Hacker News Reader

Comment by perardi | Hacker News Reader

I have no idea what GM was thinking in regards to the design of the Bolt.

“You know what Americans hate? Hatchbacks. So let’s go for that for our big re-entry into the EV market.”

>“You know what Americans hate? Hatchbacks"

Where on earth do you get his from? The top selling cars in the US are mostly SUVs and CUVs. In other words, hatchbacks.

Although technically this is a hatchback:

https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/vg6LR/s1/2018-bmw-430i-gra...

and this is a hatchback:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/76/9d/9e769dd145c21f6aaedf...

In casual speech most people are referring to two-box sub-compact/compact hatchbacks that look like this:

https://cars.usnews.com/static/images/Auto/custom/14323/2020...

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/38b2e6935d2caa4e96e963348fc...

https://cars.usnews.com/static/images/Auto/custom/14314/2020...

Which are much more popular in Europe than the US. In the US they're often derided as "econoboxes"

The Nissan Leaf is a hatchback. The Tesla Model S is a hatchback. So is the Y. You might be right about real Amuricuns but the EV buying segment rather likes hatchbacks. With the exception of one SUV, which I did not like, every car I've ever owned since my first Honda Civic has been a hatchback.

My model 3 has an enclosed trunk. Why would you call it a hatchback?

Doh, you're right. (Corrected) I have an S and the 3 isn't a hatchback (but the Y is). Need coffee. And indeed that was the reason I didn't get the 3 when it came out. The S is a little big for me but the 3 isn't a hatchback. I really like the Y though.

Oh, Americans actually like vehicles that happen to have a large hatch in the back, but they do not like cars that are shaped like hatchbacks. The Model S is shaped like a sports sedan. It does not look like a hatchback.

It is however a hatchback. I dump my bike in the back as I have with every hatchback I've owned. You can even camp in the back. But if you prefer, you can call it a liftback.

I've been under the impression that hatchback versus lift back depends on the car's dimensions. A longer car with a shape closer to a conventional sedan would be a liftback and a shorter/boxier car with a shape closer to a traditional SUV would be a hatchback. But it is essentially the same.

If you think a hatchback doesn't look the way you expect a hatchback to look, then your expectation of what hatchbacks look like is obviously wrong and should be updated.

If I had to guess, what you think of as "looks like a hatchback" is actually 'two-box' while "shaped like a sedan" is 'three-box.' Three-box hatchbacks have been around for decades though.

I believe the Model S is better described as a liftback than a hatchback.

I think hatchbacks are unpopular in the US for the same reason automatic gearboxes are unpopular in the UK: automakers price them higher and in the smaller car segments (where hatchbacks are more prevalent) carbuyers are more price-sensitive. I don’t know why carmakers price them higher - it seems artificial.

I love my Bolt. Inexpensive, smooth, carries kids, has a roof rack.

+1. I combine the two and carry my kids on the roof rack for additional cargo space.

Agreed, there's a lot to be said for it. I drive a Tesla Model 3 and my wife drives a Bolt, which means I get plenty of seat time in both. I wouldn't say the Tesla is definitively better. There are things I definitely prefer the Bolt for.

Can you elaborate on the Bolt's advantages over a Model 3?

Sure!

- Lighter, more nimble -- super tight turning radius, tossable, easy to put anywhere you want in a tight parking lot, etc. Visibility in the Model 3 is great, but it's still a heavier, bigger car.

- The Bolt has CarPlay. I can't get my Model 3 to reliably read me text messages, stream music (even getting it to recognize my playlists in Spotify was a huge chore). CarPlay is just so much easier to use. Love the big map screen on the Tesla screen, but I really wish they'd implement CarPlay. They definitely have the screen real estate to do it.

- The Bolt distinguishes between forward regen and reverse. So when I back down my driveway, it works just like you expect a normal car to do it. In the Tesla I have to push the accelerator to get it to move downhill in reverse. Or else I use creep mode and then have to use the brake at every stoplight. The Bolt gives me both. And since you decide every time you put it in Drive, you can skip regen altogether, which is what my wife does. No going into a menu every time and changing it.

- Cost. This is situational, of course. My Model 3 runs me close to a grand a month in depreciation alone. I paid 6 grand for a 36 month lease on the Bolt.

- Wipers, of course. The Bolt has normal wiper controls. On the Model 3 I have to get used to them running at the highest speed for no reason, or turn them off and resign myself to holding down the stalk button when I need them.

My model 3 is a performance model, so it's silly fast, but the Bolt isn't unpleasantly slow. The Bolt seats suck, but I feel the same about the Model 3 seats (my butt has grown accustomed to Recaros, I got spoiled). The OTA updates are more frequent on the Model 3, definitely, but at least the Bolt can get OTA updates as well. Hell, my F250 can at this point, but Tesla is much more frequently tweaking things.

Thanks for the info.

As more carmakers offer completive battery electric vehicles, maybe Tesla's more subtle deficiencies will garner more criticism.

The wipers and lack of Carplay/Android Auto seems to be a universal complaint. I can't think of any mainstream cars that start over $30K and don't offer Carplay or Android Auto.

I completely understand the decisions Tesla has made, and they have done an admirable job. They needed to make the car feel premium enough to justify the price, while still cutting costs at every opportunity. So they made their own seats, branded vinyl as vegan leather, spun a huge center infotainment screen as a feature instead of the cheapest way to get a dashboard in the car, etc. But competition is heating up, so they will have to stay on their toes.

I'm really pleased to see that Ford actually put forth a good faith effort with the Mach-E. And one-upped Tesla with the interior at the same time. The Mach-E isn't a compliance car, and we need to see more of this in the market. The Bolt, despite some protests to the contrary, is absolutely still a compliance car, though I think they executed pretty well all considered. I agree that at this point CarPlay/Android Auto is table stakes. It's more noteworthy not to have it, than to have it.

All of the crossover "SUV"s are hatchbacks. Americans love them.

They were thinking that slowing down EV adoption helps them retain market strength longer.

Or gives them more time to adapt/learn before more serious ventures in.

Yeah, it reads like a compliance vehicle. They know they’ll lose money hand over fist, so they made it as much of a nerd pod as possible.

(And there’s a market for nerd pods. See: Prius. But that ain’t Chevy’s market, no sir.)

Companies that produce compliance vehicles do it only where they have to comply. Hence companies like Toyota that make EVs only when forced to by law. That does not describe GM.

GM sells & markets the Bolt (and formerly the Volt) in all states and provinces of North America. Which is more than you can say for most manufacturers. It's really just a family of Tesla, GM, and Nissan, and of those two only GM and Tesla have taken battery temp management and lifespans seriously.

GM's EV engineering is up there with Tesla. They are not producing compliance cars.

Unlike Tesla they are responsible to their shareholders, and have to pay a dividend. So they make and sell what is profitable. The EV thing, they are limited by battery supplies and market demand, but they are well positioned to do better than the others once those obstacles are surmounted.

The Bolt is a good vehicle. It's not in a form factor I love, but the tech in it is excellent.

GM was in the red for every Bolt sold, somewhere between selling each unit at a $4000 to $9000 loss[1]. And GM's CEO Mary Barra full on admitted to GM investors that GM EV's will likely not see profitability until between 2020 and 2030 [2], and AFAIK it's mostly due to focusing on Cadilliac branded EV's first.

I don't know of much reason to spend high capital to create a production line, and then take a loss per unit sold other then for compliance.

[1]https://www.hotcars.com/gm-admits-bolt-not-profitable/

[2]https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/gm-doesnt-expect-to-make-mon...

> GM was in the red for every Bolt sold, somewhere between selling each unit at a $4000 to $9000 loss[1].

Tesla consistently has a larger loss per vehicle, and unlike GM there is no actual profit center to compensate if the government subsidies happen to dry up.

Tesla's been able to improve to the point where they are still profitable without emissions credit sales.

https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/delivery/public/document/tesla/3...

They could cut the $330 million in R&D costs too, but i don't think they should given their niche.

That's amazing concidering how crappy the bolt I test drove 6 months ago was. It was like they took their cheapest subcompact, threw some batteries and motors in it, and started charging $40k for a car that if it were gas would be maybe $20k at best.

Is it that amazing? GM has been squeezing efficiency out of thier ICE production lines for close to 100 years.

Suddenly switch to a new type of power train and combine that with small volumes and I’m not surprised in the least it crazy expensive.

> GM's EV engineering is up there with Tesla.

Can they use the supercharger network? Or are they restricted to shower charging on road trips?

Shower charging.

The bolt fast charges at 50kW up to about 40%, then gradually drops to 35kW at 55% charge state. After that the charge rate drops off horrifically, to less than 10kW above 80%.

It's a compliance car designed for city driving only.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com