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

[scaesare]

so we already take your words with a huge boulder of salt.

You may want to identify who "we" are, as you certainly don't speak for me.

I don't automatically dismiss the comments of someone who has a specific opinion, either pro or con, about a product or company, as long as they can support that opinion in a cogent fashion.

On the contrary, listening to such argument can be educational, and help you refine your own stance.

 

[bro1999]

Simply, Tesla cannot afford to launch the Model 3 with glaring problems, unlike GM with the Bolt. Therefore, it will take Tesla a bit longer.

But they can afford to launch a defect minefield that was/is the Model X, right? Look no further than this very forum for proof.

IIRC, the S wasn't much better at launch either.

Or the Roadster, as we saw in "Revenge of the Electric Car".

Hmm....Notice a common theme?

 

[Jeff N]

The EPA does not normally test EV miles. They publish a procedure, and it is up to the MFR not to game it.

That's true generally for all cars, not just EVs. EPA tests a selection of the cars to keep the manufacturer's honest.

I've seen nothing to indicate the Toyota is cheating on their EPA testing.

 

[WannabeOwner]

who's going to buy that once the Model 3 is available?

Someone who does think, like you do, that it is ugly
Someone who wants the sit-up driving position
Someone who wants a hatchback, rather than a trunk
Someone who likes having a local dealer / service
... and so on

 

[McRat]

But the Bolt is ugly and cheaply made.... who's going to buy that once the Model 3 is available?

I'd be driving a Model 3 today if they existed in the wild, because I believe in Tesla's Mission. I have not purchased a Bolt yet. I'm waiting for March. While I believe in Chevrolet's engineering talent, I'm gambling the price will fall. I'm driving on pure battery over 90% today so no big rush.

But for rational folk, it depends on what 2018-2019 EV models are out there. In all likelihood, folk who reserved a Model 3 will not see a car sooner than the normal 2019 model year (Aug-Sept 2018).

I have an early 3 reservation, and I seriously do not expect my Model 3 in 2017. It would be sweet, but it's unlikely. They should have had press drives by now if cars were going to be delivered in under 11 months. The Bolt was allowing the press to drive the production Bolt 11 months before official dealer release.

If you decide that you want a 100 mile combat radius EV today with above average acceleration and seats 4 adults in comfort, lease a 2017 Chevrolet Bolt for $289 and when the lease is up, take delivery of your Model 3.

 

[daniel]

With your last sentence, you already admit you are biased against GM, so we already take your words with a huge boulder of salt.

I make no bones about the fact that I consider GM to be an unethical company. Selling bonds that they knew they would default on is reason enough in itself to never buy a car from them, and is only one of their misdeeds.

Yet it still beat Tesla, the supposed EV king, to the market with a <$40k, 200+ mile BEV. Yep, they suck alright.

There is a logical fallacy here. You arbitrarily pick the precise price and range of one car and boast of its being the first to market at that price and range. For every EV on the market, you could find the criteria under which it is the first.

 

[daniel]

... Volts use less gasoline on the average than all the Priuses. ...

My Prius gets 50 mpg on long highway trips, and those are the only trips I use it for. I think the Volt gets around 35 mpg when it's burning gas. I drive my Roadster whenever I'm not taking a long trip. That's why I say the Volt is the worst of both worlds. As an EV it is inferior to a Tesla, and as a gas car it's inferior to a Prius. It's a good fit for one-car households that normally drive short distances but need to make the occasional road trip. But most households in the U.S. have more than one car. A Tesla, or even a Leaf is perfect for all but long trips, and a Prius is more efficient for those long trips.

A Bolt would be a step down from my Roadster. A Volt would burn more gas on long trips than the Prius and is inferior to the Roadster for all trips under about 245 miles. I would probably not buy a Prius today, but in 2004 you could not buy an EV. And in fact, in 2004 EVs were not even on my radar. It was the Prius that gave me the bug for an EV. When the Prius shut off its engine and drove for short distances on electric, that's what made me want an electric car, and led me to buy the Zap Xebra (which at that time was the only EV I could get that was not a NEV). And I know other folks whose first taste of electric driving was when their Prius went into electric mode.

 

[McRat]

I make no bones about the fact that I consider GM to be an unethical company. Selling bonds that they knew they would default on is reason enough in itself to never buy a car from them, and is only one of their misdeeds.

There is a logical fallacy here. You arbitrarily pick the precise price and range of one car and boast of its being the first to market at that price and range. For every EV on the market, you could find the criteria under which it is the first.

So you say the General Motors CFO committed a felony under SEC laws? Can you tell me what the sentence was?

You are one of the Alien Autopsy Automotive Alliance members. Anything you see on a web page is fact.

Yes, there is a 200 mile EPA litmus test. This was the number that most people said would get them to look at an EV purchase. You might notice Tesla has dropped all their sub 200 mile models. And while pragmatically, a 170 mile 45kWh Model 3 makes the most sense, it is not offered at this point as an option.

GM has released a 200 mile class EV last month. It is not the only 200mi class BEV.
In California, after all taxes and incentives, the cheapest 200 class BEV is $29,500. The next cheapest is $64,750.

 

[Cyclone]

Volts as a fleet average over 70% electric, but you need 4-6 times as much battery capacity to get the last 30% of gas miles converted to electric

I agree with @Saghost on the general theme of the Volt and it is helping spur EV adoption and generally seems to be a good, viable car for many. I just wanted to point out that this specific metric is a bit flawed due to selection-bias. The are certainly people who would have bought a Volt if it had a bigger battery. Those of this group who bought a Leaf or Tesla instead aren't driving Volts to bring down the fleet average to a smaller number.

Now, there is NOTHING WRONG with that. Just something to keep in mind as you put "fleet average over 70% electric" in context.


Today, our household consists of a Tesla Model S, Honda Fit, and a Lexus IS. A Volt would be a great replacement vehicle (for driving pattern) of the Lexus, but that driver is waiting on a Model ≡ b/c they want the more premium experience. The Honda Fit driver would be a great fit for a Bolt and I'm doing what I can to convince them of it. That said, I personally would pick a Model ≡ over a Bolt or a Volt, but I'm a bit biased in that regard lol.

 

[McRat]

My Prius gets 50 mpg on long highway trips, and those are the only trips I use it for. I think the Volt gets around 35 mpg when it's burning gas. I drive my Roadster whenever I'm not taking a long trip. That's why I say the Volt is the worst of both worlds. As an EV it is inferior to a Tesla, and as a gas car it's inferior to a Prius. It's a good fit for one-car households that normally drive short distances but need to make the occasional road trip. But most households in the U.S. have more than one car. A Tesla, or even a Leaf is perfect for all but long trips, and a Prius is more efficient for those long trips.

A Bolt would be a step down from my Roadster. A Volt would burn more gas on long trips than the Prius and is inferior to the Roadster for all trips under about 245 miles. I would probably not buy a Prius today, but in 2004 you could not buy an EV. And in fact, in 2004 EVs were not even on my radar. It was the Prius that gave me the bug for an EV. When the Prius shut off its engine and drove for short distances on electric, that's what made me want an electric car, and led me to buy the Zap Xebra (which at that time was the only EV I could get that was not a NEV). And I know other folks whose first taste of electric driving was when their Prius went into electric mode.

It's pretty obvious you know absolutely zip about any modern GM product, but especially the ones with electromotive drivetrains.

GM does not make a gelding version of cars, that is a technology that Toyota is a leader in. Test the car. Can it handle? If yes, adjust it until it can't. Then cut off the nuts and ship it. To get a decent car, Toyota had to buy Subarus (BRZ).

 

[SageBrush]

The oft-debated utility of the Volt probably reflects different use profiles.

Since I live in a two car family, I am well served by a commuter LEAF and a car well suited for long distance driving like a Tesla or a Prius Prime. That way I have the best of each rather than the two compromises AND the high costs a Volt offers.

A single car household could well come to different conclusions.

 

[bro1999]

I make no bones about the fact that I consider GM to be an unethical company. Selling bonds that they knew they would default on is reason enough in itself to never buy a car from them, and is only one of their misdeeds.



There is a logical fallacy here. You arbitrarily pick the precise price and range of one car and boast of its being the first to market at that price and range. For every EV on the market, you could find the criteria under which it is the first.

Arbitrary price point.....that happens to be a few thousand UNDER the average price of a new car after tax credit.

Arbitrary indeed. Elon must have chose the $36.2k price point for the base Model 3 no one will see till late 2018 (maybe) by throwing darts.

 

[brucet999]

What is interesting is GM is sending someone to look at the OP's car specifically. As if they don't get that kind of telematics from the vehicle already. (I mean really, isn't that what OnStar is for?)

Bolt has OnStar?

 

[Jeff N]

In California, after all taxes and incentives, the cheapest 200 class BEV is $29,500.

You forgot California's $2,500 BEV rebate. So, $37495 - $7500 - $2500 would be $27495. And now there are apparently at least 2 CA dealers discounting the base trim models by $1500 so that would be about $26000 for a 238 mile BEV.

That's about the price of a regular non-discounted Toyota Prius.

Now add in ~8.5% sales tax plus DMV fees and the out-the-door price is just under $30000.

 

[Jeff N]

Bolt has OnStar?

Yes, pretty much all GM cars have OnStar, I think.

 

[McRat]

You forgot California's $2,500 BEV rebate. So, $37495 - $7500 - $2500 would be $27495. And now there are apparently at least 2 CA dealers discounting the base trim models by $1500 so that would be about $26000 for a 238 mile BEV.

That's about the price of a regular non-discounted Toyota Prius.

Now add in ~8.5% sales tax plus DMV fees and the out-the-door price is just under $30000.

I used 8% tax and $1000 off sticker. But the point was the massive difference today in 200mi BEV pricing.

Come model year 2018/2019, who knows what the gap will be, but it will probably be a lot closer.

 

[SageBrush]

My Prius ...

Daniel !!
I've wondered where you are. All roads lead to Tesla

 

[brucet999]

Yet it still beat Tesla, the supposed EV king, to the market with a <$40k, 200+ mile BEV. Yep, they suck alright.

Good for GM bringing out the first sub-$40k BEV, but I think your sneering at Tesla for not being first is unfair.

Tesla bore the expense and risk of proving that 200+ mile BEV cars can be both good and desirable. All along, Tesla has had to rely on revenues from a very expensive car to make possible a less expensive subsequent design. Now operating profits of Model S and X are being plowed back into the company to enable design and production the Model 3. GM followed on Tesla's success at creating a market, and had the advantage of its vastly greater corporate assets along with the benefit of Tesla's proven design ideas (battery under the floor, for instance) to bring out its mid-priced car first.

 

[callmesam]

You forgot California's $2,500 BEV rebate. So, $37495 - $7500 - $2500 would be $27495. And now there are apparently at least 2 CA dealers discounting the base trim models by $1500 so that would be about $26000 for a 238 mile BEV.

That's about the price of a regular non-discounted Toyota Prius.

Now add in ~8.5% sales tax plus DMV fees and the out-the-door price is just under $30000.

Actually, the rebate is increased by $2,000 if you meet certain income requirements not to exceed 300% Federal Poverty Level (FPL). That would increase the rebate to $4,500.

Income Eligibility

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Good for GM bringing out the first sub-$40k BEV, but I think your sneering at Tesla for not being first is unfair.

Tesla bore the expense and risk of proving that 200+ mile BEV cars can be both good and desirable. All along, Tesla has had to rely on revenues from a very expensive car to make possible a less expensive subsequent design. Now operating profits of Model S and X are being plowed back into the company to enable design and production the Model 3. GM followed on Tesla's success at creating a market, and had the advantage of its vastly greater corporate assets along with the benefit of Tesla's proven design ideas (battery under the floor, for instance) to bring out its mid-priced car first.

Destination and SC network ate up a fair bit of funds, as well.