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

[stopcrazypp]

Calling a couple of sentences in a long speech "All they can do is try to attack Tesla" is what I call overreacting.

Maybe that is hyperbole, but even one sentence is too much, especially for an unveiling event. Even the ones with vehicles directly aiming at Tesla do not make such comments during their events (for example the Audi Q6 e-tron and the Porsche Mission E makes no comments about Tesla). GM did the same jab at Tesla for the Bolt concept unveiling (talking about cars "not for elites"). I hope this is not going to be a long-running corporate theme for this car.

To bring things back on topic, I'm more interested on if this car can support (or be updated to support) the 150kW charging standard pushed by VW and Ford. At the very least supporting the 90/100kW CCS should be minimum. The charge times quoted for 1 hour to 80% is suggesting 50kW, which would be disappointing. It'll be a deal-breaker for me if 50kW is the max it supports (since even if the CCS network is updated to support 90/100kW, the car won't support it, which makes a SF to LA trip unviable for me even if stations were installed).

We also don't know the battery capacity yet. Such an estimate should give a good expectation for the EPA range rating.

 

[jas]

I guess most carmakers take jabs at others, its probably how they differentiate their model.

 

[scottf200]

To bring things back on topic, I'm more interested on if this car can support (or be updated to support) the 150kW charging standard pushed by VW and Ford. At the very least supporting the 90/100kW CCS should be minimum. The charge times quoted for 1 hour to 80% is suggesting 50kW, which would be disappointing. It'll be a deal-breaker for me if 50kW is the max it supports (since even if the CCS network is updated to support 90/100kW, the car won't support it, which makes a SF to LA trip unviable for me even if stations were installed).

We also don't know the battery capacity yet. Such an estimate should given a good expectation for the EPA range rating.

Why the focus on DCFC when this "200" mile car is clearly not meant to be a cross country car but a city car that really handles most uses cases for that. Why? Gives the Tesla over zealous fans something negative to focus on.

GM has done Tesla fans a favor. Maybe (unlikely) it will help Tesla focus on getting a car out closer to the timeframe they state. GM does (or close as my 2016 Volt was 1 week late). My X is multi-YEARS late. Deposit 3 yrs ago.

I own two Volts and my Tesla X is in the paint dept. Clearly I want GM *and* Tesla to succeed.

Tesla/Elon certainly has a stated goal to push other manufacturers to build EVs and it is happening. Why don't Tesla owners appreciate and applause this? GM has come a significant long way. The Volt was my first GM car.

 

[Mark Z]

Why the focus on DCFC when this "200" mile car is clearly not meant to be a cross country car but a city car that really handles most uses cases for that...Why don't Tesla owners appreciate and applause this? GM has come a significant long way. The Volt was my first GM car.

My sentiments exactly. GM makes a quality product and I am pleased that more drivers will enjoy the electric experience, especially in the metro areas. Having competition is a good thing. Model III will be in production sooner because it is no longer the only game in town.

Tesla Motors cars will always have an edge, because of the Supercharger capability and more flexibility with AC charging. The limits of 7.2 kW AC charging that the Bolt has and the SAE Combo connector for DC will slow the driver and passengers in arriving at a destination that requires a charge stop.

Seeing both Volt and Bolt at CES was good. Model S is superior in luxury. Model X is so different that it stands alone. What Model III provides will be exciting to see. Overtime, the autonomous driving capabilities will have us replacing what we buy today. We are in transition, and it is important for everyone to buy what they need today. Tomorrow will have other choices to consider then. Look for the best in what you drive today and enjoy every aspect of it. And consider previous technologies if they serve your needs better. Drive safely with a smile knowing you made the right choice for the present time!

 

[stopcrazypp]

Why the focus on DCFC when this "200" mile car is clearly not meant to be a cross country car but a city car that really handles most uses cases for that. Why? Gives the Tesla over zealous fans something negative to focus on.

I'm talking about my own use case. I expect to own my next car close to 10 years and I don't have a second car. If it can't even make a relatively simple SF to LA trip comfortably it's not going to be viable car for me. I'm not saying my use case is applicable to everyone else.

50kW DC charging is likely going to be outdated very soon (perfect for city cars like the Leaf or Spark EV, but not for intercity travel). I don't feel safe in terms of future proofing if the car doesn't support higher DC charging speeds. GM is the biggest player in the SAE, so if their headlining car doesn't even support the latest power standard that would be very disappointing. It's okay for the network to still need development, but I'm not going to buy into a car that can't utilize it by the time it is developed.

 

[BriansTesla]

Then Tesla community should welcome and embrace it as well. Don't mind, what GM is saying.
In the end - we're all in the same boat and more EVs sold can only be good. We should all root for everybody, that make an effort, to get us off of fossil fuels, whether that's Tesla, Nissan, Renault, Kia, VW, BMW or GM.

I think I speak for the majority on this forum when I say that I hope the Bolt is a big success. Just as we wish Teslas to have no major problems, we hope the Bolt does not have serious weaknesses. Nice looks, good sized battery, great reliability. All these things advance the art of BEVs. I also hope that GM puts some corporate weight behind the car.

We are only critical of the Bolt because we want it to be a great car. The alternative does not help Tesla or do much to reduce dependence of fossil fuels.

 

[Jeff N]

I expect the Bolt to have roughly equivalent long-range capability as an S60. It's doable occasionally but an S85 or S90 is clearly better for road trips. I expect GM to eventually disclose that the Bolt takes advantage of CCS 90/100 kW stations to charge faster than the CCS 45/50 stations of today. That means the Bolt will be initially limited by the 200A of the CCS standard while the S60 starts off charging at 300A (100 kW actual rate). But, within 6-7 minutes both the S60 and the Bolt will likely be charging at or under the 200A.

 

[RobStark]

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I own two Volts and my Tesla X is in the paint dept. Clearly I want GM *and* Tesla to succeed.

Tesla/Elon certainly has a stated goal to push other manufacturers to build EVs and it is happening. Why don't Tesla owners appreciate and applause this? GM has come a significant long way. The Volt was my first GM car.

My observation is that a lot of the negative feeling towards GM is residual resentment from the EV1 debacle. Many EV1 drivers practically begged GM not to destroy those cars, and GM went ahead and did so anyways. This may have been almost 2 decades ago, but cars are an emotional thing for people. Imagine the outcry if Ford had killed the Mustang.

I don't see nearly as much criticism on this board for other companies. If this were simply a matter of hating on other EVs, Nissan and the LEAF would have been relentlessly attacked here, but that's not the case. People might not agree with Nissan's design choices, but there is respect for Nissan giving us more choices.

Younger folks who don't remember EV1 will not harbor this kind of resentment towards GM. People of my generation and older find it hard to forget, even as it looks like GM is trying to make amends.

 

[Discoducky]

How about $10 for the next 24 hours? Bad for locals, good for long distance where you'll hit 2-4 SCs in a trip. Still super cheap for long distance.

Brilliant.

I'd agree, that would be nice.

Have to admit; that is pretty sexy even though it is a GM chassis...Color me with high hopes for the Bolt and GM's push into BEV.

 

[Saghost]

You know, the battery pack is well forward of the rear axle line. It seems like an AWD version with a Spark style concentric drive motor pushing the rear wheels isn't out of the question...
Walter

 

[scottf200]

My observation is that a lot of the negative feeling towards GM is residual resentment from the EV1 debacle. Many EV1 drivers practically begged GM not to destroy those cars, and GM went ahead and did so anyways. This may have been almost 2 decades ago, but cars are an emotional thing for people.

I've read most things on EV1. That that is just a ridiculous hogwash reason since the technology did NOT legitimately exist and was NOT at all cost effective. Are people that ignorant?

Why do you/people keep bring up the EV1 nonsense instead of appreciating what GM has done. Rhetorical question.

Let's stay on the positive thing that GM and Tesla are doing to move EVs forward. Yes!

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Huh...seems like a missed opportunity to allow greater crumple zone in the front.

 

[Mark Z]

Huh...seems like a missed opportunity to allow greater crumple zone in the front.

I agree. Number one issue for me to keep driving a Tesla vehicle: safety.

 

[dhanson865]

Huh...seems like a missed opportunity to allow greater crumple zone in the front.

I wonder the density of that amalgamation of equipment vs the density of the average 4 cylinder engine. How big an issue will it be if that enters the cabin area and pushes against the legs of a crash occupant (driver or passenger in the front seats).

 

[Saghost]

I wonder the density of that amalgamation of equipment vs the density of the average 4 cylinder engine. How big an issue will it be if that enters the cabin area and pushes against the legs of a crash occupant (driver or passenger in the front seats).

One of the interviews had senior GM folks actually talking about the lack of an engine as a problem for crash testing - having a really rigid structure across the front of the car is very useful in the small offset crash test, and GM had to come up with an alternative to using the engine block since the motor and electronics don't provide a suitable substitute.
Walter

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I've read most things on EV1. That that is just a ridiculous hogwash reason since the technology did NOT legitimately exist and was NOT at all cost effective. Are people that ignorant?

Why do you/people keep bring up the EV1 nonsense instead of appreciating what GM has done. Rhetorical question.

Let's stay on the positive thing that GM and Tesla are doing to move EVs forward. Yes!

I'd say yes. Look at how people choose who to vote for: it's an emotional choice much of the time rather than an issues choice.

Hell, Americans are still arguing about the Civil War and related matters, and that was 150+ years ago, so what makes anyone think that a slight from 20 years ago will be forgotten?!

I am kidding, sort of. But people do hold a grudge and or hold on to ideas.

 

[dhanson865]

One of the interviews had senior GM folks actually talking about the lack of an engine as a problem for crash testing - having a really rigid structure across the front of the car is very useful in the small offset crash test, and GM had to come up with an alternative to using the engine block since the motor and electronics don't provide a suitable substitute.
Walter

you mean like a box structure for the frunk?

The box doesn't have to be filled with stuff to be rigid. Then they can move the crap lower down below the legs of the driver and improve center of gravity.

Its like they've never seen a Tesla.

 

[ecarfan]

Of course GM has studied the Model S in detail. But the Bolt is a much smaller car and with the goal of maximizing interior volume for passengers their engineers did not have much flexibility in placing the required mechanical components. I think they did a pretty good job.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Of course GM has studied the Model S in detail. But the Bolt is a much smaller car and with the goal of maximizing interior volume for passengers their engineers did not have much flexibility in placing the required mechanical components. I think they did a pretty good job.

They certainly achieved the interior volume. I think I'd prefer a design that lessened the possibility of being crushed by mechanical components, and sacrificed a bit of passenger comfort/storage.

Of course, safety figures haven't been released...so the design could very well have taken both into account.