LG Chem “Ticked Off” With GM For Disclosing $145/kWh Battery Cell Pricing – Video

OCT 23 2015 BY JAY COLE 101

General Motors rattled the electric vehicle world on October 1st when they announced that the battery cell costs inside the new Chevrolet Bolt was an “industry-leading” $145/kWh from its annual Global Business Conference.

The declaration was significant for a couple reasons.

For starters, it is unprecedented for any automaker to actually disclose specific battery pricing.  Secondly, that confirmed $145/kWh price-point ended a long standing argument on how price competitive 2nd generation plug-ins could be, and just how low today’s battery costs actually were.

GM Outline Chevrolet Bolt Battery Costs From LG Chem For The Chevrolet Bolt In The Clearest Way Possible

GM Outline Chevrolet Bolt Battery Costs From LG Chem For The Chevrolet Bolt In The Clearest Way Possible

Turns out, that LG Chem is pretty none-to-happy with GM in a report filed by Autoline Daily (from the 1:50 mark).  John McElroy says E-Today in South Korea is reporting that:

“LG Chem is ticked off, it cannot understand why General Motors would disclose the price of the batteries, because now all of LG Chem’s other customers are going to be asking for the price.”

According to McElroy, GM’s price is $100 cheaper than what anyone else is paying.

Also of interest:  This week GM and LG Corp had a press conference detailing LG’s greater role in the development (and componentry) of the upcoming 200 mile Bolt (details), while GM Product boss Mark Reuss earlier said he expected the EV to come in under $30,000 after federal incentives.

Categories: Battery Tech, Chevrolet

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

101 Comments on "LG Chem “Ticked Off” With GM For Disclosing $145/kWh Battery Cell Pricing – Video"

newest oldest most voted

Boo-hoo LG Chem, you can no longer price gouge your customers.

Those customers can always go elsewhere.

True, and it may have to deal w/volume and other contracts. You have to buy a lot of batteries get that kind of pricing. And GM is also going to be buying a lot of other components from LG, so it’s not really apples to apples, when looking at the pricing.

This is a very poor act from GM. They don’t need to disclose every tidbit like Tesla does, particularly without asking LG first. I’m afraid this deal might even be covered by NDas. Another poor execution example from GM.

I hope the LG Chem & GM partnership doesn’t fall apart because of this.

Yes. It was not right for GM to do that and is most likely internal information. LG could probably take legal action as I’m sure there’s an NDA about that proprietary info.

Additionally, we have no idea the specifics of the deal. LG may have agreed to a lower price because they were getting additional work, as indicated by other articles.

The GM price is probably contracted based on at least tens of thousands of units. LG can always require a manufacturer to sell at least as many units or else pay more. Some other interesting price points is that the Leaf replacement battery is selling at around $250/kWh ($5,500/24kWh) whereas the Tesla battery up grade is selling for about $600/kWh ($3,000/5kWh).

But the Leaf pack, also consists of electronics, casing and cooling and the Tesla upgrade contains, probably, a big margin. I don’t think GM can build a pack for $145 per kWh in 2016.

I’m pretty sure that $145/kWh price, assuming it’s actually true, refers only to the price GM pays LG Chem for the cells. It doesn’t include the other costs of building an EV battery pack.

That is the cell price, but they have to make a million cells a day and they all have to be perfect.

I’m sure GM already pays less than 145$/kWh.
The other lie is the graph showing a very slow descent to 100$ in 2022.
Analyzing what Straubel and Musk said Tesla must be near 100$ – 120$ for next year.
There will be a sharp trend in price drop very soon, as it is happening with solar.

You’re mixing wholesale costs and retail costs. Just because Tesla sells batteries for $600 doesn’t mean it cost them that to build.

You’re also mixing cell costs and pack costs.


Actually not mixing. The post compares the cost of upgrading the Leaf battery to upgrading the Tesla battery. The intent wasn’t to compare the cost GM pays LG to the replacement cost of the Leaf and Tesla batteries. Your response does bring some interesting points though. If Nissan is charging around $250/kWh for replacement batteries then they must be paying $200/kWh or less. Also, why is Tesla charging customers over twice as much per kWh as Nissan on battery upgrades?

Texas, I think if you check, the 85 kWh Pack is not using the Same (New) chemistry as the 90 kWh Pack! The 90 kWh Pack Cells have a added Silicon component in them, while the 85 kWh pack does not.

Also – did you get that Nissan Price for the 24 kWh Replacement Pack – or the Difference between the 24 kWh and the 30 kWh Packs? (It looked like simply the quoted price for a 24 kWh Replacement Pack – and you forgot to count in the Core Price of your current pack, or add $1,000 to it, if that’s what it was!)

So – did you get the Price of a Tesla 85 kWh Replacement Pack somewhere to do a direct comparison of Actual Pack Cost for it?

Are you talking about the 85kWh –> 90kWh for the Model S Ludicrous™ upgrade? If so, the $5000 isn’t just for another 5 kWh of batteries. It’s a performance upgrade which includes another 5kWh of batteries. Furthermore, it’s a performance upgrade for a premium car, so you pay a premium for that upgrade. The Leaf is not, repeat not, a “premium” car. Plus, not all battery packs are created equal. Tesla has an integrated thermal management system for its battery pack, and apparently it works quite well, since the data on pack capacity loss over time shows a surprisingly low loss for the Tesla Model S. Leaf battery packs, as you probably know, have no thermal management system at all. Obviously Tesla battery packs are worth more per kWh. Comparing Nissan’s price (not cost) for a replacement battery pack to Tesla’s price (not cost) for a performance upgrade which includes a larger battery pack, is very definitely a case of comparing apples to oranges. Trying to discern the manufacturer’s cell cost out of those figures isn’t going to get you very far. For one thing, for proper comparison you’d have to know what the profit markup is in both cases…… Read more »


RE: “Are you talking about the 85kWh –> 90kWh for the Model S Ludicrous™ upgrade? If so, the $5000 isn’t just for another 5 kWh of batteries. It’s a performance upgrade which includes another 5kWh of batteries. Furthermore, it’s a performance upgrade for a premium car, so you pay a premium for that upgrade.”

Those are two different options. The upgrade from 85kWh to 90 costs $3,000. That applies/d to 85, 85D and P85D.

To get to a P90DL you have to pay $3K for the +5kWh, $5K for the D, $20K for the P and $10K for the L. So to go from a base Model S 85 to a Model S P90DL costs and extra $38K.

You guys are justifying your arguments by arguing in circles. So the Leaf battery replacement without the core return is $270/kWh instead of $230/kWh the core return. What difference does that make to argument? The price per kWh is in the same ball park. And so what if the chemistry is different between the 85kWh and the 90kWh. When you compare the cost difference between the 70kWh Tesla and the 85kWh Tesla the cost of difference in battery size is even higher, $666/kWh ($10,000/15kWh). No matter how you look at it Tesla is charging over twice as much per kWh for battery upgrades as Nissan.

So what does a Tesla 90 kWh battery pack cost the owner to replace? We KNOW what a Nissan LEAF pack costs.

Somebody had posted Tesla service price couple of years ago for battery upgrade. 85kW retail price was around $44,000. Minus credit for returned old battery.

Thanks, that should be part of Total Cost of Ownership. The EV Insider refuses to acknowledge that batteries every have to be replaced, they quote electricity prices versus fuel.

Many modern engines can go 200,000 miles without a rebuild, if it costs $20,000 for new batteries every ten years, the buyer needs to know.

As I posted in an earlier story, I think this $145/KWH price is completely dependent on the fact that GM sourcing a ton of other components for the car from LG Chem.


Exactly. It disappointed me to learn how much was coming from LG for that reason and the low target volume makes sense in that context.

Speculawyer said:

“…I think this $145/KWH price is completely dependent on the fact that GM sourcing a ton of other components for the car from LG Chem.”

Yup. That price (assuming it’s true) is just part of a package deal. LG Chem gets other considerations as part of the deal, so other customers should not expect to be able to negotiate such a low price.

Bottom line: $145/kWh is a “sweetheart deal” price, and shouldn’t be taken as an industry standard.

another +1

The Tesla 85->90 isn’t $600/kWh. It’s a newer cell, so if they’re charging $3k, it’s $3k/90, so $33.33/kWh more. And we don’t know how that splits into cost and profit.

I think your math needs some work. The $3,000 is for upgrading the 85 kWh battery to a 90 kWh battery, that’s a total increase of 5 kWh. So the cost per kWh for the increase is $3,000 / 5 kWh or $600/kWh.

so go buy that NEW leaf pack ONLY, no you cant so your comparison is void anyway. in case you dpnmt know nissan is exchange it requires old pack to be returned

You can’t take the $3k price and divide it that way and make any sense. The upgrade price is across all the cells, a buyer is getting a different, newer technology cell.

The actual 90 kWh battery pack cost is $25,000 as verified by a few Model S owners. They do have a core charge return of $2,500 which is very low, but this is basically a price they have to offer but don’t really want people to take them up on it. That’s $278/kWh at the pack level for the latest generation NCA cells with a little bit of silicon in the anode.

They also don’t have to spend any more R&D on batteries for your cherished little EV’s do they?

More like “Boo hoo EV sector.”

LG Chem would be more likely to succeed, and develop better batteries, if its customers didn’t pressure margins. GM sort of fixed that.

Nice one GM !

I guess those affordable longer range batteries are not too far away after all.

I never trusted that chart. The fact that the price is constant until 2019 did not seem true. I expect a regular decline every year.

I think GM has a contract with LG Chem for three years at a fixed price of $145 per kWh. The actual cost for LG Chem can change every year.


I would guess that too, and expect that the decline in 2019 would be the result of chemistry improvements (greater energy density) in addition to process efficiencies.

IQ130 said:

“I think GM has a contract with LG Chem for three years at a fixed price of $145 per kWh. The actual cost for LG Chem can change every year.”

Yup. That chart is mis-labeled. It shouldn’t be labeled “Battery Cell Cost“, but rather “Wholesale Battery Cell Price“.

Looks like LG selling batteries to GM at cost in return for partnership with Bolt to kickstart LG automotive.

I think that’s the bottom line.

Yay! Now we’ll all have plug-ins with that kind of kWh/$!

Then why are these cars so expensive??

That says the Bolts battery is only 7500$.

The car is 37500. So the rest of the Bolt is 30,000$.???? Huh

Or even worse the 30 kwh leaf. Battery cost is 4500$. Rest of car is 30,000 and that’s WITHOUT a TMS.

Well, $145 is just for the cells. They need to be build into a pack with thermal management, balancing circuits, monitoring circuits, structure, charging circuits, etc.


yes I know it was a stretch….but I still think the general point I was making is valid….and it bodes well for the future of EV’s. Let’s face it. Almost NO ONE would have guessed prices are ALREADY that low.

Oh, I completely agree with that. The $145/KWH number surprised me. And I think EV prices will start dropping in the coming years.

Dieselgate, this low battery price, increasing penetration of rooftop solar PV, strengthening climate change rules, strengthening car emissions rules, more EV & PHEV models, and other things will all cause a bigger market that will push down prices.

1) That $145/kWh is the contracted _cell level_ price for the Bolt’s battery in 2016. That doesn’t include BMS & sensors, cooling system, packaging materials, assembly of the battery, testing (which is crucial… A defective battery at those voltages/currents is pretty dangerous) or mounting the battery inside the vehicle.
Wouldn’t surprise me if GM’s overall cost for the battery is 50-75% more than the raw cell cost, so more like $12000.

2) We don’t know what other clauses that LG-GM contract has… Maybe GM is committing to buying additional non-battery components (sounds like it, from the joint press conference they had this week), maybe LG gets to participate in the design stages, maybe GM is guaranteeing not to buy from anyone else for a certain period.

It is not maybe, GM is definitely sourcing a ton of other components from LG. I’m sure that was the only way they got that battery price. That battery price is probably a loss-leader.

A sweetheart deal price, yes. LG Chem getting a significantly lower per-kWh profit off the deal, probably.

A loss leader? Almost certainly not; not for the high volume that GM will be buying. LG Chem wouldn’t agree to a price that would actually lose them money on every kWh.

I wondered the same about SparkEV. Spark gas is $10K cheaper while battery is only $4K (at $200/kWh)? There’s lots of room for SparkEV price to go down, far under $20K even without any subsidy.

Lets remember that legacy auto makers have had decades to amortize away basic development costs for gasmobiles, and that they can spread the tooling-up costs for, at the least, certain common parts across all their lines of cars. An auto maker making its first PHEV or its first BEV, or even (as in the case of the Bolt) its first BEV intended to be produced in more than compliance car numbers, is going to incur significantly greater development costs and tooling up costs for the new model. Obviously those initial costs have to be passed along to the consumer. There’s also the issue of volume sales. Since legacy auto makers can’t expect to sell their cars in as great a volume as their best-selling gasmobiles, they have to make up for lack of volume by a higher per-unit price. All these factors will ease over time, as legacy auto makers add more and more PEVs to their production, and as they start selling in larger numbers per model. As has been said many times: All other things being equal, a BEV should be significantly cheaper to make than a comparable gasmobile. Unfortunately, this early in the EV revolution, we’re a… Read more »

In case of SparkEV, much of it come from SparkGas 1LT, which cost $15K. Motor for engine would be a wash (motor might cost less), so only big price differential would be the battery. Even at $5K for battery (over $200/kWh), you’re still talking $20K.

Yes, there are minor differences, such as suspension and brackets. But those can’t explain $26K that it is now.

I wish GM would make SparkEV the VW beetle of 21st century by make/marketing 7 billion of them, and bring the price down (or more profit for them). I mean, they already paid for all the development cost. Cheap, efficient, compact, fun, make it the “folks EV” of 21st century!

Uh, the dealer needs to make some money. Those dealers that NADA says are there to help out the consumer.

Remember GM announcing pricing for the Volt. The Volt price was to be in the $22K to $25K range. Then GM raised the target price almost $10K, 2 months after POTUS announced the $7500 tax credit.

Wow. It sounds like giving free charge problem when it comes to high EV pricing…

I was pretty surprised when that number leaked. 1) because it was so low and 2) because it actually got leaked since this industry is so secretive.

Well apparently GM is not so protective of the secrets of its suppliers, only its own secrets.

That’s the thing, it wasn’t a leak at all… It was on a slide in an official, public GM business-oriented conference.
And not only was a number made public, which is unprecendented AFAIK, it specifically referred to a product (the Bolt’s battery pack) and a timeframe (2016), and said that the price was already contracted.
Interestingly, I retrieved the GM presentation on Oct. 4, and that number was there (slide #52)… It’s now been deleted from the PDF…

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear someone got fired for making the number public…


wavelet says:

“…it wasn’t a leak at all… It was on a slide in an official, public GM business-oriented conference.”

Well now I think I understand. Seems that this wasn’t a decision on the part of GM to make that figure public, but rather a slide intended for GM internal and confidential use, which mistakenly got included in a public presentation.

I was trying to figure out why GM would choose to make that price public. If this was a slip-up rather than corporate strategy, then the mystery is solved.

GM should have vetted the possibility of price disclosure with LG first as a courtesy. That said, I’m surprised there wasn’t a non-disclosure clause in the price agreement if LG wasn’t considering similar prices levels for its other major customers. That is a legal faux paus on LG’s end that should not have happened.

I wonder if the cultural difference resulted in the pricing getting released. Perhaps Koreans are not quite as strict about drafting NDAs compared to US companies, and since no NDA was attached to the pricing, GM felt it was fine disclosing it?

Its such a counterproductive move at least from LG’s point of view, that they probably never even considered it as a potential problem.
Standard business ethics demands that you not reveal, publicly, the prices you pay to your suppliers.


* with “1” used to represent an undisclosed whole number.

Definitely agree. In my experience even revealing supplier prices to business acquaintances is frowned upon. Revealing it to the public is pretty much never done.

In way, it is kind of good. If GM’s sourcing of large quantities of batteries has enabled LG to sell them profitably at $145 per Kwh.. then I would happily see that advantage passed on to other manufacturers so that it lowers the cost of all plug-ins on the market.

@ David M,

the speculation is that LG is giving GM the batteries at cost in return for the added business with the inverters, motors, chargers, pack…….shoot darn near the whole car is made by LG. I mean don’t even put a GM logo on it…..or at a minimum put an insignia “LG inside” on the Bolt.

Hey, LG makes pretty good TVs and smartphones, and other electronics….I actually don’t mind if it’s the “LG car presented by Chevrolet”. :p

GeorgeS said:

“…at a minimum put an insignia ‘LG inside’ on the Bolt.”

Yeah, “LG Inside”. The entire car won’t be made by LG Chem, altho perhaps most or all the power electronics will be, in addition to the battery pack and traction motor(s).

At least GM will make the doors, the case and the slots… er, the body and the suspension. 😉


It’s seems likely to me that LG will be losing money on the cells near-term. That is the “buy-in”. They will make money over time,and over the project from the other components – and again, a strategic “buy-in” to get into the auto business in a larger way. That said, they expect overall (over time and the project) that it is a win for LG, or they wouldn’t have signed the contract. My point is I’m not convinced LG, in 2016, can make money on cells at $145/Kwh.

Uh oh. Is it the beginning of the end for Bolt? With the news of Orion plant downsizing, it feels cold…

Here is a good Chart showing the components LG is supplying for the Bolt.

While it would seem that LG is making the whole car, there are still hundreds of components from suppliers other than LG. Concentrating the major EV components from one subcontractor is smart if they get superior pricing. There are probably significant contractual and IP restrictions to letting LG make these components for other manufacturers.

If LG is doeing all the technological stuff, GM becomes a retailer that just adds a packaging a can.

LG Chem should stop whining. Everybody knows that customers who buy in large volumes get volume discounts.

But I have to wonder just why GM would publicly disclose info that all other EV makers keep as a trade secret. Could it be that the $145/kWh price isn’t true; that GM is once again practicing disinformation, as it did when it told everyone the Volt was going to be a pure serial hybrid?

Of course, I don’t have any actual evidence that GM is lying again. But then, I don’t think we have any hard evidence that they’re telling the truth about $145/kWh, either.

Probably wanted to make a statement to every other serious EV player: “You guys can’t touch this pricing.” Or in Tesla’s case, “We don’t need a gigafactory to compete with you”.

Why continue the FUD on the Volt being serial. It works out better for the customer to have a serial/parallel system – more efficient. For example, the serial i3 REx only gets 39MPG (on a super light chassis) while the heavier 2016 Volt gets 42MPG. Other than snotty EV purity this is a non-issue.

Because it fits his anti-GM narrative

The i3 was ill designed on purpose.

A well designed serial hybrid would beat any parallel design. A serial hybrid is by definition a full fledged BEV, with a separate generator. Now, none good one exist because companies would have given the true feeling of powerful EVs, with the possibility to recharge it on the fly for long road trips.
This would be contrary to their history of giving us only short range BEVS, and some parallel hybrids to keep us quiet.

Never forget that ICE car makers are still protecting their complex and fragile ICE enormous profits.

You’re hilariously misinformed. The Volt proves most of what you say is false.

The Volt is the best hybrid, but proves nothing because, beside the hand crafted ones, we do not have any properly designed serial hybrid to compare with.

Your view is non-sensical.

How could it ever be possible for an engine, to drive a generator , then have rectification losses, (or even cycloconverter losses, which has not been used in the automotive sphere as of yet), then have inverter losses, then have motor losses, when the new Volt’s ICE is mechanically connected to the wheels, but through a differential gearing trick keeps the engine from moving when in EV only mode?

Helical gear boxes are these days over 98% efficient. Electrical losses through several different devices add up to around 5 times the amount of loss, and thats assuming peak efficiency.

I’m no engineer, but I well aware of technologies. A well designed serial hybrid has more batteries and provide all the features of a pure BEV, for a fairly long range. There is a decent REx, powerful enough to provide enough power to the motor than the i3, in the case the batteries are completely depleted. But the software control the level of charge to be always sufficient not to get stuck with losses of power. Of course if the REx was to drive the motor directly, it would be less efficient than a parallel hybrid. But the well designed serial hybrid never have to go in this mode. The software would modulate the start stop of the REx on demand following the conditions of the road (up hill, city, cruising at high speed etc.) So most of the miles are done on pure precharged electricity, and for the really long trips, the REx act as a battery recharger only and the overall efficiency would be much better than let’s say.. the Volt in highway mode when it recharges the batteries while driving the wheels with the big ICE. Since it is always the electric motor driving the wheels and… Read more »
OH, ok, well, if you will allow me to critique you a bit this is by far the most intelligent thing you’ve ever mentioned. Large Diesel-Electric Locomotives, (and also large cruise ships and tankers) use what you’ve stated, the largest using Cycloconverters (i.e. changes AC to AC in one step), and trade absolute efficiency for the convenience of running a Diesel at its most efficient power point. The expensive gearboxes, and or steam turbines are eliminated as a cost simply because the ‘serial’ nature of it causes them not to exist. Bringing this argument down to the typical home, you could say those tiny, quiet inverter generators you see at flea markets and county fairs (wherever a little bit of electricity is needed on a temporary basis), are ‘inefficient’. But as a practical matter, since the majority of time the unit is lightly loaded, and the engine is always running at its peak efficiency point, then overall it is a much nicer, fuel efficient product, as opposed to old fashioned generators which must run at a constant speed due to the fixed frequency requirement, hence are only more efficient at full loading only. The proof is in the huge numbers… Read more »

Well, you complete my toughs about the serial hybrids, a good design will surely let the REx operate at it’s most efficient point.

More batteries, no need for a big engine running the wheel. One electric motor powerful enough and you will see the overall power and efficiency are increased,the pollution reduced.

That is likely the reason why Toyota doesn’t want to disclose the electric yield of its direct free piston generator. If they do it will become obvious that it is way better than a crank and shaft based system and much more compact. This would then question even further why they don’t do an ev with rex.

Who cares what he believes or doesn’t, since he’s clueless more than half the time.

He said, no doubt due to his great engineering skills, that it is impossible for a new volt to have 50 miles range, (epa 53, and a possible 65 with a light foot), or that in no way would the BOlt do anywhere near 200 miles (epa 203, so that means 230 with a light foot).

Get real people!

I’m pretty sure GM already pays less than 145$.
The battery is the only component that may be used to justify the high price of EVS. So they say it cost 145$ to keep such a high price for a compact car.

OTOH why would they disclose the price of the most critical part of their new car to the competition.

It is cheaper if GM does its own batteries like Tesla.

Large and small cell formats are so different in size and quantity, one has to wonder whether this is more important than doing it “in house”.

Those that cheer for the “leak” of this low price – you’re missing the other part of the image.

Since the selling price is already low, and very likely, will continue to drop – that goes for the cost of production too, how much profit will the battery manufacturer makes if it also keeps dropping the selling price?


So how many battery manufacturers will continue to stay in a business where very little money is made?

And we are talking about an industry of just a handful of manufacturers!

Does solar panel / industry (outside of China) ring a bell to anyone here?

Since the industry is young, it is of utmost importance to have a healthy profit to sustain it, hence a crucial trade secret for the pricing.

Auto manufacturers can benefit from the lower pricing, as well as through REAL government incentives (not tax break or credits, but real cash), a no-frill model, etc.

Classic damn if you do, damn if you don’t!

Initial high profit margin matters more to tiny startups. In case of battery makers, they are multi billion dollar businesses. If they make profit in 5 or 10 years, short term loss is just investment cost. Of course, there’s no guarantee that BEV will be success, but risk is part of investing.

Breach of contract? Maybe the price of the Bolt just went up?

What happened to, “Thou shalt not piss off lone supplier of critical components…”

This foot-shooting is classic GM.

LG’s in too deep now to back out. Already $250+ million invested. As the Bolt is probably less than 12 months away from production, I doubt LG could reverse course without significant resources being wasted.

Even then, this assumes GM violated a NDA, which I’m thinking even they are not dumb enough to do.

GM had me head scratching before when they said the new VOLT will be replaced by an even newer 2017 model in 2015/2016 year period already after selling it for less than a year. Their PR is confusing…

I think on both points you may be giving GM too much credit.

The important thing is that cell costs have plummeted and are ahead of the rosiest of analyst expectations. This means the demise of the ICE will also come sooner than expected, because who will pay more money for a lesser car?

The other lesson is that hydrogen better get off its butt or be left far in the dust.

Sorry if this was already said above, but I’m going to say this before reading through the comments:

“now all of LG Chem’s other customers are going to be asking for the price.”

So then LG Chem should ask their other customers to agree to a similar contract to what they offered GM. Presumably this involves an agreement to purchase a large volume of cells over many years at this single price. It also includes LG Chem’s involvement in many other facets of the car, all of which guarantee profits for the company.

Right. Instead of whining about it, LG Chem should look at this as a marketing opportunity: “You want to talk about a deal similar to what GM got for their Bolt? We’d be happy to talk to you about being a supplier for not only the batteries, but also the electric drivetrain and power electronics in any new plug-in EVs you’re planning to build.”

Maybe LG is learning from GM: how to drive away opportunity that comes knocking at your door.

That assumes LG has the capacity to satisfy all those contracts and doesn’t have exclusivity or privileged contracts with some automakers (like committing to GM that another automaker won’t be able to leapfrog them with cheaper prices later on).

‘This model S sounds like a piece of junk!’

Don’t hold back – tell us what you really think. hehe.

“CR seems to be losing credibility”.

No argument there, although CR employees I’m sure are much richer running the stock price higher and now all they’d have to do is short it.