GM Volt Forum banner

2016 ELR to debut before 2016 Volt?!?

8K views 10 replies 7 participants last post by  FloridaMatt 
#1 ·
InsideEVs article on the Volt sales numbers for September has some interesting tidbits in it:

http://insideevs.com/chevrolet-volt-sales-weaken-in-the-us-for-september-1394-sold/

Our earlier question of “Why the heck is Chevy building so many darn Volts this summer?” (after well more than 10,000 had been available in August) was answered as General Motor’s idled the Volt’s Hamtramck Michigan in late August…and plans to keep it that way until the middle of November.

The reason for the shutdown? Putting to work some of that previously announced $384 million dollar investment into the facility to prepared for the next gen Volt (due out in mid-2015), two other Voltec-based plug-in models … and a great big whale of a Cadillac that we will never mention here again.
I'm not sure if the "two other Voltec models" includes the ELR - but either way that means at least one car we haven't seen yet (the long awaited CUV/SUV?)

Also,
But, not to fret if you are an ELR fan, it will return at some point in 2015 as a 2016 model year car – complete with “engineering enhancements“. The new 2016 Cadillac ELR will debut at the LA Auto Show in November.
Since the 2016 Volt is supposed to first show up at NAIAS in late January, it seems like the new ELR will show up first?
 
#3 · (Edited)
It may very well not be a "Bolt":

"There is some curious eco-mark news to report: apparently, last month General Motors filed two notable U.S. trademark applications, one for BOLT and the other for CHEVROLET BOLT.

They are Application Nos. 86357513 and 86357523 (BOLT Applications), respectively, and list the goods as “motor land vehicles, namely, automobiles.”

The clean tech and electric vehicle blogosphere was buzzing with speculation as to what this new brand means. Is GM planning to offer additional EVs, perhaps a new low-cost Chevy Volt, a short-range performance vehicle, or a cool new concept car? Maybe different battery sizes?

One clue is that the BOLT applications’ goods listing is much broader than the goods in GM’s prior CHEVROLET VOLT trademark registration, which identified “extended range electric automobiles.” So, contrasted with the VOLT, the BOLT trademark could cover any type of automobile, electric or otherwise.

For now, though, the clean tech blogs had to conclude there is no indication that GM intends to use this new trademark. Inside EVs proposed that GM might be trying to protect itself from a Chinese ripoff called Bolt.

Gas 2.0 carried this non-use preemptive motive further, noting that:

Car companies are constantly taking out trademarks for names they have no intention of using; it’s just a matter of making sure nobody else uses it either.

While car companies may try to keep potential brand names away from their competitors, there are strict legal limits on the ability to protect a trademark that is not in use.

To fully understand this and to put the BOLT Applications in context, we need a bit more information about the U.S. trademark system.

A U.S. trademark application must have one or more legal bases, i.e., a situation (basis) defined by the federal trademark law, to support the filing. The available filing bases are (1) actual use of the mark in interstate commerce, (2) a bona fide intent-to-use the mark in interstate commerce, (3) a foreign trademark application for the same mark and the same goods or services, (4) a foreign registration for the same mark and the same goods or services, and/or (5) extension of an international registration for the same mark and the same goods or services. By far the most common filing bases are the first two.

In the United States, trademark rights flow from, and are contingent upon, use of the mark. Although an applicant can keep a U.S. trademark application pending for about two and a half years based only on the stated intent to use the mark, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will not register a trademark in a use-based or intent-to-use application absent proof of use in interstate commerce and there is no enforceable trademark right, even at common law, without use of the mark.

More particularly, to obtain a registration of a use-based or an intent-to-use application, the applicant must prove use of the mark for the goods and/or services listed in the application by submitting a specimen showing such use.

If based on a foreign trademark application or registration or an international registration, however, the applicant does not need to use the mark in the United States to obtain a U.S. registration. The USPTO will register the trademark upon proof that the applicant obtained a foreign registration.

Interestingly, the United States is one of only a handful of countries that require use to register a trademark and have an enforceable right in the mark. Most countries do not require use of the mark to obtain a registration.

So filing a U.S. trademark application based on a foreign or international registration gets around the use requirement (in the United States and potentially anywhere in the world), at least or the purpose of obtaining a U.S. trademark registration.

But that’s not the end of the story. The owner of a U.S. trademark registration registered solely on the basis of a foreign or international registration (i.e., without use in the United States) cannot enforce its trademark in a U.S. court. While some U.S. courts have held that such registrants have standing to sue, even in those courts, the registration would be canceled without use in interstate commerce.

So while a foreign trademark registration can get you a U.S. registration without use in the United States, you probably can’t stop other U.S. users of the mark because your registration would be unenforceable and would not stand up in court.

Now back to GM’s BOLT applications. This is where it gets interesting. The applications are not based on use of the marks in the United States or an intent to use in the United States. Rather, each application is based on a foreign application filing, specifically Brazilian trademark application number 907703178 for CHEVROLET BOLT and 907703070 for BOLT.

Brazil is one of those countries that does not require use to obtain a trademark registration. So GM could get itself U.S. trademark registrations, albeit unenforceable ones, for BOLT and CHEVROLET BOLT without ever using this exciting new brand anywhere in the world.

Even though GM’s U.S. registrations may be unenforceable “paper” registrations, Gas 2.0′s point still has some merit. Ownership of U.S. trademark registrations for the BOLT marks could still scare off potential users and keep competitors at bay for a while.

Don’t be surprised, though, to not see a shiny new Chevy Bolt speeding by you on the highway." -Eric Lane - Green Patent Blog - September 24th, 2014

One wiil be the Elmiraj (a great big whale of a Cadillac) I think. Another concept car pipe dream?
 
#10 ·
What I'm guessing is that, in addition to the 17.1 kWh battery, Cadillac will increase the acceleration a bit (perhaps 0-60 in 8 seconds in EV mode and 6.5 seconds in ER mode), add a Sport-Hold mode (or Sport+ mode) that gives drivers the ability to engage the range extender in Sport mode without first depleting the battery, and perhaps add in the Cadillac features found in its other cars like a Head-Up Display, ventilated/cooled front seats, etc.

I suppose for people who continue to drive normally without utilizing the extra acceleration and cooled front seats, they'll see the range increase to 39-42 miles on average; but those who regularly stomp the pedal and turn on the cooled seats will see about the same range as the 2014 ELR. Therefore, I don't expect Cadillac to announce an increase in range for the 2016 ELR.

While I might want to speculate that Cadillac could also fix the C.U.E. system's numerous bugs, add a Volt-like "Leaf" hard button somewhere on the dash, give drivers the ability to disable the "you left the car on and took your keyfob" triple honk, add Magnetic Ride Control Suspension, etc., I really doubt that's going to happen. Cadillac said "engineering enhancements," not "re-engineer the vehicle."

I agree with FloridaMatt - Cadillac isn't going to reduce the price for the 2016 ELR. And if that "enhanced" model didn't sell well either, then I'd expect we'd see another fire sale and the ELR would not get a 2017 model year.
 
#11 ·
I can see bumping up the battery, and reprogramming things that don't involve much in the way of hardware. Cooled seats might be possible, although more of an investment than they may appear -- the ELR's seats are narrower than all current Cadillac ventilated seats, so they can't just drop in a pair from the CTS. HUD would required redesigning the dashboard, fitting in hardware and a bunch of programming -- doable only if they are serious about this.

The pos that's cue likely won't get fixed in any Cadillac before the CT6, and then only if they finally get the message. Ford/Lincoln has; our new MKC with Mytouch sports hard buttons for major climate and audio controls.

If the 2016 ever does go on sale, I don't see the same fire sale scenario happening. About half the dealers already chose not to carry the 14, and I don't see any of those thinking much of the 16. Existing ELR dealers will have to decide whether they want to order any ELRs at all, and how many to have on the lot along with ATS coupes (and leftover 2014 ELRs). They all know how well the 14 sold at MSRP, and I'm not sure I'd count on lots of cash on the hood for the 16. So if I was a dealer, I'd have to really believe I could make money selling ELRs before ever ordering one.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top