From a financial/TCO perspective, I suspect the largest discriminator between the base models of these cars will be differences in depreciation and to a lesser extent insurance and maintenance costs. Unfortunately I don't know if anybody can realistically predict their depreciation rates. They'll be somewhere between the Model S and LEAF, which is to say it could be anywhere--not likely as low as the Model S and not likely as high as the LEAF.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
The line all this time has been the base Model 3 will be cheaper than a base Bolt....but it turns out it should be fairly easy (all someone needs to do is sign up for Costco to gain access to supplier/invoice pricing) to obtain invoice pricing. The actual transaction price of a base Bolt EV should be less than the stated price of a base Model 3 + delivery charge.
So arriving at least 1 year earlier, with likely more range, and now may even be cheaper than the barebones 3! Tesla still has the "cool" card to cling to, I guess.
diamond.g
Active Member
Oh. I hope GM doesn't screw this up. Is it possible GM is going to pull a 2016 Volt and not have general availability for the 2017 model year of the Bolt? I don't live in a ZEV state and have not heard anything from anyone about VA/NC getting allotment before the end of the year.
I am also curious to know what things they are going to allow OTA updates for (I thought OTA updates went against dealer agreements).
I have the rough impression that national distribution should be happening by early spring at the latest since they have been saying availability in Europe is spring 2017 and Canada is maybe first quarter 2017 (vague memory).
I don't recall reading anything about dealer agreements precluding OTA updates. I doubt such historic agreements ever contemplated that capability or that GM would enter into new ones that would limit its flexibility to that degree.
Last edited:
diamond.g
Active Member
Ah, well lets hope they can.Though it does bring up an interesting question, does the pool of batteries they are getting from LG include the Ampera E? Seems like they were saying 30k units for just the Bolt. Then where are the Ampera batteries coming from?
Hasn't GM stated that they won't update safety systems OTA? So wouldn't that just leave infotainment system updates? Though with them talking about autonomous lyft cars, it would seem shortsighted to not do OTA updates for that system, which IMO would be a safety system.
I'm pretty sure the 30,000 unit figure includes both the Ampera-e and Bolt EV. Both models are built at the same factory in Michigan.
Some GM exec did mention not updating safety systems OTA but I took that to be an initial rollout rule and not necessarily a long term position. It wouldn't necessarily be limited to just infotainment. It could potentially include the driver's display as well as basic car body controller software. It's a bit vague and unclear. I doubt that exec was thinking about the Lyft autonomous driving system when he was talking about the Bolt's OTA capabilities. That autonomous system isn't initially targeted at retail consumers.
There are other theories on this. The Adaptive Cruise was not available on the 2016, but they were committed to a release, so they put them in the most profitable markets. When the ACC was released, it went national. However, the 2017 per calendar is actually a 2016.5. Not sure why they did that.
diamond.g
Active Member
Basic body controller?
And dang even less Bolts for NA than I thought. Though I guess the same could be said of the Model 3, whenever they actually sell them.
That's the computer that keeps track of lighting, power windows, door locks, etc.
The 30k number never came from GM. It came from "anonymous supplier sources". What we DO have from GM is a statement saying they could produce 50k+ Bolts in 2017 if demand was there.
Notice that doesn't say they can ONLY produce a max of 50k Bolts. The person doing the questioning merely asked "What if there is demand for 50k Bolts?", and the GM rep said they would be able to fulfill that # of orders.
“There is nothing constraining us from doing that,” said Kelly when asked how Chevrolet might handle a potential deluge of 50,000 orders that would far surpass conservative analyst projections for the Bolt’s first year of sales.
'Not a compliance car,' GM says 2017 Chevy Bolt can meet demand of over 50,000 per year - HybridCars.com
jgs
Active Member
Seems a bit optimistic about getting rock-bottom pricing if you assume there's going to be any meaningful demand for the car. But assuming that actually works out, I think it's still worth considering how the base cars will compare, and the main important difference in my view is charging.
We know the base Bolt has no CSS. We know the base Tesla will have DCFC. If you assume DCFC doesn't matter, then OK -- I wouldn't buy it that way, but maybe you would?
We also know the base Bolt comes with a EVSE rated at 120V. It's reasonable to assume the base Tesla will come with the same, or comparable, EVSE to what they ship now with Models S and X, a 240V 40A UMC (also works at 120V of course). I keep reading that you can operate the Volt EVSE at 240V even though it's not officially rated for that, but it seems a little sketchy to me and furthermore if GM doesn't advertise it as a 240V unit they're under no obligation to keep it that way -- they could change it out for one that actually is limited to 120V. It's hard to believe that many people are going to be satisfied with as 120V EVSE -- if they can live with adding 40ish miles of range overnight, why do they even need a long-range EV? Even if you can actually operate the included EVSE at 240V, it's still at some amperage considerably lower than 40A if I recall correctly. I do admit, if you're not a first-time EV buyer you may already have a 240V 30A J1772 EVSE installed, and for those customers a base Bolt would do the trick. I think everyone else has to add a few hundred bucks more for a reasonable EVSE.
Some people want to argue that the base Tesla will be optioned up better and should be compared against a similarly-optioned Bolt. I don't agree, even though I love all the amenities they're not table stakes for everyone. (Furthermore it's nothing but speculation what the base equipment of the Model 3 will be.) But being able to charge the vehicle absolutely is table stakes, so it belongs on the table when totting up what the real base price is.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Except that just comparing the "base" vehicles against each other isn't really the whole story. The base M3 comes with features that cost an extra ~$5k on the Bolt...
The "bare bones" M3 will have options only available on the Premier Bolt...
Last edited:
diamond.g
Active Member
Oh, in VW we call that the Central Electronics module.
So LG Chem can do at least 3GWh of battery production. Which handily lines up with this article I found from 2015. And or, GM has stockpiled batteries for the Bolt, just in case.
It's easy to imagine a scenario where someone drives an average of 40 miles or less per day but their driving distance varies during the week with some days more and some days less. Having a 238 mile range battery means they can average their daily use over the span of a week. For example, they might be able to do extra charging on weekend days if they aren't traveling.
Although some hidden scripting related to per-use fees was recently noticed on Tesla's website, we don't actually know that the Model 3 can use DC charging at Supercharging stations without paying a substantial activation fee. Using non-Tesla DC charging would require buying or borrowing a $450 CHAdeMO adapter. That's not all that different from paying an extra $750 for the Bolt's DC option.
diamond.g
Active Member
Probably not....at least not easily. I wish the CCS port came standard, to be honest, but I'm guessing the bean counters won that battle.
If the Bolt gets a similar Clipper Creek EVSE that the Volt gets, it will actually accept 120v or 240v, but Chevy doesn't mention it or sell an adapter, which can be made for <$20 or just spare stuff in your garage. The Volt unit will charge at twice the speed of the 120v setting when fed 240v without needing heavier gauge wiring.
In any case, EVs really need L2 charging at home for best results.
I will be surprised if many Bolts are shipped without CCS to retail customers. GM already has a site up that includes CCS locations.
But there actually are cars that do not need DCFC. Cars on islands, work cars, pure commuter cars with an ICE at home already, etc.
Why should a buyer be forced to subsidize those who will never use it?
In any case, EVs really need L2 charging at home for best results.
I will be surprised if many Bolts are shipped without CCS to retail customers. GM already has a site up that includes CCS locations.
But there actually are cars that do not need DCFC. Cars on islands, work cars, pure commuter cars with an ICE at home already, etc.
Why should a buyer be forced to subsidize those who will never use it?
I don't think GM has said anything about that, but I would imagine it won't be that difficult although it would cost more than $750 if you had to buy new parts rather than used from a junk yard.
It should just be a new inlet with CCS support, a cable, and perhaps a contactor and a CCS protocol controller box or circuit board. I'm confident someone will figure out how to update non-DC cars to DC support aftermarket. That said, I think it's a mistake for most people to order a Bolt without DC if only for resale value but it could make sense if you plan to own it for a long time and are sure you will only be using it for local travel.
I believe that article only quotes the Holland plant's production capacity. The Bolt's batteries are being put together in Korea, and then shipped to Orion for final assembly. The LG Chem plant in Korea likely has no problems meeting potential demand.
jgs
Active Member
I accept that this is feasible. I don't believe it's very appealing, but I suppose we'll see what the market thinks.
Indeed. It's not like they hadn't already been up-front about usage fees, so this was no shock.
Two things: as @diamond.g points out, as far as we know the $750 Bolt DCFC option can't be added later much less enabled OTA (GM would presumably have said so if it were so, it would be a selling point). Also, all the smart money says that while Tesla will have some form of usage-based pricing, they won't have a big up-front activation fee, in fact your post is the first one I've seen that proposes such a theory. I do accept that nothing is outright proven until we see a Tesla price sheet, but I would bet good money against any big up-front fee, especially given their repeated commitment that it will be "Supercharger capable". I don't think they'd say "capable" but then stick an asterisk on that and say "with additional-cost activation of feature".
Similar threads
