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

[eloder]

I think the Bolt will be a great car, but the Model 3 will be in a completely different segment for a lot of reasons.

The problem with the segment that the Bolt occupies, however, is that its segment (local driving, city driving) is already done extremely well by the Leaf that costs $10k less. The Bolt is just a local driver, with a much larger area being defined as "local". By the time more EVs are on the way, the entry level for the 70-100 mile EV may also drop down a good amount too making the choice harder.

I'm someone whose only car is a Leaf. The Bolt still won't enable me to do major roadtrips--even though it'd open up two major cities for me to visit. For local trips within my own city, it'll do almost nothing except allow me to not charge until the end of a heavy driving day in winter time.

I think a lot of people here aren't hating on the Bolt, they just don't think it'll hold a candle to Tesla Model 3 for the overall consumer experience and it'll be relegated down to a very narrow niche.

Plus loldealers.

 

[mknox]

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.

I was resentful when Chrysler killed the 1963 Turbine Car and crushed all of those vehicles, but I got over it. I don't see any difference with the EV1. It was an experiment that served it purpose and would have cost GM a lot to train technicians to maintain them when the technology just "wasn't there". In the late '70s and '80's I wouldn't touch a GM car with the proverbial 10' pole, but really think they've stepped up their game in the last 10 or 15 years. I've had several more recent GM cars and couldn't have been happier with them. I would seriously consider a Volt or a Bolt as a second car.

 

[ratsbew]

I think the Bolt will be a great car, but the Model 3 will be in a completely different segment for a lot of reasons.

The problem with the segment that the Bolt occupies, however, is that its segment (local driving, city driving) is already done extremely well by the Leaf that costs $10k less. The Bolt is just a local driver, with a much larger area being defined as "local". By the time more EVs are on the way, the entry level for the 70-100 mile EV may also drop down a good amount too making the choice harder.

I'm someone whose only car is a Leaf. The Bolt still won't enable me to do major roadtrips--even though it'd open up two major cities for me to visit. For local trips within my own city, it'll do almost nothing except allow me to not charge until the end of a heavy driving day in winter time.

I think a lot of people here aren't hating on the Bolt, they just don't think it'll hold a candle to Tesla Model 3 for the overall consumer experience and it'll be relegated down to a very narrow niche.

Plus loldealers.

This is a good comment that hits the nail on the head. 200 miles doesn't really get you much that 100 miles can't other than maybe more climate control use and skipping a day of charging (which is dumb since you charge at home anyway). Without a fast DC charging network along commonly traveled routes, the Bolt doesn't really get you out of the city and across the country.

 

[gene]

This is a good comment that hits the nail on the head. 200 miles doesn't really get you much that 100 miles can't other than maybe more climate control use and skipping a day of charging (which is dumb since you charge at home anyway). Without a fast DC charging network along commonly traveled routes, the Bolt doesn't really get you out of the city and across the country.

This is accurate, but for many possible buyers it depends on situation. For instance, where I live is 70 miles out of Los Angeles. LA has many communities about 40 to 75 miles away from which 10's of thousands of commuters drive everyday. Add the use of the HOV lanes for these commuters. Just the Los Angeles commuters alone could consume the Bolt production for a couple of years.

 

[Spidy]

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.

They box still has to have some steel around it to have any effect. You need something to crumple... and plastic box won't do much.

Also this does not show everything. The whole dashboard etc. are missing so you don't know how much space their actually is. Battery cooling components also do not seem visible.

In addition moving stuff also mean longer distances for cables, hoses etc. which means more weight.

Not to mention you have a secure cabin department, moving components might again increase the demand for firewalls etc.

 

[wdolson]

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 think the way GM went about recalling and destroying all the EV1s is what left such a bad taste in people's mouths. GM could have sold off the remaining EV1s with the caveat that no spare parts were going to be made for them and with no warranty. Some people would have still bought them and tried to keep them running, but most would be undrivable by now. The way GM went about taking them off the road as aggressively as they did, many people were left with a feeling GM was up to something nefarious. It may have just been some corporate bureaucrat doing what he (or she) thought was best, but from a PR angle, it was poorly handled.

I also think the tarnish on GM from all their years of questionable quality and the bankruptcy is a more general negative on the company in the eyes of the public.

GM is still doing some odd things. My SO's law partner got a $70K Chevy pickup to haul his jet skis and other toys (he was talking about buying a snow mobile tonight). He was saying changing the oil costs $160 because you have to remove a bunch of stuff from the engine to get to the oil port. That sounds like pretty poor engineering to me.

 

[RobStark]

GM is still doing some odd things. My SO's law partner got a $70K Chevy pickup to haul his jet skis and other toys (he was talking about buying a snow mobile tonight). He was saying changing the oil costs $160 because you have to remove a bunch of stuff from the engine to get to the oil port. That sounds like pretty poor engineering to me.

A newer Porsche 911 Turbo oil change cost $350-$500 for similar reasons.

Superior German Engineering.

 

[Zythryn]

...
GM is still doing some odd things. My SO's law partner got a $70K Chevy pickup to haul his jet skis and other toys (he was talking about buying a snow mobile tonight). He was saying changing the oil costs $160 because you have to remove a bunch of stuff from the engine to get to the oil port. That sounds like pretty poor engineering to me.

I had a Chevy Monza in college like that.
The reason was not poor engineering, it was that somebody special ordered it with a V-8 in it.
You couldn't reach two of the spark plugs without pulling the engine out a bit.

On the bright side, I never needed to run the heater in the winter!
The thing was probably a death trap waiting to happen

 

[Saghost]

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.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Tesla relies on those massive octagonal beams to transfer the load back to the battery pack housing area for the small offset crash. A hollow box would have to have a massive reinforcing structure to give it the kind of rigidity you'd need - hollow boxes by their nature are not very rigid, especially to shearing loads.

 

[JRP3]

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.

I'm not sure that's accurate. Look at the early RAV4EV, over 100 miles of range, many have lasted more than 10 years and over 100K miles of driving, and cost what, $45K? I'd say the technology did exist, and who knows how it may have advanced if it and the EV1 programs had continued. Personally I'm not holding on to any grudges with GM or Toyota, but I don't agree that the technology didn't exist at the time to make useful EV's.
As for the Bolt, as I said, if the Model 3 weren't coming I'd probably get one, but, if there were no EV's and the Bolt was an ICE, most of us I think would not look at it twice, since it's not really a compelling design, just another econobox similar to a Honda Fit, (though in fact a bit better looking IMO). It's much better than the LEAF, which also, if an ICE, probably would not have sold well at all.

 

[jas]

The reveal of the Model 3 prototype soon now sounds more interesting to me. Like in a debate, there are tipping points. Showing in solid form what a cheaper EV can be will force other carmakers to either up their game or not try. The more players in the game the better options there will be for buying consumers. Market forces generating interest, demand and sooner model releases. It might also bring in more carmakers. Things are looking up.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

I think the Bolt will be a great car, but the Model 3 will be in a completely different segment for a lot of reasons.

The problem with the segment that the Bolt occupies, however, is that its segment (local driving, city driving) is already done extremely well by the Leaf that costs $10k less. The Bolt is just a local driver, with a much larger area being defined as "local". By the time more EVs are on the way, the entry level for the 70-100 mile EV may also drop down a good amount too making the choice harder.

I'm someone whose only car is a Leaf. The Bolt still won't enable me to do major roadtrips--even though it'd open up two major cities for me to visit. For local trips within my own city, it'll do almost nothing except allow me to not charge until the end of a heavy driving day in winter time.

I think a lot of people here aren't hating on the Bolt, they just don't think it'll hold a candle to Tesla Model 3 for the overall consumer experience and it'll be relegated down to a very narrow niche.

Plus loldealers.

I agree that the Bolt is a "local" car, but in the suburbs as opposed to the cities, the 2x range of the Bolt vs. the LEAF makes the Bolt more compelling. For a person who has a 10 mile commute (20 miles round trip) and then has to drive another 20 miles (40 miles round trip) for errands, taking kids to activities, and other stuff, the 80-100 miles for a LEAF can get consumed pretty quickly, especially if the HVAC needs to be run.

The Bolt gives a very comfortable buffer for those days when there's an emergency or unexpected trip. If my choice was between a LEAF and a Bolt, I would gladly pay the extra $ for a Bolt.

 

[Cyclone]

I think it higher than that, high enough to discourage people from using it as a "home" charger.

If you do a flat fee it should be a per day fee not per session so that a road trip with 3 supercharger stops is all on that one $5 fee. But the "avoiding home charging" user would still pay the same $5 for one session.

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.

Given Tesla's recent wording of the Supercharging network to be for longn trips, I suspect something like this would be the likely setup when/if they decide to charge for Supercharging. A flat fee for the day to cover the road trip, but enough that a local wouldn't use it.

- - - Updated - - -

Love the mirror going from standard to 80 degree camera view.
Image: http://i.imgur.com/yJqFZ6y.png

Image: http://i.imgur.com/YSvhOdb.png

That is a fantastic idea. Love it! You get the pluses of both worlds and a good safety fallback if you suffer a problem with the camera.

 

[TexasEV]

Given Tesla's recent wording of the Supercharging network to be for longn trips,

That's not recent wording, that was the wording starting with the initial announcement of the supercharging network in 2012-- to facilitate long distance travel. That was documented many times in the thread discussing this. It's just getting more emphasis lately because of abuses by locals at some sites.

 

[ZsoZso]

That is a fantastic idea. Love it! You get the pluses of both worlds and a good safety fallback if you suffer a problem with the camera.

Yes it is cool to put the rear view camera output into the mirror frame, I love it too. I always have the camera view active on my S when driving, gives a great extra view to eliminate blind spots for lane changing.
However, there is a bad-weather caveat. On rainy or snowy days or slush/mud on the road, the camera lense will get very dirty pretty quick and there is no way to clean it short of stopping and getting out of the car. It is too small for a wiper, but some technology should be applied to be able clean it off while driving.

 

[Cyclone]

That's not recent wording, that was the wording starting with the initial announcement of the supercharging network in 2012-- to facilitate long distance travel. That was documented many times in the thread discussing this. It's just getting more emphasis lately because of abuses by locals at some sites.

By wording I meant their public advertisement. Recently (last six months or so), Tesla changed the wording from free unlimited Supercharging to free long-distance travel via Supercharging. While he's cut has been discussed before and I won't go into it as there are better threads for it, Tesla is emphasizing Supercharging as travel. This perception change to new customers will make a transition to charging reasonable fees to deter local use more feasible (plus as another poster said, a subscription option for those without home charging, like apartment dwellers).

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it is cool to put the rear view camera output into the mirror frame, I love it too. I always have the camera view active on my S when driving, gives a great extra view to eliminate blind spots for lane changing.
However, there is a bad-weather caveat. On rainy or snowy days or slush/mud on the road, the camera lense will get very dirty pretty quick and there is no way to clean it short of stopping and getting out of the car. It is too small for a wiper, but some technology should be applied to be able clean it off while driving.

True, but then you are no worse than you are today. I also have my camera on 24/7. Recently my car was serviced and I told my service center that me loaner had a much better view than my car. Turns out the camera needed a good cleaning.
Before (top) and after (bottom) a good cleaning on my car:

 

[electracity]

The Bolt rear camera is great, but it is undoubtedly offered as standard because of terrible rear visibility. When do cameras become required in new cars in the U.S.? 2018?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The Bolt rear camera is great, but it is undoubtedly offered as standard because of terrible rear visibility. When do cameras become required in new cars in the U.S.? 2018?

May 2018.

NHTSA Announces Final Rule Requiring Rear Visibility Technology | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

At this point you can pretty much expect any new model to have it as standard.

 

[electracity]

At this point you can pretty much expect any new model to have it as standard.

Not the new Volvo XC90 (which is truly an all new car). The camera is a dealer add-on POS. I don't know what happened in an otherwise great high tech car.

 

[Breezy]

200 miles takes it from a local car to a regional car, and becomes practical for people like me who live in rural areas.