Would you consider a Bolt?

[JohnSnowNW]

And, of course, GM is going to advertise and proclaim that their service model is better and more widely available today just like Tesla proclaims that their direct sales and service centers take better care of their customers than GM dealers take care of GM customers.

Yeah, but one of the is demonstrably untrue:

Here's a Good Indication of How Much People Hate Car Dealerships

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

Tesla doesn't even need dealers, only service centers. All sales can be done online and if you want to test drive one, visit a SC and try out a loaner, making them a de facto dealer, if they can get around restrictions that way.

 

[SageBrush]

I said my perception was that GM wants a level playing field in the future when Tesla is bigger and less precarious and if they want that they need to start lobbying today. I didn't assert that GM wanted a level playing field presently....

I get it

You present the GM hypocrisy very well.

 

[Dwdnjck]

Six pages and only one "nut" reference. We can do better.

 

[techmaven]

Where to begin.... I'll just run down the list of various comments on this thread in no particular order.

0. Direct sales and legislative lobbying

GM is unable to do direct sales under present laws and doesn't see this as likely to change anytime soon. They see Tesla becoming a serious potential market threat. Thus, they do not want Tesla to have a direct sales advantage. GM wants a level playing field. This is not particularly surprising or evil. Yes, the state automotive dealership laws are outdated and counterproductive.

At the moment, GM has so many advantages... they have a much larger retail footprint, they have profitable models and can essentially dump EVs below cost, and they have many inherent advantages of being very large and well established. They could have chosen to stay out of the fray. They still have tons of advantages even if Tesla can sell direct. This is dirty dealing and indicative of the real GM.

1. Price
[...]
Someone said the price of the Bolt EV should really be around $19,000. Others said the Bolt was overpriced. In reality, the 30 kWh Nissan LEAF is only $3,500 less than the Bolt for 107 miles of range. Next year's BMW i3 will be 114 miles and as far as I know the base price will still be around $41,000. At least for 2017, the Bolt EV will be a real bargain compared to its then selling competitors.

No one said that the Leaf or the i3 isn't overpriced given comparison to the Bolt or the Model 3. They certainly are if they are not significantly updated or if the price isn't significantly adjusted. Saying that others will suck worse doesn't mean that the Bolt doesn't suck in terms of value.

The Bolt is basically a converted Buick Encore which starts at $24k.

2. Rear seating

With only two people typically sharing the rear seating area they will hardly notice the difference between the Bolt and S hip and shoulder room. Both cars have relatively flat rear bench seating. If three people are in the back seat they will each have an extra inch of seating width in the S versus the Bolt EV. And the Model S is an unusually wide car. Again, the Model 3 will be a bit narrower and likely so will the rear seating widths.

Yeah, I've sat in a Buick Encore which is internally very close dimensionally to the Bolt. Yes, it has a lot of headroom. But no, it feels like a small car because of the width. Some people will value the very high headroom, but for most people, it is a waste. It will be uncomfortable to seat 3 in the rear of a Bolt unless we are talking all kids.

3. Highway range

In truth, we don't yet know what the highway EV range will be for either the Model 3 or Bolt EV. My guess is that the Model 3 will get 215-235 miles on the highway and the Bolt EV will get somewhere between 185-210. If correct, that's a noticeable but not a huge difference.

It's a huge difference. If the Bolt isn't designed to make long distance BEV trips, why bother to put in 200 miles of EPA range? The design decisions do not make any sense except as a compliance vehicle. If you can't make DCFC jumps of 120-140 miles in all kinds of weather with a little bit of battery degradation and have a charging network that where you can actually do that, then why bother putting in 60 kWh of battery? GM might as well put in 40-50 kWh, drop the price and increase the efficiency. The whole point of putting in 200 miles of range in a BEV is to get sufficient range to make long distance trips. Since the Bolt is both heavier than a Leaf and has worse aerodynamics than a Leaf, it cannot improve upon the Leaf's 343 Wh/mi tested efficiency at 70 mph:

https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact2011nissanleaf.pdf

Assuming 57 kWh of available battery, that's 160 miles of range at 70 mph with a perfect battery and sunny weather. Take 5% off for degradation and 25% off for weather and 5-10% for a buffer, we're talking 100 to 105 mile spacing for DCFC network.

The Model 3, assuming 52 kWh of available battery, that's 190 miles of range at 70 mph with a perfect battery and sunny weather. Take 5% off degradation, 25% off for weather and 5-10% for a buffer, we're talking 120-130 mile spacing for the DCFC network. Of course, to make 140 miles would mean not driving at 70 mph in the depths of winter.

One is at the edge of viability for long distance travel, the other isn't viable as a long distance BEV. So the only reason to put in 200 miles of range in the Bolt is to achieve enough range on the UDDS scale to get ZEV type III credits. GM doesn't expect their Bolt owners to actually drive long distances. They might as well just put in 40-50 kWh and drop the price if it wasn't for CARB ZEV credits. On the other hand, Tesla does expect Model 3 owners to make use of the Supercharger network and make the jumps.

4. Charging rate
[...]
It's very likely that the Model 3 will charge faster but that is somewhat mitigated since most people road tripping will usually arrive at the charger with at least 30 miles in reserve range. The charging rate differences between the two cars are greatest at the lowest battery states of charge.

The Bolt usually won't have 30 miles of reserve range. Bolt owners will be white knuckling it to make long distance jumps so usually, they won't. The difference between a BMW i3 with 33 kWh battery and a Bolt with a 60 kWh battery won't actually be that much in normal operation for most people. The Bolt isn't a viable long distance BEV. That's why GM has no emphasis on the DCFC portion of this vehicle thus far.

The Bolt is about to launch... where is GM in building out even 200A CCS? You took some snapshots of Plugshare's maps of CCS EVSE's. Obviously, you haven't travelled on the CCS network. First of all, there's an embarrassing number of these that are 24 kW. Utterly useless for long distance travel except in emergencies. Then, look at how many of these locations have more than 1 plug. Almost none. So congestion is a terrible problem and worse, unpredictability makes it almost completely useless as a charging network. Plus, the ones that are free often are in disrepair and the ones that are well maintained cost more than gasoline to charge up.

Then, ask GM if the 2017 Bolt has the new revision to the CCS plug that isn't yet ratified. Then ask if it will be upgradable to whatever will be ratified and at what cost.

Clearly, GM doesn't anticipate that Bolt owners will travel long distances with Bolt except for a few die hards. So again, why put in a 60 kWh battery? Oh, yeah, it's a compliance car.

 

[TaoJones]

Sure. I consider GM's nuts and Bolt to be a compliance car, with an upper limit of 30,000 sold per year (due mostly to battery supply constraints). There. I considered it.

While their Volt has acquitted itself well within the hybrid world, the future of the Bolt is by no means assured. Given GM's long history in the EV arena, I expected better. Sort of.

 

[SageBrush]

Clearly, GM doesn't anticipate that Bolt owners will travel long distances with Bolt except for a few die hards. So again, why put in a 60 kWh battery? Oh, yeah, it's a compliance car.

Three thumbs up.

There is one possible market segment though for the Bolt battery sizing: those people who want a ~ 80 mile EV radius from home. I actually fit exactly in that demographic since we also have an ICE car for longer trips. The thing is though, battery prices have come down so much that the rationale for an extended range EV commuter car has nowhere near the punch as it did just a few years ago.

E.g. (hypothetically),

Tesla 125 mile range car for $25,000
Tesla 215 mile range car for $35,000
-- I'll buy the cheaper car

Tesla 125 mile range car for $30,000
Tesla 215 mile range car for $35,000
-- I'll buy the more expensive car

 

[physicsfita]

Tesla doesn't even need dealers, only service centers. All sales can be done online and if you want to test drive one, visit a SC and try out a loaner, making them a de facto dealer, if they can get around restrictions that way.

Tesla is not allowed to have a service center in Michigan, let alone a store. Tesla is trying to push the point by applying for a dealer license for a store in the Grand Rapids area -- as the law is written, I don't see how the Secretary of State can approve the application. I had to drive to Cleveland to put in my reservation.

 

[SΞXY P100D]

My answer is a big N O. Deciding between a Model 3 vs. Bolt is akin to deciding between these 2 phones IMO. Why get a car when you can get a smartcar instead? I share Chowdhry's recent assessment of the Bolt as stated in this article: Tesla Motors: Model 3 Built for the iPhone Generation?

 

[Jeff N]

Well....

Saying that others will suck worse doesn't mean that the Bolt doesn't suck in terms of value.

The Bolt is basically a converted Buick Encore which starts at $24k.

Value is generally a relative rather than an absolute concept. Some of us prefer electric powertrain NVH and performance and are "done" with fossil fuels.

I'm in the market for a BEV, not an ICE, so I'm doing my market research relative to other BEVs. At least for calendar year 2017, the Bolt EV is going to be great value versus the competition. Things will change when the Model 3 becomes generally available.

Yeah, I've sat in a Buick Encore which is internally very close dimensionally to the Bolt. Yes, it has a lot of headroom. But no, it feels like a small car because of the width. Some people will value the very high headroom, but for most people, it is a waste. It will be uncomfortable to seat 3 in the rear of a Bolt unless we are talking all kids.

I just got back from visiting with some folks and sat in the backseat of their new RAV4 CUV with shoulder room rated essentially the same as a Model S (55.4 inches). I shared that backseat on several trips with a young child (~10 years old) and another adult. It was cramped. A Model 3 or Bolt EV won't be much different even if they are 2-4 inches less room across. With two people seated in the rear bench seat there will be good room in all three cars.

If the Bolt isn't designed to make long distance BEV trips, why bother to put in 200 miles of EPA range? The design decisions do not make any sense except as a compliance vehicle. If you can't make DCFC jumps of 120-140 miles in all kinds of weather with a little bit of battery degradation and have a charging network that where you can actually do that, then why bother putting in 60 kWh of battery? GM might as well put in 40-50 kWh, drop the price and increase the efficiency.

So, Tesla shouldn't have sold the S60 back in 2012 when there were few Supercharger stations? The S60 was just a compliance car?

In my area in the SF Bay Area, at least, I would have sufficient CCS stations from day one of ownership to take road trips around most of California, and western Oregon and Washington. As a practical matter, those are the areas where I usually take road trips anyway. True, many of those stations are single plug and "24 kW" but there are plans by EVgo to upgrade some of those soon. New ones along highways will generally be faster as well. Existing CCS plugs are lower power since they matched the capability of the 75-100 mile cars on the road. The new generation of 200+ mile cars will drive "100 kW" and faster chargers. There will be lots of CCS stations installed over the lifetime of a Bolt EV purchased in 2017.

The whole point of putting in 200 miles of range in a BEV is to get sufficient range to make long distance trips. Since the Bolt is both heavier than a Leaf and has worse aerodynamics than a Leaf, it cannot improve upon the Leaf's 343 Wh/mi tested efficiency at 70 mph:

Vehicle weight has minimal impact on highway mile efficiency and the Bolt EV is only about 250 pounds heavier. The aerodynamics CdA numbers published by Car and Driver for the LEAF and Bolt are very similar (7.8 and 8.05). Powertrain efficiency differences could easily make up that difference.

Assuming 57 kWh of available battery, that's 160 miles of range at 70 mph with a perfect battery and sunny weather. Take 5% off for degradation and 25% off for weather and 5-10% for a buffer, we're talking 100 to 105 mile spacing for DCFC network.

The Model 3, assuming 52 kWh of available battery, that's 190 miles of range at 70 mph with a perfect battery and sunny weather. Take 5% off degradation, 25% off for weather and 5-10% for a buffer, we're talking 120-130 mile spacing for the DCFC network. Of course, to make 140 miles would mean not driving at 70 mph in the depths of winter.

I generally drive slower than usual in bad weather. And actually, I'm perfectly happy to drive 60 mph if needed to stretch out my distance capacity to 200 miles at 285.4 Wh per mile (INL) which makes about 130 miles under your formula (same as your Model 3 going 70 mph).

One is at the edge of viability for long distance travel, the other isn't viable as a long distance BEV. So the only reason to put in 200 miles of range in the Bolt is to achieve enough range on the UDDS scale to get ZEV type III credits. GM doesn't expect their Bolt owners to actually drive long distances. They might as well just put in 40-50 kWh and drop the price if it wasn't for CARB ZEV credits. On the other hand, Tesla does expect Model 3 owners to make use of the Supercharger network and make the jumps.

So, according to you, the difference between viable and not viable is driving 70 mph in the Model 3 versus 60 mph in the Bolt EV to achieve similar mileage range on the highway?

Frankly, neither the base Model 3 or the Bolt EV (or the Model S60) are ideal for routine long-distance driving but all three are certainly capable of occasional road trips when "fast" DC chargers are available. A Model S85+ or a Model 3 with the optional bigger battery pack will work better.

Again, the difference between a base Model 3 and a Bolt EV on a road trip probably amounts to driving 10 mph slower (if needed) and waiting an extra 15-20 minutes during charging stops. With a couple of charging stops driving between San Francisco and Los Angeles that might amount to a 9.5 hour trip instead of an 8 hour trip. Either way it's essentially an all day drive at legal speed limits and a relaxed attitude around pit stop timing.

The Bolt usually won't have 30 miles of reserve range. Bolt owners will be white knuckling it to make long distance jumps so usually, they won't. The difference between a BMW i3 with 33 kWh battery and a Bolt with a 60 kWh battery won't actually be that much in normal operation for most people. The Bolt isn't a viable long distance BEV. That's why GM has no emphasis on the DCFC portion of this vehicle thus far.

I disagree with that, as I noted above.

Then, ask GM if the 2017 Bolt has the new revision to the CCS plug that isn't yet ratified. Then ask if it will be upgradable to whatever will be ratified and at what cost.

The CCS socket design isn't changing. The existing physical design has already been tested and found suitable for up to 250A and at more than 350A when the plug side has active liquid cooling. Charger manufacturers already have working prototypes. This will be the likely basis of the new CCS standard being worked on by the "CharIn" coalition. Of course, the car has to have suitable wiring to handle those currents aside from the CCS socket itself.

Clearly, GM doesn't anticipate that Bolt owners will travel long distances with Bolt except for a few die hards. So again, why put in a 60 kWh battery? Oh, yeah, it's a compliance car.

Once upon a time "compliance car" meant low volume (a few thousand s year) and only sold in CARB states. Now you are throwing around this term for a car planned to be sold at 30,000 to 50,000+ year in all 50 states, Canada, and much of Europe (as an Opel Ampera-e)?

Sure. I consider GM's nuts and Bolt to be a compliance car, with an upper limit of 30,000 sold per year (due mostly to battery supply constraints). There. I considered it.

No, they have said their initial production forecast to their parts suppliers is 30,000 but their supply chain will allow them to make at least 50,000 per year.

While their Volt has acquitted itself well within the hybrid world, the future of the Bolt is by no means assured. Given GM's long history in the EV arena, I expected better. Sort of.

You have higher expectations than I do... GM is doing better at electrification than any car maker other than Tesla. I think that's pretty good.

 

[CmdrThor]

I have absolutely no reason to consider a Bolt. My first EV was a 2013 Nissan LEAF 2 year lease. I replaced that by purchasing a 2015 Nissan LEAF (both with the generous $5k Georgia tax credit which is no longer available). Once our Model X was delivered we sold our last ICE vehicle and we are now all electric. The LEAF will certainly hold up as a daily commuter until our Model 3 is ready. After tax credits we only paid $15k for our LEAF so if we can sell it for around $10k once our Model 3 is ready I'll be extremely happy.

 

[TaoJones]

24kW does not for viable distance travel make. Especially with single installs and no redundancy. And a 50A service run means 20kW on a good day, and those single installs will get usage competition from every other EV not named Tesla.

The infrastructure for the n&Bolt is not feasible for distance travel. Yet, if even In the next 10 years.

It appears that GM's worst enemy is GM. And the stealerships. "GM & the Stealerships" - could be a punk band out of Reseda.

Of the main players, I always thought the Volkswagen Group would lead the also-ran way. Instead, we have Nissan, GM, BMW, and a raft of players to be named later. Of that group, despite GM's permanent seat in the 4th Circle of Hades and having a permanent 2 and a half strikes (bailout, ignition switches, '76 Chevy Vega), I'd like to see the n&Bolt do well. I just don't have the faintest shred of confidence that it will.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Personally I find the bolt to be uninteresting, and I'm not sure what possessed them to make it.

GM has a great car in the Volt, and they should have gradually expanded it. They could have done a lot of things with a Volt platform.

What makes the Model 3 special is the supercharging network, the style, the speed, and sadly because it's a Tesla (I say sadly because I'd like things to be judged on merit and not brand).

With the Volt they had the best car of it's kind.
With the Bolt they have the third or fourth best car of it's kind.

 

[techmaven]

Well....

So, Tesla should have sold the S60 back in 2012 when there were few Supercharger stations? The S60 was just a compliance car?

No, because the Model S was designed to be a realistically usable long distance BEV. The Model S was designed to utilize the Supercharger network and the two combined presented a reasonable BEV-only solution. Of course, some people could choose to use the Model S in other manners and for a while, Tesla thought that people would buy a range crippled version for shorter use patterns. But since the Model S was designed for owners to realistically drive long distances and Tesla was building out the Supercharger network, it isn't just a compliance car. In other words, Tesla's design choices primarily had end user's actual usage model in mind first, not merely landing on the other side of a government rule.

In my area in the SF Bay Area, at least, I would have sufficient CCS stations from day one of ownership to take road trips around most of California, and western Oregon and Washington. As a practical matter, those are the areas where I take road trips. True, many of those stations are single plug and "24 kW" but there are plans by EVgo to upgrade some of those soon. New ones along highways will generally be faster as well. Existing CCS plugs are lower power since they matched the capability of the 75-100 mile cars on the road. The new generation of 200+ mile cars will drive "100 kW" and faster chargers. There will lots of CCS stations installed over the lifetime of a Bolt EV purchased in 2017.

The Bolt can't charge at 100 kW at "100 kW" stations. It might do 70 kW. But it doesn't matter, since almost all of them in northern CA are 24 kW and the rest are only 50 kW when they actually work and are not busy. Tesla owners are worried about Supercharger congestion with 8-16 plugs available and 100-135 kW charging rates. How exactly will the Bolt work out any level of increased adoption with single or even double 24 kW and 50 kW plugs? Oh, right, it won't. Further, the cost of driving on the NRG eVGo network makes gasoline look cheap. The $4.95 per session charge or the monthly charge both present awful dilemmas.

Again, are you assured that the Bolt ships with what is necessary to charge at over 200A? Matter of fact, we don't even know if the Bolt will charge even at 200A if you can find one of the few stations that can charge that fast.

Vehicle weight has minimal impact on highway mile efficiency and the Bolt EV is only about 250 pounds heavier. The aerodynamics CdA numbers published by Car and Driver for the LEAF and Bolt are very similar (7.8 and 8.05). Powertrain efficiency differences could easily make up that difference.

I generally drive slower than usual in bad weather. And actually, I'm perfectly happy to drive 60 mph if needed to stretch out my distance capacity to 200 miles at 285.4 Wh per mile (INL) which makes about 130 miles under your formula (same as your Model 3 going 70 mph).

Read the link. At 70 mph, the Leaf has 98% battery roundtrip efficiency. How is GM going to improve on that? At 250 pounds heavier and worse aerodynamics, the Bolt is guaranteed to have terrible efficiency at highway speeds. Maybe you are okay with driving 60 mph when others are driving 70 or 75 mph, but for a BEV for the masses, no the masses won't like that at all. Now, the Leaf's onboard charger has terrible efficiency so the overall trip efficiency isn't particularly good, but once the juice is on-board, the efficiency is hard to beat.

The Model S: https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact2014teslamodels.pdf
Hits 97% battery roundtrip efficiency, 91% on board charger efficiency for a pretty good overall trip efficiency of 89%. The overall trip efficiency beats the Leaf, the i3, and the Ford Focus EV at 70 mph.

The Chevy Spark EV on the other hand:
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact2015chevroletspark.pdf

Wow, just terrible. Only 95% battery roundtrip efficiency and 83% on board charger efficiency for an overall trip efficiency of just 79%. Since it is so small, the overall CDa lets the Spark still hit a low Wh/mi at 70 mph, but the Bolt has a bigger CDa than a Leaf. Therefore the Bolt needs to have a far better power electronics and motor setup than the Spark EV if they hope to even get close to the efficiency of the Leaf.

So, according to you, the difference between viable and not viable is driving 70 mph in the Model 3 versus 60 mph in the Bolt EV to achieve similar mileage range on the highway?

Frankly, neither the base Model 3 or the Bolt EV (or the Model S60) are ideal for routine long-distance driving but all three are certainly capable of occasional road trips when "fast" DC chargers are available. A Model S85+ or a Model 3 with the optional bigger battery pack will work better.

The base Model 3 and the Model S 60 kWh represent near the minimum for range and charging cadence for realistic long range BEV charging and driving cadence. If you aren't going to meet that level of usability, then why bother with that much battery? In order to achieve the usability, the long distance range has to be there, the charging speed has to be fast enough, and the charging network has to sufficient to support that.

Now, the Model S was initially sold in 2012 and 2013 without all those pieces in place, but there was certainly the promise that it would eventually be there for the vehicles sold. And it was for many. Even with the Model 3 launch, there will be plenty of places where the criteria isn't met. But the rapid growth of the Supercharger network means there are fewer and fewer places where that's true.

The Bolt, on the other hand, does not meet any of that criteria. The long distance range isn't there. The charging network would have to be spaced around 100 miles apart and the charging speed isn't there. The realistic cadence for a Bolt is then 1.5 hours of driving, 55-120 minutes of charging. For a base Model 3, it's 2 hours of driving, 30-35 minutes of charging. Add to it the likelihood of the availability of a fast charge plug at the distance of the cadence.

One of the additional problems for CCS is trying to choose the spacing. Since Tesla is designing all of their vehicles to hit about 200 miles of highway range, they can space the network accordingly (120-140 miles apart for 80% of the battery). CCS on the other hand has to cater to low range vehicles and potentially a raft of different sized batteries and therefore different highway ranges. So can we expect 10-20 plug CCS stations at 100 miles apart? Well, that's not the right spacing for a BMW i3 33 kWh nor an Audi Q6 e-tron. Likely, they will have to put them at a variety of shorter distances apart... which is great when they are all built out, but the cost of doing so... wow, to achieve the same utility as a the Supercharger network, they'd have to spend about 5-10x for the same geographical region. And thus far, CCS charging vendors already charge a lot of money.

Once upon a time "compliance car" meant low volume (a few thousand s year) and only sold in CARB states. Now you are throwing around this term for a car planned to be sold at 30,000 to 50,000+ year in all 50 states, Canada, and much of Europe (as an Opel Ampera-e)?

Sure, why not, as it fits. The Bolt is designed to be classified as a CARB ZEV Type III vehicle which needs 200 miles of range on the UDDS scale. It probably does that handily. However, it does not fulfill the real promise of a 200 mile range BEV - that it can realistically do long distance trips. The base Model 3 and the Model S 60 kWh skirt the edge of that. While the Bolt is a conversion of the Gamma 2 platform, GM could have spent more time and resources to make the vehicle a more realistic long range BEV, which also means developing the plug standards and the charging network. Instead, we get basically an electrified Buick Encore with attendant terrible aerodynamics since that is likely the cheapest from a development cost and production perspective. If the Type III classification was for 160 miles, I suspect they would have designed the Bolt for that range instead. The battery would then be smaller, it would weigh less and cost less. The long range usability is already compromised and it has more than enough range for most daily driving operations anyways. It would even do better at urban taxi use. Since it is a 200 mile range BEV that doesn't really tackle realistic long range BEV utility, the primary purpose of the Bolt is to achieve the CARB ZEV credits to let GM sell more SUVs and trucks. Therefore, it is a compliance car.

 

[musicious]

I see almost no mention by anyone about how big of a factor the tech will be in choosing a Tesla..

1a. Autopilot is a HUGE advantage in addition to over-the air software updates and the big screen, and likely it will be even closer to fully autonomous; Autosteer was the reason I spent 6x as much on my Tesla vs my prior car. It makes such a big differene for long commutes and long distance travel, do not understimate this advantage.

1b. Supercharger network vs the horrible Bolt charging network is probably tied for #1 reason most intelligent consumers will not even consider a Bolt.

2. Performance - The S and X are both record acceleration for their class & the Model 3 will likely be the same, better than any other car for its price range (i.e. likely the base will be quicker than cars under $40k & ludicrous will be quicker than cars under $80k)

3. Design - The significantly better looking design will appeal to a larger audience, and it will likely be much higher range on a smaller/cheaper battery due to record aerodynamics for a mass produced car with a target of .21 coefficient of drag

4. Price / Upgrade options - While some argue the 3 will cost more for features people want, the base model 3 will still be better than a base bolt and at least people HAVE the options for bigger battery, performance, autopilot, supercharging that are not even available on a Bolt. In addition, misguided Bolt lovers like Jeff N (likely a GM exec) argue Bolts can be negotiated down in price at a dealer but from what I hear GM dealers charged 10k+ over MSRP for Volts outside of CARB credit states IF they even offered to sell them.

5. Safety - Many families place a high importance on safety and Teslas are known for having the highest safety in EVERY test by far over any other car. There are many cases of Teslas saving lives of drivers that would be dead in any other car (front, rear and side collisions as well as a huge tree falling on the roof, with passengers able to leave the car on their own)

6. Tax Credit - This is a big one, many don't realize that although GM and Tesla will likely reach the 200k US sales threshold around the same time, Tesla plans to ramp up production and timing to maximize the amount of people that will be eligible for the $7,500 tax credit
I expect at least 100k more will get it than the Bolt over the 3-6 months after the threshold is met before it starts phasing out and 200k+ more will likely get the partial credit the following 6 months vs the Bolt's planned production of only 10% of that; this is a big reason why so many people put down the $1k deposit, those that wait too long will lose out.

I can't fathom why anyone would contemplate buying a Bolt considering the Tesla Model 3 will be far better in every category that matters compared to ANY car in its price range.

The true comparison should be the Chevy Bolt vs Chevy Sonic ($15k) and Buick Encore ($25k) which are essentially the same car for $10-20k cheaper in ICE form. The base Model 3 should be compared to any midsize sedan (including entry luxury like BMW 3-series) in the $30-70k range depending on options, it will blow them all away.

Patience is a virtue.

 

[wdolson]

I'm probably the kind of car buyer Tesla wants to get. I'm not a BEV guy. I was looking at ICEs and started looking at hybrids because I need a car for long roadtrips. I didn't like what I was finding. I looked at Tesla on a lark and got won over fairly quickly. I still wouldn't consider any other BEV because everything else out there right now is:

a) an ugly weirdmobile
b) has no reliable long distance charging network
c) are mostly compromised designs that demonstrate the designers are still thinking about ICE cars and not taking advantage of the possibilities electric drive gives you
d) short range

The Bolt promises to be the longest range non-Tesla BEV to date, but it still only has the range around that of a Tesla Model S 60. Without a reliable long distance charging network, the Bolt is basically a city car with some extra insurance range. It may be of use to someone who needs to drive around a metro area quite a bit in one day like a sales rep, but it's not a road car.

I also have very long legs and my tailbone screams bloody murder on long road trips if I don't have enough leg room. I'm not sure what the leg room will be on the Model 3, but the Model S is one of only two sedans I looked at that could get the seat back further than I needed.

I work from home, but am needing to make more road trips to California (I live outside Portland, OR). Tesla is the only company that makes BEVs that not only can make the trip, but can do so in more comfort than most ICEs.

I'm also a design engineer and I can appreciate the engineering Tesla put into their cars. The Bolt might be a bit impressive if Tesla hadn't done something much better 5 years earlier. IMO Tesla shouldn't be compared to other BEVs, it should be compared to ICEs. When compared to every ICE or hybrid I looked at, the Model S was staggeringly better than any of them, and from what I've seen of the Model 3, it looks like the same things that impressed me about the Model S will be in the 3 too.

ICEs are still better for some roles than a Tesla BEV. If you need to drive 100 miles up a dirt road in the rural west, you probably should get a 4X4 ICE truck. If you're one of those road trippers who want to drive 1000 miles in a day and stop as little as possible, you probably want the longest range ICE out there.

I've made the trip from Portland the the Bay Area in one day. Stopping at superchargers will add some time, but I figure I can nap and recharge during those times if I am feeling tired, plus Tesla has the best cruise control in the world (auto pilot) which is great for reducing fatigue too.

The Model 3 is in a completely different class from the Chevy Bolt. It's a bit like asking someone if they would prefer a Ford Fiesta or a Ford F-150 pickup. If they need to haul stuff, they probably want the truck, if they are a starving college student who needs something economical, they probably want the Fiesta. Deliberately comparing two ICEs here to highlight how strange it is for the media to comparing the Bolt and the Model 3 because they are two BEVs. There aren't even the same size or type of car. The Bolt is a sub-compact hatchback and the Model 3 is a compact or midsize sedan. They just happen to have the same power source.

The people on this forum are a mixed bag. I would say at least 2/3 are BEV people who are primarily interested in that technology, but there are others who may take an interest in BEV technology, but we're here because we're primarily interested in Tesla because they make great cars.

 

[Menifeer]

I reserved a Model 3 on-line, but I plan to buy a Bolt when they become available. The EV will be my daily-driver and I very rarely travel more than 150 miles/day. For long trips, I'll prefer the roominess and hauling capability of my minivan.

I expect the Model 3 to be the superior car, but I have a major concern about Tesla's lack of presence. My nearest Chevy dealers are short drives away, but a trip to the nearest Tesla Service Center means packing a lunch. I expect neither manufacturer will be able to produce a car that repeals the laws of unexpected failures or that requires no repair/service visits. The distance to the Tesla shop will make a difference to average buyers who aren't like we Tesla enthusiasts.

I find nothing wrong with the design of the Bolt. Its profile is similar to most hatchbacks on the road today. The upright stance makes it easier to enter and exit and gives a better view of the surroundings. I know it isn't as sexy as the low-slung Tesla, but that's just not as issue for me. Both cars should handle well due to the low centers of gravity. That rear greenhouse window concerns me here in sunny SoCal.

I don't expect to require refueling away from home, so the Supercharger network is not a factor. On the very very rare occasion that I need electrons while on the road, I'll find them at public stations or (likely) Chevy dealers.

Many, many people are in my situation. Every two-car family likely has a daily driver that never sees 200 miles and always refuels at home. That's going to be the major EV market for the next few years.

 

[Kandiru]

If my neck were as thick as my head and rode open cockpit ATVs I would definitely get one. On top of it GM killed my beloved SAAB brand and I hate them for it.

 

[aronth5]

If my neck were as thick as my head and rode open cockpit ATVs I would definitely get one. On top of it GM killed my beloved SAAB brand and I hate them for it.

I have never hated on GM for killing the SAAB brand but now that you mention it I'll add that to my list of why I'll buy a Model 3 over the Bolt. I too had a great experience with my SAAB turbocharged 93-S and was looking at buying another SAAB until they went away!

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Many, many people are in my situation. Every two-car family likely has a daily driver that never sees 200 miles and always refuels at home. That's going to be the major EV market for the next few years.

I would agree with you if you had said 100 miles. Many people are in a situation where they need an urban commuter as a 2nd car, but their daily drive is less than 40 miles. Chevy has the data to back this up.

Which is why their choice of not supporting infrastructure is so perplexing. Why offer the Bolt with 200 miles, when the average commuter doesn't require it, and then provide no support for the infrastructure necessary to go any further? Makes no sense. It wouldn't even be that large of an investment...