Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)

[Merrill]

I do not really care who comes out with an affordable longer range BEV, this should not be about manufacturers but about adoption of EV's. Personally I have only owned 1 american car and it was a 1956 Chevy back in the 60's and 1 Datsun pickup. But if they came out with a nice looking affordable longer range all electric I would check it out. Would I buy it after owning a Tesla, probably not but love to see more manufacturers doing BEV's that are not part of there required quota.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Sparky, from your description I don't necessarily think GM would cheapen the interior. If they don't want to commit to expansion at this point, they could prefer to market a premium product in the next generation and then expand from there based on the 9rices LG Chem can offer.

Generally speaking, I read skepticism on this forum, but amongst that I read people who are ignorant of the work and investment that GM has in electrification. I think many people here simply don't get that GM gets the benefits of electric vehicles.

My problem with the Bolt concept, and that might be a problem with some in GM, is that it's stuck in the city car mentality and doesn't look forwards. When I read comments on fora about how the Supercharger network isn't where I need to go, it's the same kind of short-term thinking where people buy based on current gas prices. The current network can decide where you'll buy now, but people need to understand that it will continue to grow until coverage is complete, and the network is at high density. There are 120k gas stations in the USA, with operating and economic costs far higher than a dense fast charger network would ever need. Gas stations are dedicated sites, with variety stores that make the money. Fast charging is something that piggybacks on existing parking lots and the existing electricity network and once built needs only maintenance, rather than a continuing distribution network, which means that per driver overhead will be much lower.

Maybe GM does see the future, and Bolt is just something they know they'll be able to offer in 2017, that will complement Volt 2, and the really exciting development will come after that, but given that they have been pushing EREV, I don't think so.

 

[Rifleman]

I saw the Bolt in person at the NAIAS yesterday. I was really not impressed with it. Its about the size of an i3, maybe even a bit smaller. Its also uglier in person than it is in the pictures. I was impressed with the gen 2 volt however.

 

[MarkR]

I really hope that Chevrolet comes out with a fantastic Volt and a great Bolt just to push the industry into the future. I had been on the waiting list for the Volt after seeing the original styling of the concept car, but it got boring when it entered production. I doubt that I'd buy a Chevy just because they'll probably be ugly too.

 

[JST]

While potential buyers/journalists/TMC members were intermingling the range figures, IIRC Tesla was pretty clear about this. Before they had EPA numbers for the P85D/85D, they gave out range numbers at a constant 65 mph for those models. But they also updated the website to include the same rating for the S85. Meaning that anyone who bothered to read would have seen that at a constant 65 mph the P85D and S85 were rated the same, and the 85D was 10 miles more, not 30. Apples to apples.

When Tesla published EPA numbers for the P85D/85D they removed the constant 65mph numbers from the website. So again apples to apples.

The real problem is that the P85D as delivered (and as still delivered) doesn't have the firmware (torque sleep) that enables the claimed 65mph and EPA ratings. Big screwup on Tesla's part, and it has fanned the flames over the numbers that Tesla proclaimed at launch.

I don't remember all the details, but I don't recall it being as clear cut as this. But in any event, if everyone was intermingling the info anyway, that's a pretty good indication that Tesla wasn't being as clear as they should be.

I agree that the firmware issue is a big deal, regardless of what Tesla was saying.

 

[qwk]

Talk is indeed cheap. Hence my point about healthy skepticism.

However part of why manufacturers talk is to gauge market reaction.

Hence, "If they actually build this, this would really help expand the market for some folks, even if the styling is not for me." is different than, "GM is lame if they build that ugly piece of junk using that battery chemistry, and besides they couldn't figure out fast DC charging to save their life!"

Again, GM even feeling the need to acknowledge the idea a 200-mile EV is needed helps legitimize a market. Why not at least encourage that behavior?



GM has been talking about the need for a 200 mile range EV since '08?

History does tend to repeat itself, but not always in the same way or by the same people. Prior to the Volt, they had never built a hybrid like that, and I'd bet that Lutz & Company would have expected to build muscle cars and traditional ICE's, and yet here we are.

Look, I'm not an apologist for GM. I doubt I'd ever buy one of their products as I know them today. But does anybody think that if GM hears a collective group of potential customers say "A 200 mile EV in the $30K's sounds good!" it doesn't help move them the direction we'd like to see them go.

I'm all for encouraging EV behavior, but any current auto manufacturer should be looking to best Tesla, rather than settle on building something that is mediocre. How many athletes train to get 2nd place on purpose?

The current auto manufacturers have been promising lots of EV options since 2008. Where exactly are they? Like has been stated many times before, focus groups are useless. Does anyone really think that many Tesla drivers(apparently who the target of the focus group was), are going to buy some half azzed EV abortion made by GM? It really does't matter what Tesla owners think. If GM's product is much worse, they will not buy it. It's like asking the homeless what they want in a car. Does it really matter? They are the last group on earth looking at buying a new car. This isn't that difficult to figure out. All it takes is commitment, and money. GM has the money, commitment is free. Look at GM's vehicle lineup, some of them are decent looking. Why would they make the Bolt look funny, if they want it to be a hit and sell it in high numbers? What company cripples their own product? Am I the only one that sees this, and thinks it's nuts, and opposite of building a successful product?

 

[scaesare]

Why would they make the Bolt look funny, if they want it to be a hit and sell it in high numbers?

Because the Nissan Leaf looks just as funny, yet sold ~27K units last year despite cost averaging in the low-mid $30K's and only having less than half the range?

Styling choice is subjective. Color preference is subjective.

Range, price, BEV instead of hybrid, size... these are all significant ​hard differentiators not yet available on any car anywhere in this specific combination... including from Tesla. It's an aggressive set of specs. I applaud even the possible intent of pursing it.

 

[Merrill]

Because the Nissan Leaf looks just as funny, yet sold ~27K units last year despite cost averaging in the low-mid $30K's and only having less than half the range?

Styling choice is subjective. Color preference is subjective.

Range, price, BEV instead of hybrid, size... these are all significant ​hard differentiators not yet available on any car anywhere in this specific combination... including from Tesla. It's an aggressive set of specs. I applaud even the possible intent of pursing it.

Think of how many they would have sold if they looked as good as the Model S!

 

[qwk]

Because the Nissan Leaf looks just as funny, yet sold ~27K units last year despite cost averaging in the low-mid $30K's and only having less than half the range?

Styling choice is subjective. Color preference is subjective.

Range, price, BEV instead of hybrid, size... these are all significant ​hard differentiators not yet available on any car anywhere in this specific combination... including from Tesla. It's an aggressive set of specs. I applaud even the possible intent of pursing it.

27k units per year isn't nothing to write home about. Those sales were also when gasoline was $3.5+ a gallon. Don't you think that sales of the leaf would have been higher if it was normal/better looking?

For obvious reasons, a $30k price point for a 200 mile EPA range car isn't going to happen, even for Tesla. A Bolt(if it's ever produced), will come in at about $40k minimum. At that price point, most intelligent people will just get a used Model S instead. I see the Bolt as currently shown as either being a low production compliance car, or a disaster in the making.

 

[ecarfan]

Because the Nissan Leaf looks just as funny, yet sold ~27K units last year despite cost averaging in the low-mid $30K's and only having less than half the range?

Yes and the Leaf has fallen far short of Nissan's stated sales goals. Why? Because it's a "weirdmobile" with a pitifully short range.

Build an award winning, compelling EV, and it will sell well even if it is at a higher price point than many of its buyers have ever paid for a car. Than use the expertise and market reputation gained by building a great EV to move downmarket to a less expensive EV.

Oh wait, that's exactly the opposite of what Nissan and GM are doing, and exactly the same as what Tesla is doing. And Tesla is spending essentially nothing on advertising while Nissan and GM are spending many millions on EV advertising. Most people have never heard of Tesla, so Tesla hasn't begun to come close to determining the potential market size for the S and X.

We'll see which company is more successful in the EV market. My money's on Tesla.

 

[scaesare]

Think of how many they would have sold if they looked as good as the Model S!

There are lots of "traditionally" styled cars in the same price category as a Versa, Fit, Cube, Soul, etc... and yet those quirky cars sell plenty. Not everybody looking in similar price points wants a Civic.

I'd be willing to bet that many young/college folks are significantly more open differing style choices.

Again, the market is potentially HUGE. Telsa could sell every Model 3 it could build for the first 5 years, and there's still plenty of room for differentiation in styling among similarly spec'ed platforms.

 

[Krugerrand]

Because the Nissan Leaf looks just as funny, yet sold ~27K units last year despite cost averaging in the low-mid $30K's and only having less than half the range?

Adding to what Merrill just said, why would GM only want to sell 27k Bolts if they were serious about electrifying transportation? Don't they want to sell at minimum hundreds of thousands of Bolts each year? Well, no, they don't. Because they don't have the battery supply to do that, but rather the battery supply to sell about 20k Bolts OR 60k Volts per year. Nope, GM is definitely not serious about this, yet.

 

[Ron Wright]

GM Should of stayed up when the had EV1 and they could of been way ahead in the Electric Car Race.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Because the Nissan Leaf looks just as funny, yet sold ~27K units last year despite cost averaging in the low-mid $30K's and only having less than half the range?

While the Leaf sold the most by EV standards (helped by the fact they had practically no competition at their price point), they sold far less than what they planned to sell. Even current Leaf owners will tell you that styling is an issue with the car and they hope to see improvement in the next Gen.

Personally I don't think the Bolt is too ugly (not as ugly as the Leaf), just quirky, but I dislike that they put it in the mini-car/city-car segment. They might have had to do that for cost reasons, but I think it limits the market significantly. Just looking at sales in the segment, the compact segment is about 6x that of the subcompact. And design-wise there are a lot of better looking compacts and subcompacts (that still look distinctive).

 

[JRP3]

Yes and the Leaf has fallen far short of Nissan's stated sales goals. Why? Because it's a "weirdmobile" with a pitifully short range.

That's the worst part of it, the odd looks did not translate to a great drag coefficient and overall efficiency that could have given it better range. People will buy a "weirdmobile" if it provides good efficiency and utility. The Prius is a great example of that. Most thought the gen 2 Prius was odd or downright ugly but it's great efficiency won people over. At least now Tesla has shown it's possible to create an efficient aerodynamic profile and still look good.

 

[scaesare]

Adding to what Merrill just said, why would GM only want to sell 27k Bolts if they were serious about electrifying transportation? Don't they want to sell at minimum hundreds of thousands of Bolts each year? Well, no, they don't. Because they don't have the battery supply to do that, but rather the battery supply to sell about 20k Bolts OR 60k Volts per year. Nope, GM is definitely not serious about this, yet.

Because (as you say) they may be battery constrained initially? Because they are dipping their toes in the BEV waters for the first time in 20 yrs? Because they are trying to gauge Bolt vs. Volt uptake? Because they might need to ramp up production volume as battery prices fall? Because they are trying to determine if they have sufficient interest to invest in battery facilities?

Or...
Because they are hoping that more twice the range for no where near than twice the price of a Leaf means they'll sell far more than 27K?

 

[Krugerrand]

Because (as you say) they may be battery constrained initially? Because they are dipping their toes in the BEV waters for the first time in 20 yrs? Because they are trying to gauge Bolt vs. Volt uptake? Because they might need to ramp up production volume as battery prices fall? Because they are trying to determine if they have sufficient interest to invest in battery facilities?

Or...
Because they are hoping that more twice the range for no where near than twice the price of a Leaf means they'll sell far more than 27K?

And here I thought they'd put together a group to study Tesla.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Because (as you say) they may be battery constrained initially? Because they are dipping their toes in the BEV waters for the first time in 20 yrs? Because they are trying to gauge Bolt vs. Volt uptake? Because they might need to ramp up production volume as battery prices fall? Because they are trying to determine if they have sufficient interest to invest in battery facilities?

Or...
Because they are hoping that more twice the range for no where near than twice the price of a Leaf means they'll sell far more than 27K?

Nowhere near the current price of the current Leaf. $37,500 is a lot of money for a subcompact, even if it'll be another peppy 7s subcompact.

 

[scaesare]

Nowhere near the current price of the current Leaf. $37,500 is a lot of money for a subcompact, even if it'll be another peppy 7s subcompact.

Good thing that's not what I said. With the MSRP of the Leaf at $29-35k the Bolt is not slated to be anywhere near double the price, despite aiming for more than twice the range. Which IS what I said.

 

[scottf200]

InsideEVs: Chevrolet Bolt Designed Conceived In Australia

I think I missed the fact it appears to have flush handles.

These pictures are in the insideevs article but they appear to be stock photos as I've found them all over the web.