Gen 1 GM Volt Plug-In Hybrid (2011-2015)

[DaveEV]

Why did you quote my question, and not post a factual reply?

Why do you insist on disparaging what I thought was an insightful comment? I certainly didn't intent to post non-factual information - in fact - I included multiple references to data used to support my claims.

If you don't like my reply - ignore it instead of adding noise to the thread. If you disagree with something I stated - feel free to continue the discussion by countering.

Back on topic: The Manheim price of ~$15k appears correct and representative to me based on actual listed prices of used Volts as I described. I don't see any reason to doubt that number - while I see plenty of reason to doubt the conclusions based on that number. Comparing to the most recent LEAF wholesale prices, the Volt prices appear to be right inline considering the higher MSRP of the Volt.

MOD NOTE: Split the OT non-sense here: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=17664" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Agreed; for the U.S. the base model range has to be higher than areas where people have shorter commutes and/or more moderate temps.

For the same price ? Then all you are saying is they should reduce the price.

Anyway - my contention is - if they can make a 110 mile Leaf for $30k - then they should make a 80 mile one for $27k. There is no particular reason why the base model "has" to have a higher range.

That's fine by me, assuming that there will be a significant number of people who will opt for the shorter range car to justify producing it. In the U.S. I expect that will be a small %, as long as the next step up in range isn't too expensive. Too much of the U.S. has climates/commutes that make 80 miles EPA inadequate, especially over the long haul.

To be a near universal commute car for the U.S. (with workplace charging), what's needed is 70-80 miles with heat/defroster use plus reserve guaranteed for at least a decade (preferably twice that), which probably equates to 150 miles EPA. That's why I think 150 miles EPA will be the tipping point for mainstream users - it's not that they need to drive 150 miles daily for commuting and errands, it's that they need half of that with no worries for enough years to make the car valuable second hand (since the average new car is kept by its first owner for 6 years now).

Improving the degradation curve of batteries is another approach that will hopefully cost less than just sticking a bigger pack in; If you can guarantee 80% after 10 years instead of 70%, You might only need 120-125 miles EPA to give you the 70-80 miles guaranteed. Alternatively, finding a chemistry that's less affected by low temps, and/or improving the efficiency of heating and insulation might do the job.

 

[RegGuheert]

That's fine by me, assuming that there will be a significant number of people who will opt for the shorter range car to justify producing it. In the U.S. I expect that will be a small %, as long as the next step up in range isn't too expensive. Too much of the U.S. has climates/commutes that make 80 miles EPA inadequate, especially over the long haul.

To be a near universal commute car for the U.S. (with workplace charging), what's needed is 70-80 miles with heat/defroster use plus reserve guaranteed for at least a decade (preferably twice that), which probably equates to 150 miles EPA. That's why I think 150 miles EPA will be the tipping point for mainstream users - it's not that they need to drive 150 miles daily for commuting and errands, it's that they need half of that with no worries for enough years to make the car valuable second hand (since the average new car is kept by its first owner for 6 years now).

Improving the degradation curve of batteries is another approach that will hopefully cost less than just sticking a bigger pack in; If you can guarantee 80% after 10 years instead of 70%, You might only need 120-125 miles EPA to give you the 70-80 miles guaranteed. Alternatively, finding a chemistry that's less affected by low temps, and/or improving the efficiency of heating and insulation might do the job.

Excellent post! I agree 100%!

 

[GRA]

"but then some company like GM comes out with the ELR Visit the ELR Forumpriced as it is, and blows that theory out of the water."

Yes, you're right. But you'll have to agree that those who have a "clear vision" have been rewarded in the
market place:

Yes, and right now that is precisely one company, Tesla.

1. Nissan has produced an overall good product, notwithstanding their battery temp problem.
But given where they would have needed to position the Leaf with battery mods, e.g. temp control,
that would have had added an unacceptable cost delta.

Nissan is the poster child for how not to market or support early adopters. Given their actions from 2012 to this year, it's obvious that no one with any pull there has ever read Geoffrey Moore's "Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_Chasm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Every single major mistake Nissan has made with the LEAF over the past 3.5 years could have been easily avoided if anyone with juice at Nissan had read this, and acted accordingly. We've been making the same points for the past two + years here, but they just kept plowing ahead in their 'it's just another car, and we know what we need to do to sell and support those' rut. BTW, I see "Crossing the Chasm has been updated again just this year. I wonder if Moore used Nissan and Tesla as examples this time around; page 1 of the 1999 edition used the EV1 as an example.

2. The Volt has done well with a basic copy of the Prius, i.e. PiPrius with about 2X the battery capacity.
It could have had a better interior, i.e. a 5th seat and more trunk space, but they still sell fairly well.

Yes, I think Chevy has done as well as could be expected with the Volt, especially facing all the ridiculous politically-driven criticism early on. Gen 2 will be make or break time, as they need to correct all the platform-inherent issues with Gen 1 that you mention, plus turn a profit on them. But they did do a nice Gen 1.5 update, and have continued to make small tweaks. BTW, the battery is almost 4 times the size of the PiP's, currently 17.1 kWh vs. 4.4 IIRR.

3. The Tesla MS is positioned well for now and gets more than adequate exposure
without any real corporate marketing. It's questionable whether any other automotive
OEM could have done as well as Tesla with a similar product, i.e. because Tesla has
been positioned as an "automotive OEM disruptor" with a unique product.

And you can bet that every exec with a high-tech background from Elon down, has either read Moore or else is infused with those principles from working in the field. To repeat, Tesla is the ONLY company to date that has really understood their PEV customers. They've made their mistakes, but they act swiftly to correct them.

4. The Ford Focus is basically a Leaf feature-for-feature and in the same price range.
Based on that, you would think it should sell as well as the Leaf given its price.
Given the Leaf's momentum and early market entry, it's difficult for the Focus to challenge
the Leaf without any key feature, e.g. lower price.

Lack of interest from Ford is the problem here, along with the lack of QC. If you don't need the latter, you're in a hot or cold climate and the cargo space isn't an issue, I think the Focus is the better car. And Ford _has_ done an good job with the C-Max and especially the Fusion Energi conversions, and just needs to use an appropriately designed platform for the next gen. to get the batteries out of the cargo space.

5. One can't deny that the Prius has been a great success story, given what Toyota developed
and where they positioned it.

Helps to have a large, enthusiastic and satisfied customer base, who will migrate to the 'next generation' of Prius even if it's such a mild stretch. The fact that many of them won't go near a U.S. brand car owing to past problems doesn't hurt either. Being the cheapest car that qualifies for a green sticker in California is a huge advantage, and I'd love to see a breakdown of PiP sales in states that allow SO HOV use for PEVs vs. those that don't. Lately, I've been seeing PiP's more often than any other plug-in, as I think a lot of early LEAFs are being turned in at the end of their leases and people are going elsewhere (RAV4/Volt/Model S/?).

But then you have the not so well positioned:


1. The BMW i3 clearly can't compete in the lower end with Leaf/Volt/Prius, and starting at $45K
they are in a no-value market per price, i.e. lacking unique features, great looks, super performance,
a 150+ range. They would have been better off if they produced a base model starting at $65K-$75K
to compete with the MS by adding key unique features missing on the MS.

Agreed. Once the fan boys get theirs, I don't see the i3 having legs in the U.S. unless they give it a hold mode and a bigger tank. Europe, maybe, but IMO it's just asking way too much $ for a commute car.

2. The Spark needs to be GM's $20K - $25K mass market BEV to take-on the Honda's lowend
ICEs and thereby have a true mass market BEV with overall cost competitiveness to an ICE
vehicle.

Mostly agree, although I think the Spark's too small to take on Honda - they'd have to step up to the Sonic. The Spark would sell quite well if GM would just try to sell it outside of Ca./Or. Biggest mistake, although makes sense from the perspective of the bean counters, was to use the same 3.3 kW charger as the Volt without offering a more powerful one. Makes sense for a PHEV, but not for a BEV given the competition.

3. Many seen to think that the BMW i8 (hybrid) is a competitor to the MS which is totally ridiculous,
i.e. it's just a two seat hybrid of BMW's Z cars (Z4/Z8) with a fair performance. It'll probably not
even sell as well as the marginally successful Z cars based on its $125K starting price.

I think it will sell quite well judging by the reviews in car mags, but any car that costs that much has nothing to do with normal drivers.

4. The Porsche Panamera is a marginal series hybrid with just a 10KwHr battery. It can barely go
a few miles before the ICE starts. It's questionable why they even made it a plug-in.

Bottom line: Yes, many automotive OEMs have not done well when positioning their EV products.

Here we disagree. The Panamera S E-Hybrid makes up about 10% of Panamera sales, and this is the closest competitor the Model S has at the moment, especially the P85. An AER of 15 miles is a bit low, but still adequate for many urban areas. The first direct competition for Tesla will be the Cayenne S E-Hybrid, which I expect will take a fair amount of the Model X's market given Porsche's pricing (oh, and Tesla foregoing any customers who need to carry kayaks/canoes on their roofs).

 

[lorenfb]

"Yes, and right now that is precisely one company, Tesla."

When an OEM has basically no resale price limit when adding features & benefits, e.g. range!

"Every single major mistake Nissan has made with the LEAF over the past 3.5 years could have been easily avoided if anyone with juice at Nissan had read this, and acted accordingly."

With the exception of battery temp control and battery life, define Nissan's problems.
The jury is still out on other OEM battery lives, e.g. Tesla. And please define how you
might apply Moore's theories to Nissan.

"Here we disagree. The PanameraVisit the Panamera Forum S e-HybridVisit the e-Hybrid Forum makes up about 10% of PanameraVisit the Panamera Forum sales,

The sales data on the Panamera hybrid is overly optimistic, i.e. having personal familiarity
with a number key Porsche dealerships in SoCal confirms the very very low sales.

"and this is the closest competitor the Model S has at the moment, especially the P85."

Porsche would be ecstatic if that were true. Yes, there are some common features,
but many uncommon ones, e.g. MS - true EV, Panamera handling/sportness.

"The first direct competition for Tesla will be the Cayenne S e-HybridVisit the e-Hybrid Forum, which I expect will take a fair amount of the Model X's market given PorscheVisit the Porsche Forum's pricing (oh, and Tesla foregoing any customers who need to carry kayaks/canoes on their roofs)."

Not really, as the Tesla X is a CUV and the Cayenne is still just an overpriced SUV with very costly
maintenance, poor reliability, and a terrible resale. The Cayenne over time will be Porsche's next 928.
The naive Porsche buyer, like the "new Audi" buyer, gets sucked into the marketing hyperbole at
purchase time, and then reality sets in after a few years of ownership, i.e. they vow "no more Cayennes
or Audis".

Bottom line: If you're a TSLA owner and the above statement had any validity, you might consider taking
your TSLA profits.

 

[mkjayakumar]

Agreed. Once the fan boys get theirs, I don't see the i3 having legs in the U.S. unless they give it a hold mode and a bigger tank.

While they are at it, they might as well remove the electric motor and battery and make the tank much bigger and make it a full ICE car. It will sell really well.

 

[GRA]

"Yes, and right now that is precisely one company, Tesla."

When an OEM has basically no resale price limit when adding features & benefits, e.g. range!

"Every single major mistake Nissan has made with the LEAF over the past 3.5 years could have been easily avoided if anyone with juice at Nissan had read this, and acted accordingly."

With the exception of battery temp control and battery life, define Nissan's problems.
The jury is still out on other OEM battery lives, e.g. Tesla. And please define how you
might apply Moore's theories to Nissan.

Their whole approach to communication and support assumed that high-tech early adopters can be treated just like the dumb herd that buys most of their ICEs. Early adopters are very willing to accept some problems due to cutting-edge tech, and are happy to work with the company to improve things. But you have to communicate openly and honestly with them, it needs to be two-way and prompt, and there needs to be no doubt that you have their back. Which BEV company displays this approach to customer service, Nissan or Tesla? Which company has instead treated their customers like mushrooms?

"Here we disagree. The PanameraVisit the Panamera Forum S e-HybridVisit the e-Hybrid Forum makes up about 10% of PanameraVisit the Panamera Forum sales,

The sales data on the Panamera hybrid is overly optimistic, i.e. having personal familiarity
with a number key Porsche dealerships in SoCal confirms the very very low sales.

I assume that Porsche knows how many cars of what type they sell - see

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140708-panamera.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Porsche reports rising demand for plug-in Panamera S-E hybrid

"8 July 2014

"Porsche reported an almost 8% increase in sales during the first half of 2014 to 87,800 units. In the first six months, the new Panamera Gran Turismo was especially in demand with around 13,500 units were delivered—a rise of 28%. Also, almost one in ten customers opted for the Panamera S-E plug-in hybrid model."

"and this is the closest competitor the Model S has at the moment, especially the P85."

Porsche would be ecstatic if that were true. Yes, there are some common features,
but many uncommon ones, e.g. MS - true EV, Panamera handling/sportness.

Sure, they have their differences, which is why I said it's the closest competitor at the moment. Until someone esle comes out with a five or more pax. BEV with Model S like performance and price, there won't be direct competition. For a comparo of the two, see

http://www.hybridcars.com/2014-porsche-panamera-s-e-hybrid-vs-tesla-model-s-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



quote="lorenfb"]

"The first direct competition for Tesla will be the Cayenne S e-HybridVisit the e-Hybrid Forum, which I expect will take a fair amount of the Model X's market given PorscheVisit the Porsche Forum's pricing (oh, and Tesla foregoing any customers who need to carry kayaks/canoes on their roofs)."

Not really, as the Tesla X is a CUV and the Cayenne is still just an overpriced SUV with very costly
maintenance, poor reliability, and a terrible resale. The Cayenne over time will be Porsche's next 928.
The naive Porsche buyer, like the "new Audi" buyer, gets sucked into the marketing hyperbole at
purchase time, and then reality sets in after a few years of ownership, i.e. they vow "no more Cayennes or Audis".

Bottom line: If you're a TSLA owner and the above statement had any validity, you might consider taking your TSLA profits.

OTOH, at the moment it can go anywhere in the country with nary a thought unlike the Model X, it isn't burdened with expensive, heavy, unnecessary and likely unreliable "Falcon Doors" that preclude carrying anything on the roof (you know, what the "U" stands for), it's priced to compete and will likely be better equipped, and it's not as if the Model S is proving all that reliable.

And I'm neither an Tesla or Porsche owner or stockholder.

 

[apvbguy]

OTOH, at the moment it can go anywhere in the country with nary a thought unlike the Model X, it isn't burdened with expensive, heavy, unnecessary and likely unreliable "Falcon Doors" that preclude carrying anything on the roof (you know, what the "U" stands for), it's priced to compete and will likely be better equipped, and it's not as if the Model S is proving all that reliable.

And I'm neither an Tesla or Porsche owner or stockholder.

you're just a tesla hater, how do you know the falcon doors will be unreliable? comments like that render EVERYTHING you say suspect. and exactly what do you think is unreliable on the model S?

 

[GRA]

OTOH, at the moment it can go anywhere in the country with nary a thought unlike the Model X, it isn't burdened with expensive, heavy, unnecessary and likely unreliable "Falcon Doors" that preclude carrying anything on the roof (you know, what the "U" stands for), it's priced to compete and will likely be better equipped, and it's not as if the Model S is proving all that reliable.

And I'm neither a Tesla or Porsche owner or stockholder.

you're just a tesla hater, how do you know the falcon doors will be unreliable? comments like that render EVERYTHING you say suspect. and exactly what do you think is unreliable on the model S?

I'm a Tesla hater?! :lol: I said 'likely unreliable', because these doors require electric motors, seals, switches, actuators, etc., none of which is required for a simple, manual door. If Tesla has had trouble with getting their automatic door handles to extend and retract reliably, don't you think it's just possible that a heavy, highly wind-loaded automatic door that has to deal with salt, snow and ice accretion might prove to be just a teensy bit less reliable than a simple manual door, as well as being far more expensive?

As to what's unreliable on the Model S, I think we've had more than enough reports of which systems are failing and being replaced in the Tesla topic here, at TMC and on the major EV and auto forums to preclude re-listing them again. And then there's the RAV4 and B-Class, which have demonstrated or are indicating considerable problems with the Tesla-supplied components.

I certainly hope Tesla solves the issues with the Model S, because I want them to succeed, and they're generally doing the right thing by their customers; instead of trying to deny there's a problem, they don't argue and just fix it at no cost while providing a loaner. But they have to get the components more reliable so that the need to fix them at a high rate doesn't bankrupt them, because what's manageable with fairly low-rate, high margin production on the Models S and X, won't be when Gen III arrives.

 

[evnow]

To be a near universal commute car for the U.S. (with workplace charging), what's needed is 70-80 miles with heat/defroster use plus reserve guaranteed for at least a decade (preferably twice that), which probably equates to 150 miles EPA. That's why I think 150 miles EPA will be the tipping point for mainstream users - it's not that they need to drive 150 miles daily for commuting and errands, it's that they need half of that with no worries for enough years to make the car valuable second hand (since the average new car is kept by its first owner for 6 years now).

This is the not so practical binary mentality.

What is really needed is to follow the 80/20 rule. It is easier to satisfy 80% of population rather than the rest 20%. Until EVs get a marketshare of 50% or so they need to just concentrate on those 80%.

The actual problem is there isn't really such a thing as "commute" car. People buy cars to use on multiple things - including running errands and weekend in the city / close to city trips. In other words, EVs need to satisfy 90% of scenarios of those 80% population. That is where the 150 mile EVs come in handy.

People like GRA can endlessly wait for FCEV :lol:

 

[pkulak]

you're just a tesla hater, how do you know the falcon doors will be unreliable? comments like that render EVERYTHING you say suspect. and exactly what do you think is unreliable on the model S?

I know that normal van-style sliding doors would solve exactly the problems they are trying to solve and be guaranteed more reliable. But it can't look like a minivan, so they need to reinvent the wheel and delay production and increase cost.

 

[lorenfb]

Yes, Moore's theories are problematic for all EV OEMs besides Nissan. But have posed a major problem for
Tesla as it relates to "Crossing the Chasm", as Tesla's survival is solely based now on one product,
i.e. MS. Nissan has other product lines besides the Leaf.

"The chasm is a drastic lull in market development that occurs after the visionary market is saturated
and pragmatists will not buy into a discontinuous technology unless they can reference other pragmatists,
thus the catch-22. Pragmatists dependent exclusively on references from others in their own industry
and are highly support oriented."; "Crossing the Chasm", Geoffrey Moore, Phd English Lit.

Crossing/solving the "chasm" is NOT based on hyperbole of the future, as that which comes from Tesla, e.g. Model X.

"Porsche reported an almost 8% increase in sales during the first half of 2014 to 87,800 units. In the first six months, the new Panamera Gran Turismo was especially in demand with around 13,500 units were delivered—a rise of 28%. Also, almost one in ten customers opted for the Panamera S-E plug-in hybrid model."

Yes, Porsche YTD in 2014 sold 13.5K Panameras but; "almost one in ten customers opted for the Panamera S-E plug-in hybrid model.". The real number is just over 500 YTD for the hybrid as posted on this forum:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17469&start=50

The Panamera hybrid is hardly a major competitor now for the Tesla MS!

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

If pragmatists ruled the roost in the auto market there would be no Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Cadillac, Lincoln, Jaguar, etc.

 

[apvbguy]

I know that normal van-style sliding doors would solve exactly the problems they are trying to solve and be guaranteed more reliable. But it can't look like a minivan, so they need to reinvent the wheel and delay production and increase cost.

I am hardly any sort of designer but I think your idea would be unworkable and as you noted would require an unfeasible complete rework on the model X.

 

[apvbguy]

If pragmatists ruled the roost in the auto market there would be no Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Cadillac, Lincoln, Jaguar, etc.

buggati, ferrari, aston martin, rolls and bentley. autos transcend the actual needs into the emotional wants.

 

[pkulak]

I know that normal van-style sliding doors would solve exactly the problems they are trying to solve and be guaranteed more reliable. But it can't look like a minivan, so they need to reinvent the wheel and delay production and increase cost.

I am hardly any sort of designer but I think your idea would be unworkable and as you noted would require an unfeasible complete rework on the model X.

Well sure, now that they've already designed it with the silly doors. I'm saying it should have had van doors from the beginning if they wanted doors you could open in close quarters. Plus, van doors wouldn't require a 10-foot ceiling in your garage.

 

[derkraut]

delete

 

[GRA]

To be a near universal commute car for the U.S. (with workplace charging), what's needed is 70-80 miles with heat/defroster use plus reserve guaranteed for at least a decade (preferably twice that), which probably equates to 150 miles EPA. That's why I think 150 miles EPA will be the tipping point for mainstream users - it's not that they need to drive 150 miles daily for commuting and errands, it's that they need half of that with no worries for enough years to make the car valuable second hand (since the average new car is kept by its first owner for 6 years now).

This is the not so practical binary mentality.

What is really needed is to follow the 80/20 rule. It is easier to satisfy 80% of population rather than the rest 20%. Until EVs get a marketshare of 50% or so they need to just concentrate on those 80%.

The actual problem is there isn't really such a thing as "commute" car. People buy cars to use on multiple things - including running errands and weekend in the city / close to city trips. In other words, EVs need to satisfy 90% of scenarios of those 80% population. That is where the 150 mile EVs come in handy.

People like GRA can endlessly wait for FCEV :lol:

Oh, I'm fully in agreement with 80/20, but there already is such a car, the Volt, which was explicitly designed to meet that standard for AER commuting and daily use while also allowing road trips using the existing gas infrastructure. To keep the costs down so that more people can afford PEVs, I think they also need to offer a car that meets a 50/50 standard, which is why I recommend offering a 2nd gen Volt with 20 miles AER (49% drive that or less daily).

As to waiting for FCEV, I'll wait for whichever EV meets my needs at a price I can afford; I'm technologically agnostic between BEVs and FCEVs/FCHVs/PHFCVs. At the moment a FCHV is most compatible with my operational requirements but too expensive, so if my Forester were to crap out tomorrow I would be looking at either a PHEV or a turbo-diesel, most likely the latter as there aren't yet any small wagon/CUV PHEVs out there (come on, A-3 E-Tron Sportwagen and Outlander PHEV, I want some more options). I don't buy cars because I've fallen in love with a technology any more than I buy them because I've fallen in love with a brand; either is silly, and usually a waste of money.

 

[GRA]

you're just a tesla hater, how do you know the falcon doors will be unreliable? comments like that render EVERYTHING you say suspect. and exactly what do you think is unreliable on the model S?

I know that normal van-style sliding doors would solve exactly the problems they are trying to solve and be guaranteed more reliable. But it can't look like a minivan, so they need to reinvent the wheel and delay production and increase cost.

Exactly right. Sliding doors are so plebian (what Tesla owner wants to be seen in a Mazda 5 or Odyssey?), while Gull-wing [Cough!] I mean Falcon-Wing doors set us apart from the herd, and we can pretend that the Model X is really a classic supercar for the elite. The next time you attend the Concours d'Elegance you can park it right next to the 300SL, just in case anyone misses the allusion/illusion.

 

[GRA]

Yes, Moore's theories are problematic for all EV OEMs besides Nissan. But have posed a major problem for
Tesla as it relates to "Crossing the Chasm", as Tesla's survival is solely based now on one product,
i.e. MS. Nissan has other product lines besides the Leaf.

"The chasm is a drastic lull in market development that occurs after the visionary market is saturated
and pragmatists will not buy into a discontinuous technology unless they can reference other pragmatists,
thus the catch-22. Pragmatists dependent exclusively on references from others in their own industry
and are highly support oriented."; "Crossing the Chasm", Geoffrey Moore, Phd English Lit.

Crossing/solving the "chasm" is NOT based on hyperbole of the future, as that which comes from Tesla, e.g. Model X

Certainly true, and the Model X delay due to the doors etc. doesn't help matters. I think much of the bubble of excitement around Tesla is beginning to dissipate as the buzz for being the brand new kid on the block is fading, and they will start to be viewed more objectively. They are definitely going to have to start competing on amenities such as their ICE/PHEV competitors offer for much the same total price as now, and also offer a bigger battery pack in the near future. Which is why I think if Porsche gets the Cayenne out first and siphons off some of their Model X customers it could definitely spell problems for Tesla re paying for the Model 3 development.

"Porsche reported an almost 8% increase in sales during the first half of 2014 to 87,800 units. In the first six months, the new Panamera Gran Turismo was especially in demand with around 13,500 units were delivered—a rise of 28%. Also, almost one in ten customers opted for the Panamera S-E plug-in hybrid model."

Yes, Porsche YTD in 2014 sold 13.5K Panameras but; "almost one in ten customers opted for the Panamera S-E plug-in hybrid model.". The real number is just over 500 YTD for the hybrid as posted on this forum:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17469&start=50

The Panamera hybrid is hardly a major competitor now for the Tesla MS!

Never said it was, only that it was currently the only car that came close to being a direct competitor; the ELR sure as hell isn't. :lol: The Cayenne/Model X will be a much closer match up, putting price/capability/feature for feature amenity pressure on Tesla for the first time. We already know that Tesla owners are less green and more performance-motivated than people who buy less expensive and lower-performance BEVs, and the operational flexibility provided by the Cayenne being able to use the existing gasoline infrastructure and not care how much heat/defrost is used is more likely to be critical to CUV purchasers (especially AWD) than sedan purchasers. It certainly would be for me, not that I'm willing to pay that much for any car.