My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that Tesla receives ZERO government subsidies.
What they do receive is credits that are government mandated from other automobile manufacturers that fail to meet certain pollution or mileage standards. So because those other manufacturers are non competitive, they are penalized and Tesla gets some of that money.
Taxpayers aren't on the hook for it like the bailout of GM.
So GM is going to invest $47 billion in EV development. BFD. And good luck with that. Elon could write a check for $47 billion today and have several new factories up and running within a year, driving down the cost per vehicle and likely seeing more technological innovation from what are the best and brightest staff of engineers on the planet. And while GM invests all that money which I don't even know where they are going to get it from, they will have to continue to produce their ICE vehicles, pay ridiculous amounts to the UAW and fund pensions that are unsustainable.
And support their outmoded dealer and sales network and spend millions on advertising their mediocre vehicles.
Anyone care to guess just how good their line of EV's will be after they spend $47 billion dollars over the next few years trying to catch up with Tesla who will by then not be 5-6 years ahead but probably 10 years ahead ?
Go ahead and buy GM stock now while it is $45. Maybe it will go up 12X like Tesla did in the last 16 or so months. Or not.
Fanboiism aside there's still a significant difference between Tesla, a ground-up EV manufacturer, and traditional chassis makers, like GM, that are trying to get into EV's. The approaches are VERY different and that may or may not work out in the traditional manufacturer's favour.
Take the Corvette and Camaro as an example (and I am NOT a GM fan). Both of these cars have world-class chassis' under them. Yes, the Camaro has slits for windows, but it's an incredibly capable car. IF GM is able to maintain those chassis dynamics while electrifying that platform, that's going to work in their favour.
If we look at Porsche (and Audi) in the Taycan, they produced an electric Porsche. The great thing is they produced an electric Porsche, the bad thing? They produced an electric Porsche. The Taycan is a heck of a lot like a petrol car, similar to how the e-tron is a lot like a Q7. Both vehicles, as traditional cars, electrified, do the job well. As an EV compared to a Tesla, they are not similar. Tesla vehicles are minimalist, functions all done on the screen. Some people love that; some people EXPECT that, but there's a market for people that want something familiar. Will that be the dominant market going forward? I think it's too early to tell.
The other issue is that on range both the e-tron and the Taycan under-delivered on the promises made by their respective badges. While not a huge issue for somebody doing a short commute or ripping around town, for somebody wanting to replace a gasser and do the odd long haul the rift between these and Tesla becomes apparent. This is where GM will need to work too IF the other aspects of the vehicle work out.
I owned an e-tron. I should have bought one with the luxury package because I was quite dissatisfied with the seats and materials in it when compared to my Jeep and my wife absolutely hated it so I ended up offloading it. As an EV, it was an excellent car though. Insanely quiet, drove like a normal car. I found it nicer than the Model S I'd driven and it certainly felt more "familiar" which, for me, was a plus. Perhaps for you that wouldn't be the case. I know the OP in this thread has a Model 3 and he and his wife like the fact that the Tesla is different. I have a friend, now on his 2nd Tesla, that feels the same way. My parents would want something familiar, they liked the Audi, but didn't like the seats either, go figure.
GM has a chance if they can incorporate, properly, EV tech into their already excellent chassis offerings. How that plays out from a consumer perspective, I think we are very shortly going to find out.
