Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Chevy Bolt a "Commuter Car?" Not Available Until April? Help!

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It is clear to me and I understand about infrastructure--I have driven 8000 miles away from home in my BEV. It is also clear (maybe mostly clear) that in advertising the Bolt that this is not so clear. Maybe it is just me.
I think that some of us missed the sarcasm in your initial post. Not knowing you personally, that message sounded like something someone would post if they didn't know about EVs.

Having read later your later messages, it's obvious you have plenty of experience with long distance travel in a Tesla. :)
 
I think that some of us missed the sarcasm in your initial post. Not knowing you personally, that message sounded like something someone would post if they didn't know about EVs.

Having read later your later messages, it's obvious you have plenty of experience with long distance travel in a Tesla. :)

Honestly, I was not being so sarcastic. More dumbfounded. I was trying (doing my homework before posting) to be a not so knowledgeable person coming to these two cars. But how can you compare these two cars (Bolt and Model 3)? Of course you can, and the Bolt, I hope, will be a fine car for many people. I was disappointed that there was a large limit to the Bolt that was not really talked about. I was hoping there was some way it could be more than a Leaf. It is better, it will make a better commuter car than the Leaf. But that limit (about a 100 miles and then you better get home) is disappointing to me, and makes it not something I could choose.
 
OF COURSE the Bolt is a commuter car. But that's not a bad thing...

The market for commuter EVs is YUGE! Virtually every suburban 2-car household has one of them that never travels more than 200 miles/day and would never require refueling away from home.

For those who have just one car, an EV may not make sense yet. The discussions here about refueling concerns makes that point clear. In a few years when charging stations are everywhere and charging times shorter, EVs will make sense for more people.

This comes from someone who is a staunch supporter...
 
Honestly, I was not being so sarcastic. More dumbfounded. I was trying (doing my homework before posting) to be a not so knowledgeable person coming to these two cars. But how can you compare these two cars (Bolt and Model 3)? Of course you can, and the Bolt, I hope, will be a fine car for many people. I was disappointed that there was a large limit to the Bolt that was not really talked about. I was hoping there was some way it could be more than a Leaf. It is better, it will make a better commuter car than the Leaf. But that limit (about a 100 miles and then you better get home) is disappointing to me, and makes it not something I could choose.

Silly Rabbit... To solve problems, you need the data. If you get bad data, you get a bad answer. It's what was called GIGO a generation ago.

OK, to seriously solve your dilemna, fill out the following worksheet -

Number of Superchargers in Nebraska when the Model 3 is available for sale to the public in Nebraska:
Number of Combined Charging Specification locations when the M3 is in Nebraska:
Number of EPA miles range a Tesla Model 3 has when it is available in Nebraska:
Number of EPA miles the second year Bolt has when the Model 3 is in Nebraska:
Number of EPA miles the other two longest range EV's have when the Model 3 is in Nebraska:

Once you fill in the numbers, I will map out your viable solutions.


PS- In February on a cold day, if you run the heater on a Gen 1 Leaf, your radius is 30 miles. Maybe. I wouldn't risk it past 25mi if I wasn't 100% ready to walk, and never at night. Yes, there is a significant difference between a 200 mile EV and an 80 mile EV.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: dhrivnak
OF COURSE the Bolt is a commuter car. But that's not a bad thing...

The market for commuter EVs is YUGE! Virtually every suburban 2-car household has one of them that never travels more than 200 miles/day and would never require refueling away from home.

For those who have just one car, an EV may not make sense yet. The discussions here about refueling concerns makes that point clear. In a few years when charging stations are everywhere and charging times shorter, EVs will make sense for more people.

This comes from someone who is a staunch supporter...

No, a commuter car is a _bad_ thing. But the Bolt is more than a commuter. It's a commuter, errand runner, a friend-visitor and drive-to-a-restauranter (or at least it would be for us). 200 miles (100+100) is 99% of trips and over 80% of household miles.
 
No, a commuter car is a _bad_ thing. But the Bolt is more than a commuter. It's a commuter, errand runner, a friend-visitor and drive-to-a-restauranter (or at least it would be for us). 200 miles (100+100) is 99% of trips and over 80% of household miles.
We're playing from the same sheet of music. I lump all those activities into the concept of "commuter car".

I expect the scenario for EVs to play out like this over the next few years: Enthusiasts initially buy them to use for the second-car local activities you noted, not intending to use them for long trips. They are delighted with them and make their friends aware of the advantages. Their friends see the light and sales increase. Eventually, as the charging infrastructure improves, people feel more willing to take long trips and refuel away from home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhrivnak and Jeff N
there is a significant difference between a 200 mile EV and an 80 mile EV.
It is silly to generalize.

One or multiple car family ?
Charging available at work ? How far away ?
Rural or urban lifestyle ?
Children ?
Climate ?

The list goes on ...

My work is 45 miles away, so until they offer at least L1 charging I want a nominal 120 mile range car good for say ... eight years for it to be a perfect commuter car. A 200 mile range commuter is a waste of money. For me.
 
It is silly to generalize.

One or multiple car family ?
Charging available at work ? How far away ?
Rural or urban lifestyle ?
Children ?
Climate ?

The list goes on ...

My work is 45 miles away, so until they offer at least L1 charging I want a nominal 120 mile range car good for say ... eight years for it to be a perfect commuter car. A 200 mile range commuter is a waste of money. For me.

It's not just a matter of range or price. You should also consider power, handling, braking, efficiency. Even if they had the same range, and the price differential remained at $4,000, there are differences that are not related to the battery.

If you want the best BEV under $65,000, you are probably going to want the Bolt based on journalist reports. Regardless of the distance you drive. Better handling and brakes, much more powerful motor, and uses less electricity per mile.

Sort of like a Tesla Model S base, vs. Tesla P90D trimmed. There are reasons other and price and range that make them different.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: callmesam
Chevrolet understood this better than anyone in 2006. I can borrow one of my kids EVs and go anywhere from Central America to the Arctic Circle. Not in the future, it's been possible since late 2010.

Could you explain the reference to 2006? I know GM stopped production of the EV-1 in 1999 and began production of the Volt in 2010, but I don't recall what transpired in 2006. Also, I don't follow you when you say you could drive anywhere from Central America to the Artic Circle in your kids EV. A little elaboration would be helpful.

From watching GM's posturing with the Volt & Bolt, it seems apparent to me GM's goal is to just sell automobiles -- they couldn't care less if it's an ICE or EV. That's reflected by their lack of interest in developing or nurturing any kind of charging network (Charged EVs | The Bolt EV is on the way, but GM has no plans to invest in fast charging infrastructure). So, IMHO, unless CHAdeMO, or CCS,or their successor expands rapidly on their own, GM's BEVs will always be commuter-only cars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: callmesam
It is silly to generalize.

One or multiple car family ?
Charging available at work ? How far away ?
Rural or urban lifestyle ?
Children ?
Climate ?

The list goes on ...

My work is 45 miles away, so until they offer at least L1 charging I want a nominal 120 mile range car good for say ... eight years for it to be a perfect commuter car. A 200 mile range commuter is a waste of money. For me.

In Colorado in winter? Personally, if the temp is 0F, I want a lot of battery reserve.
 
Could you explain the reference to 2006? I know GM stopped production of the EV-1 in 1999 and began production of the Volt in 2010, but I don't recall what transpired in 2006. Also, I don't follow you when you say you could drive anywhere from Central America to the Artic Circle in your kids EV. A little elaboration would be helpful.

From watching GM's posturing with the Volt & Bolt, it seems apparent to me GM's goal is to just sell automobiles -- they couldn't care less if it's an ICE or EV. That's reflected by their lack of interest in developing or nurturing any kind of charging network (Charged EVs | The Bolt EV is on the way, but GM has no plans to invest in fast charging infrastructure). So, IMHO, unless CHAdeMO, or CCS,or their successor expands rapidly on their own, GM's BEVs will always be commuter-only cars.

A brief history of the Most Hated Electric Car Maker Ever, (or The Company That Would Not Quit):

GM's first BEV was in 1908. Not practical, but they made them, mostly for women. GM never pulled the plug on EV projects. Part of the EV tech was to become the world's first electric starter for cars in 1911. In 1913, 40% of GMC Heavy Truck sales were BEVs. This ended about in WWI. The Great Depression slowed things a bit, as did WWII, but they were still tinkering with them.

In the modern era, 1964 saw GM start to play with the Electrovairs. They had a range up to 80 miles using the batteries found in ICBM's. A bit too pricey. In 1969 came the utility cars, the 512 Urbans. It was even thought that a plutonium battery used in satellites could power one for years without recharging. In the mid 1970's the Electrovette was designed and GM thought that 10% of their car sales would be BEV's by 1980. Failed again.

In the late 1980's GM made the Sunraycer? solar electric car. It won the 1987 endurance race by ... 3 days ahead of second place. Then in 1990, using what they had learned, they displayed the Impact which was slated for production (as the EV1). They took it to Bonneville Salt Flats and went 183 mph back then. Faster than most supercars of the day. So what the hell, try, try, try, again. The EV1 was produced but the only way to make it even remotely feasible was to use lead acid. Then at great cost, the changed to NiMH. It did NOT sell out until heavily discounted on the lease rate, which was a fraction of the costs to begin with. The EV-1 was a financial disaster far bigger than the Ford Edsel, but it was not the first or last bloodbath GM took in the technology world. When the EV1 ended, the research did not. Almost immediately they started thinking outside the box. What they ended up with was the Volt. Which again lost money, and nearly drown.

You seem to believe in conspiracy theories only, and strive to find evil in others. GM is no saint, but nobody has spent the blood, sweat, and tears that GM has trying to get people to buy EVs.

Yes, I know the Starbucks Saved The Whales crowd doesn't want to hear such nonsense. It disrupts all the years of repetitive essays on why GM's true goal is to put a two Canyoneros in every driveway...

 
A brief history of the Most Hated Electric Car Maker Ever, (or The Company That Would Not Quit):

GM's first BEV was in 1908. Not practical, but they made them, mostly for women. GM never pulled the plug on EV projects. Part of the EV tech was to become the world's first electric starter for cars in 1911. In 1913, 40% of GMC Heavy Truck sales were BEVs. This ended about in WWI. The Great Depression slowed things a bit, as did WWII, but they were still tinkering with them.

In the modern era, 1964 saw GM start to play with the Electrovairs. They had a range up to 80 miles using the batteries found in ICBM's. A bit too pricey. In 1969 came the utility cars, the 512 Urbans. It was even thought that a plutonium battery used in satellites could power one for years without recharging. In the mid 1970's the Electrovette was designed and GM thought that 10% of their car sales would be BEV's by 1980. Failed again.

In the late 1980's GM made the Sunraycer? solar electric car. It won the 1987 endurance race by ... 3 days ahead of second place. Then in 1990, using what they had learned, they displayed the Impact which was slated for production (as the EV1). They took it to Bonneville Salt Flats and went 183 mph back then. Faster than most supercars of the day. So what the hell, try, try, try, again. The EV1 was produced but the only way to make it even remotely feasible was to use lead acid. Then at great cost, the changed to NiMH. It did NOT sell out until heavily discounted on the lease rate, which was a fraction of the costs to begin with. The EV-1 was a financial disaster far bigger than the Ford Edsel, but it was not the first or last bloodbath GM took in the technology world. When the EV1 ended, the research did not. Almost immediately they started thinking outside the box. What they ended up with was the Volt. Which again lost money, and nearly drown.

You seem to believe in conspiracy theories only, and strive to find evil in others. GM is no saint, but nobody has spent the blood, sweat, and tears that GM has trying to get people to buy EVs.

Yes, I know the Starbucks Saved The Whales crowd doesn't want to hear such nonsense. It disrupts all the years of repetitive essays on why GM's true goal is to put a two Canyoneros in every driveway...
I'll input an alternate view to McRat's that may explain why GM was seen as the devil in the EV/plug-in world:
GM was actually one of only two automakers that sued CARB over the ZEV mandate (the other was Daimler Chrysler).
GM Takes CARB to Court Over ZEV Mandate : EVWORLD.COM

GM under then-chairman Roger Smith had genuine interest in EVs when the Impact concept was developed and that continued into the EV-1 under John Smith. Then under Rick Wagoner, attention shifted to hydrogen cars and thus came the push to end the ZEV mandate.
Best-Kept Secret in Detroit: The Development of GM's Electric Car

The other unique thing GM did that set back EV development was selling of the Nimh patents to Chevron, which encumbered them. And unlike Honda and Toyota, they didn't have a "green" replacement for EVs, like the Prius or Insight.

I'll add another part about the Volt. Bob Lutz was instrumental to getting the Volt into production (Lutz also was quoted as saying the Tesla Roadster served as a motivator). If it was left up to Rick Wagoner and Larry Burns, we'll still be waiting for hydrogen cars to become a reality.
Bob Lutz: The Man Who Revived the Electric Car

Keep in mind that companies are not homogeneous and they are not run by the same person forever. There were periods where GM had genuine interest and enthusiasm for EVs (the Impact was actually inspirational to CARB for starting the ZEV program), but there were also periods where GM was fighting hard not to make EVs.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: callmesam
I'll input an alternate view to McRat's
There is a century of GM scummery that somehow escaped mcRat's memory. Just quickly off the top of my head
  • The streetcar conspiracy
  • A century of industrial pollution that GM has refused to clean up
  • A decade of anti-hybrid propaganda
  • The ignition switch story and cover-up.
  • Abuse of the legal system Vs ZEV
  • Political corruption to hobble Tesla direct marketing
Lest I be accused of bias, I'll be the first to admit that VW is at least as despicable.
 
There is a century of GM scummery that somehow escaped mcRat's memory. Just quickly off the top of my head
  • The streetcar conspiracy
  • A century of industrial pollution that GM has refused to clean up
  • A decade of anti-hybrid propaganda
  • The ignition switch story and cover-up.
  • Abuse of the legal system Vs ZEV
  • Political corruption to hobble Tesla direct marketing
Lest I be accused of bias, I'll be the first to admit that VW is at least as despicable.
Good point. The active GM lobbying to block Tesla from opening stores shows they are still up to their own tricks (and once again they are the only automaker doing so).

They also tried to lobby to ban CHAdeMO from publicly funded chargers in California (again, the only automaker to do that from the CCS backers).
GM strikes out against CHAdeMO DC fast charging; opponents say SAE has 'the plug without the cars'

It's understandable for corporations to look out for themselves, but GM (even the "new" one) seems to like to take it step further than that.
 
There is a century of GM scummery that somehow escaped mcRat's memory. Just quickly off the top of my head
  • The streetcar conspiracy
  • A century of industrial pollution that GM has refused to clean up
  • A decade of anti-hybrid propaganda
  • The ignition switch story and cover-up.
  • Abuse of the legal system Vs ZEV
  • Political corruption to hobble Tesla direct marketing
Lest I be accused of bias, I'll be the first to admit that VW is at least as despicable.

Yes, I remember that. When GM had starved it's slave laborers into uselessness, they handed them over to the FBI who took them by streetcar to put them in gas chambers, then ovens. So it wouldn't freak out the Americans, they did in the next country over, Polan... errr... I mean Canada. Today, GM is considered a fashion brand BECAUSE of how they behaved in times of crisis. Nothing like a "worker skin lampshade" free with each new GM 320i right?

And the whole thing about poison gas and mine fields GM did in China? They will never clean that up. Since GM was an enemy to both Communist China and Russia, we just used Wite-Out in the history books.

And the anti-semitic wall posters inside GM factories, were deplorable.

Yes, the ignition switch's electrical hot lead was covered by a cardboard cover right next to the hood mounted gas tank. Even a 10 mph collision in the front could be lethal from the fire hazard, but normally the engine in the back just caught fire while driving. The steel front firewall had holes in it, and large openings to allow gasoline into the interior in an accident. Probably the deadliest car of all time historically by deaths per 1000 was GM's people's car. Trivia - GM workers never received their People's Cars. They saved and paid for them, but the company reneged on the deal and used them for the army.

And the way GM bribed California Bureaucrats to exempt them from EV production, then give them Special Stickers so their gasoline-only cars could use the HOV lanes, was slimy.

In any case, those points pale to GM's biggest crime, People get sidetracked by grassy knoll stories and Professional Law Firm Marketing, which are trivia at best when true.

What was GM's real big crime? No Huffington Post? Real Deal? The worst failure of science and engineering in history:

General Motors was deeply involved with the Leaded Gasoline Conspiracy. This was no grassy knoll stuff. This is fully documented in science journals, newspapers, courts filings and decisions, and testimony by those involved.

While GM was not the only company heavily involved in the addition of lead into motor fuel, they did in fact invent it. Far more damage was done by that decision than any other man-made environmental disaster in history.

But none of that has to do with General Motor's Electric and Fuel Cell vehicle developments.

General Motors has been the most hardcore EV developer in history, bar none. Over 100 years of continuous development and even bankruptcy did not stop them. Think about that for a second. EVs always lost money for GM. But even going under did not stop them from developing it. They just took the millions they were spending making the next generation clean diesel (4.5L Reverse Flow V8 Common Rail Clean Diesel) and put it into the Volt.

From an environmental aspect, it wasn't a good choice. All the Teslas and Leafs and Volts combined would not have reduced the CO2 emissions as much as the 4.5 diesel. The test mule at SEMA was a big SUV, not a euro-sized, a Texas sized SUV. And it achieved over 30 mpg per EPA cycle with tons of power, and diesel is 20% cleaner on top of it. These were and are the big sellers. Pickups and SUVs. And the 4.5 is a drop in replacement for the gas V8, lighter, cheaper, smaller, than any other V8 high powered diesel, even today. There were hundreds of the engines in a warehouse in their shipping crates that I saw. Maybe thousands. They were all recycled. Millions of gallons of petroleum could have been saved already.
 
Last edited:
Prius imitation? Volt1 is still a better car than the all new Prius Prime.

He's trolling. :D

Toyota has no EV technology that is modern. They had to buy tech from Tesla to build the RAV4 EV's. The RAV4 EV's were discontinued because Toyota spend their allowance. They were going to lose X millions of dollars appeasing the US government so they could dip their beak in other funding. Once they lost all the money, they just shut it down in a few minutes. Nothing invested. It was a Church in a Tent.

For 2017 they release a car that would not be competitive in late 2010.