In truth, credit for the Spark EV goes to GM’s South Korean small car group. They are responsible for design and engineering for small and mini car platforms. They also played a major roll in the new generation Volt.

He must be a real engineer; doesn’t know the difference between “roll” and “role”!


The Nissan Leaf sales ratio (in available and comparable markets) to The GM Spark EV,is the real tally of which EV manufacture has been able to “kick butt”! GM has made a excellent decision to drop the Spark EV and deliver the GM Bolt. The GM Bolt will outsell the current Nissan Leaf 2011-2017 in total sales, some time next decade. But only Tesla will decide when that crossover sales point is reached by The GM Bolt.

When I say kick-butt, I mean from engineering perspective. Even today, SparkEV’s 2.6C charging rate to 80% is the quickest in the world, and 7.2 sec 0-60 MPH at $16K post subsidy make it the quickest production car in the world under $20K. It’s also the most efficient production car in history when it comes to constant speed at 55 to 70 MPH.

Sure, Nissan’s management + marketing may have done better, but definitely not so in engineering. You can tell from their non-thermal managed battery, rapid charge taper, one of the slowest accelerating cars that cost $25K (post subsidy).

Nissan gave people what they cared about. The Spark did not. End of story.

As Workhorse was started by former GM employee’s, I’m sure You could compete with Tesla.

I’m Positive GM MANAGEMENT doesn’t have the stomach to write a long term plan that will require significant investment, a significant R&D spend increase, that Wall Street won’t like.

@ John Samuels: Thank you for taking the time to write that very thoughtful post. Yes, Tesla is taking a big risk by skipping some of the stages of product testing which GM and other, more established auto makers use when putting a new model into production. That marketing strategy has worked pretty well for Tesla for their Roadster and the Model S; worked less well but I’d say still mostly successful with the Model X. Whether it will work as well with the Model 3 certainly remains to be seen. Certainly some have argued that more down-market Model 3 buyers will be less forgiving than Model S and Model X buyers. On the other hand, Tesla is restricting sales of the earliest Model 3’s to its own employees, who will presumably be forgiving of early flaws. That will at least mitigate somewhat the dangers of rushing the Model 3 into production. I personally hope that as Tesla matures as a company, it will adopt a more conservative approach to product testing and quality control. But I can understand that Tesla wants to move swiftly and aggressively to grab as much of the plug-in EV market as possible before other… Read more »

Blackberry probably sold a lot more smartphones than Apple in 2008.

These tech analogies don’t work in the car space (especially not in terms of timelines).

I happen to have another article for you.

Please see section / myth 1 for details (chart):

Apple’s rise from 2008-2013 (5 years) in smartphones is very different compared to marketshare changes in the car sector (latter takes decades, not a few years).

The incumbents (such as Renault-Nissan, GM) are well prepared to counter Tesla as soon as EV sales grow into the mass market by around 2020+.

I’ve read Seeking Alpha.
It’s not worth covering the bottom of a bird cage.
Significant gross exaggeration of any flaw, absolute failure to cover any positive features.
Essentially a Short Propaganda Site.

Let me know any flaws in my article, either her e of in the discussion over there and I will answer you.

Dismissing something without any evidence doesn’t help.

PS: As I outlined above, both long and short articles / views are available on each stock (including TSLA).

mx — he just suckered you in to making him money by clicking on the link to his story.

Now he’s baiting all the rest of us to click on his story and make him more money by debating all of his errors.

Don’t take the bait. He’s profiting off of his anti-Tesla trolling with every click he manipulates people into clicking.

Yeah, but those Clicks didn’t cost you any money personally, did they? Who cares how he/she makes their money, I’m sure you have a job, and of it involves sales or anything with tips, I’m sure you do what you can to improve those and maximise your profit.

Now I what tftf says interesting or relevant? That’s all that matters in the forum for me. All comments get taken into consideration and my opinion formed as a result of all of them.


Your repeated links to what I presume is your own penny-a-click Seeking Alpha blog posts aren’t merely repetitive, they are greedy and downright annoying.

Even if I was willing to waste my time reading yet more of your FUD, there’s no reason to believe anything you write on the subject. You have proven over and over and over that you consider Truth and facts to be entirely irrelevant where Tesla is concerned.

PP, you know very well I never posted links to my own material other than now – because my two articles on Reanult-Nissan and Tesla myths fit the topic. If you had actually read my second article on myths (market penetration speed acress sectors) you would know these analogies don’t work. Let me quote my own material so you don’t have to give me a penny: “Let’s use a concrete example: It took all of Japan’s largest car makers about two to three decades to meaningfully catch marketshare from domestic car makers in Western Europe and North America – that included building local factories (most consumer tech companies don’t need this spread-out supply chain, they can airlift and distribute their lighter and smaller goods globally from central manufacturing hubs in Asia). The inner workings of the car industry require large manufacturers (and their largest suppliers) to have factories on at least three continents: North America, Europe and Asia. As we all know, Tesla has at best one and a half plants in the U.S. by the end of 2017 (the main Fremont factory and some additional supply is planned out of their battery factory in Nevada, e.g. Model3 drivetrains and… Read more »

In sustainable energy news: Tesla sold more solar panels and energy storage yesterday than GM did… ever.

And Apple sold more phones in the time I took to post this than Tesla has…ever.

What’s was the point of your post again? That GM doesn’t sell commercial solar products? Thank you captain obvious.

The entire US solar industry is still only half as big as Texas’s wind generation capacity.

So GM makes more pollution than Tesla,in 1 hour than Tesla,will ever make.

GM cars and trucks,are 20% efficient . Tesla cars are 90%.

So who wins, really wins.

Look at the GM corvair. Unsafe,at any speed by my uncle Ralph. Many GM cars are unsafe, many SUVS tip over and back over their pets and kids.
Why did GM crush the EV1? WHY DID GM recall so many vehicles?
So much for testing and safety.

corvairs were not all that bad compared to its contemporaries, despite what Nader wrote. Most cars were pretty lousy back back, it’s just that targeting big bad GM made sense for Nader financially.

Let’s see… I bought a 2012 Volt in 2012, wanted Hold mode when 2013 came out, asked GM, like many other owners… GM’ answer: ”buy a 2013 Volt”. 🙁
Still love my Volt.

My Brother also got a Volt, gen2 2016.
Went to the dealer to get Android installed, did not work, tech has no idea why. Brother will have to go back and make sure he has enough time to get the thing done.

Now, Tesla can unlock 15kWh of battery in 5 minutes flat while you wait in your driveway, over the air.


Stock Market Capitalisation is more based on investor sentiments, not real worth.
I’m pretty sure nobody can buy GM for $50B.

“In some months in 2016, the Chevrolet Volt alone outsold Tesla’s whole lineup of vehicles.”

This is EXACTLY why Tesla doesn’t publish monthly numbers, and only publish quarterly numbers.

Did the Volt actually “outsell” Tesla in those months? Not really. Tesla manufactures and delivers in batches for the US market and for the global market. Months that have low US delivery numbers are months with high non-US global delivery numbers.

GM doesn’t do that with the Volt. So it isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. And that is EXACTLY why Elon stated that Tesla does not release monthly numbers. Because news agencies aren’t responsible enough to refrain from false apples-to-oranges monthly comparisons that falsely make it look like US customers aren’t ordering/buying as many cars in months where Tesla is batch building and shipping cars overseas instead.


Insideev’s has seriously hurt their argument for asking Tesla for official US monthly numbers by allowing this to be published on their website.

Just who cares?

Comparing Tesla sales to the ICE vehicle sales is like comparing the first original ICE vehicle sales to horse drawn carriage sales at that time.


So we’re talking profitability, and Tesla is plowing their profits back into the company, which seems to indicate they are profitable but choose to do something constructive and long view with those profits. If Tesla just stopped expanding and made their current cars (let’s keep it simple and imagine they have no debt), would they be profitable? I think the answer would be yes, the cost to build their cars is less than the cost they sell them for. Ok, on the whole GM is profitable? But on individual vehicle basis maybe not. So if we compare Tesla EV to GM’s EV’s, it seems various reports that GM loses money on their EV’s (which I actually find hard to believe). Now if GM as a whole is profitable, and Tesla is such a worry for future looking impacts, and everything Tesla does is easily replicated, why hasn’t GM taken just a small fraction of those profits and replicated those Tesla things? VW may create this great charging network, or they may drag their feet and stall as long as possible, right at this point in time it is in the same situation as Model 3, it should happen but it… Read more »

I wonder, when was the last year in which one could have truthfully written “In just 3 days, Borders Books sells more books than did in all of last year”? annual revenue in 1998: $0.6 billion annual revenue in 2017: $136 billion

Oh, and Borders Books? It went bankrupt in 2011.

Funny thing: Things sometimes change. Sometimes they change a lot in just a few years.

Amazon had operating cash-flows from the beginning:

Cap-ex in the car industry (incremental costs for each additional $ of output / revenue is very different).