Its Official! 2017 Chevrolet Bolt To Offer 238 Miles of Range

That's a really competitive for a car that is half the price of a Tesla.  However, that honeymoon will likely be short as the next Nissan LEAF is going to have a range over 200 miles and has better name brand recognition than the Bolt. 

238. GREAT!

I think this is fantastic.

11 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That's a really competitive for a car that is half the price of a Tesla.  However, that honeymoon will likely be short as the next Nissan LEAF is going to have a range over 200 miles and has better name brand recognition than the Bolt. 

The big thing though is peoples mind set is changing...I work on a university campus.  many of our students would love to own an electric car.  at the very least, GM has a viable product, unlike say Mazda or Subaru.....or VW for that matter....VW lags in electric technology.

 This is AWESOME and really rocks and now we also have 350+ mile EV Buses too

@Drew Dowdell I agree that Nissan Leaf has a bigger name recognition with the Leaf, but the BOLT will be out much longer and if Chevy does the right thing in marketing, this should have no problem selling big time. American Products have allot more respect then they did back at the start of the Prius days or even the Leaf days.

Just now, dfelt said:

 This is AWESOME and really rocks and now we also have 350+ mile EV Buses too

@Drew Dowdell I agree that Nissan Leaf has a bigger name recognition with the Leaf, but the BOLT will be out much longer and if Chevy does the right thing in marketing, this should have no problem selling big time. American Products have allot more respect then they did back at the start of the Prius days or even the Leaf days.

Yeah, but people know the Nissan LEAF by name... all Nissan has to do is say, "Nissan LEAF, now with an estimated 250 mile range".  Some ad exec somewhere will get paid $45,000 to write that line too.  And it will work. 

http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html

I see that Chevy has also posted all 8 colors that are available for the first year and you can click on each one and see it.

They also list the two packages, LT or Premier.

In reviewing the Packages, The BOLT I would buy is the Premier with the Infotainment Package, Pass on the Driver Confidence II package. no need for all those damn nanny safety crap.

2 minutes ago, dfelt said:

In reviewing the Packages, The BOLT I would buy is the Premier with the Infotainment Package, Pass on the Driver Confidence II package. no need for all those damn nanny safety crap.

It doesn't look like it offers active cruise control.... if it had that, I would spring for it. 

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It doesn't look like it offers active cruise control.... if it had that, I would spring for it. 

Wonder if that will be a 2018 add on?

2 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

It doesn't look like it offers active cruise control.... if it had that, I would spring for it. 

Wait, how does the Volt get active cruise control and the Bolt doesn't?

Different platform?

Could it be that GM does not think people will take the BOLT on road trips compared to the VOLT? Good question to ask GM. 

"About a half hour or so later, the little Chevy Bolt and I rolled into the restaurant parking lot. I parked at a Level 3 fast charger and plugged in. Without particularly trying, I’d covered 241.4 miles, averaging 4.6 miles/kW-hr with an estimated 38 miles of range left. According to a screen I can’t specifically talk about, I’d used 51.9 kW-hrs of the battery’s 60-kW-hr capacity. Chevy says the Bolt, supported by Level 3 chargers like the one I’d plugged into, can gain 90 miles worth of range in 30 minutes, 160 miles worth in 60 minutes, and a full 238 miles of range in about two hours."

MT Bolt "Review"

I thought that was way cool. Sounds VERY promising!

How much for an LT with Comfort & Convenience in Kinetic Blue?    TELL ME!

The Leaf isn't a good looking car, in fact it is an ugly car, that hurts it sales just as much as the range does.  The Bolt isn't a very good looking car either, it looks kind of like a lifted Sonic hatchback.  Tesla makes a good looking car that can accelerate like a Lamborghini, that's why it sells.  

I think 200 miles of range is enough to squash range anxiety, most people are not driving 200 miles in a day, you'd have to spend 4 hours in the car to get to that.  The Bolt has the range it needs, I don't think it has the looks.  When the Tesla comes, it will look cool, and the Tesla brand  name is like Apple when it comes to phones.  People just want it.

7 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

The Leaf isn't a good looking car, in fact it is an ugly car, that hurts it sales just as much as the range does.  The Bolt isn't a very good looking car either, it looks kind of like a lifted Sonic hatchback.  Tesla makes a good looking car that can accelerate like a Lamborghini, that's why it sells.  

 

I think 200 miles of range is enough to squash range anxiety, most people are not driving 200 miles in a day, you'd have to spend 4 hours in the car to get to that.  The Bolt has the range it needs, I don't think it has the looks.  When the Tesla comes, it will look cool, and the Tesla brand  name is like Apple when it comes to phones.  People just want it.

Your comparing a $30K ish car to a $134k car, or you're comparing a $30k car that we can see today and buy in a few weeks to a $40k car that no one has yet seen and very few can buy until 2019 or 2020..... 

The $66k Model S 60 does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds... or roughly the same as a Honda Accord V6.

Do your comparisons get any more absurd?

The Accord V6 isn't that fast, but regardless, the Model S has appeal due to the brand name and the looks and top trim performance.  I am not comparing the Bolt to the Model S, I am just saying the Bolt isn't that good looking of a car, which I think will hurt sales.  It isn't a spacious crossover either, the people spending $35-40k on vehicles have a dozen crossovers to pick from, that will look better and do a lot of things better than a Bolt does.

What Tesla did was make a car that looks as good as any of the competitors, better than any Lexus or the Panamera, it has more cargo space than a 5-series or Lexus LS460 or Panamera or Ghibli, and the Model S is faster than all those cars too in a similar price bracket.  The Model S isn't selling because just because it electric, it is selling because it is better than many of the competitors cars.

Bolt shoppers can get an MKC, Envision, Edge, Tiguan, GLA, X1, Q3, Q5, 3-series, Lexus NX, RDX, Q50, QX30, QX50, CX-9, Volvos, Subarus, etc.  There is a ton to pick from in the $30-40k range, the Bolt can't beat the field on looks, performance and cargo/passenger space like Tesla does with the Model S.

Bolt beats all of them on mileage. That's the point.

Btw Honda Accord V6, 2 tests, 5.4 and 5.6 seconds to 60.... So yeah, same as a base Tesla.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/accord-coupe-vs-mustang-5-reasons-to-go-honda-and-ford/

Bolt is really growing on me. Saw a test one shooting down 1-94...and it does catch your eye.. Having a 210 in my garage would make this an easy choice....

A base one is very tempting indeed....

On 9/13/2016 at 7:18 PM, smk4565 said:

The Accord V6 isn't that fast, but regardless, the Model S has appeal due to the brand name and the looks and top trim performance.  I am not comparing the Bolt to the Model S, I am just saying the Bolt isn't that good looking of a car, which I think will hurt sales.  It isn't a spacious crossover either, the people spending $35-40k on vehicles have a dozen crossovers to pick from, that will look better and do a lot of things better than a Bolt does.

What Tesla did was make a car that looks as good as any of the competitors, better than any Lexus or the Panamera, it has more cargo space than a 5-series or Lexus LS460 or Panamera or Ghibli, and the Model S is faster than all those cars too in a similar price bracket.  The Model S isn't selling because just because it electric, it is selling because it is better than many of the competitors cars.

 

Bolt shoppers can get an MKC, Envision, Edge, Tiguan, GLA, X1, Q3, Q5, 3-series, Lexus NX, RDX, Q50, QX30, QX50, CX-9, Volvos, Subarus, etc.  There is a ton to pick from in the $30-40k range, the Bolt can't beat the field on looks, performance and cargo/passenger space like Tesla does with the Model S.

While ignoring that Tesla has a $35K competitor coming out eventually that also looks kind of fugly. 

And all those cars you mention at the end run on gas. Knowing that and willfully ignoring that, as you are here, is just silly to the pointless of sadness. This is by far the best option for the EV crowd right now. If you want an EV and want a nice range (both of which the Bolt offers), there simply is no better choice right now. 

4 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

While ignoring that Tesla has a $35K competitor coming out eventually that also looks kind of fugly. 

And all those cars you mention at the end run on gas. Knowing that and willfully ignoring that, as you are here, is just silly to the pointless of sadness. This is by far the best option for the EV crowd right now. If you want an EV and want a nice range (both of which the Bolt offers), there simply is no better choice right now. 

How big is the EV crowd?   My point is the Model S is better than many of its gas counterparts.  Is the Bolt better than most gas cars at $35k?

11 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

How big is the EV crowd?   My point is the Model S is better than many of its gas counterparts.  Is the Bolt better than most gas cars at $35k?

It's alot better at not burning gas than all of them.... And there is a market for cars like that.

Nissan sold 17,500 Leafs last year, BMW sold 11,000 i3's.  That is about the size of the EV market for this price point. It is less than 50,000 cars a year, vs how many million gas cars are sold between $30-45k?  Bolt has to steal sales from gas burners, therefore it has to be better than gas burners, at least some of them. 

49 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Nissan sold 17,500 Leafs last year, BMW sold 11,000 i3's.  That is about the size of the EV market for this price point. It is less than 50,000 cars a year, vs how many million gas cars are sold between $30-45k?  Bolt has to steal sales from gas burners, therefore it has to be better than gas burners, at least some of them. 

Both of those cars have less than half the range of the Bolt.  Even if you get the regenerator on the i3, the range is pitifully small, 100 miles even when using gasoline. 

I am pro electric car, I just think the Bolt is small and ugly and isn't going to light up the sales chart.  Hopefully the 2nd electric car is a mid-large sedan to replace Impala or even call it Impala, because the Impala as we know it will be dead post 2020 as crossovers take over, making the Impala a $35-40k EV sedan could save it, and they could make a roomy, good looking car that people would buy.  The Bolt is basically a Spark 5 door for $37,000, that isn't a good deal.  

28 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I am pro electric car, I just think the Bolt is small and ugly and isn't going to light up the sales chart.  Hopefully the 2nd electric car is a mid-large sedan to replace Impala or even call it Impala, because the Impala as we know it will be dead post 2020 as crossovers take over, making the Impala a $35-40k EV sedan could save it, and they could make a roomy, good looking car that people would buy.  The Bolt is basically a Spark 5 door for $37,000, that isn't a good deal.  

If people who cared about saving on fuel cared about looks at all then this wouldn't be the best selling hybrid out there and Fisker would still be in business.

And no... the Bolt is substantially larger than a Spark inside.  It's more like a taller Sonic in terms of size. 

Oh right, I was thinking of the Sonic 5 door, and wrote Spark, that was my mistake.  

The Prius has Camry level pricing, The Prius is actually $2,000 less than a Camry hybrid and the Prius beats it by 15-20 mpg.  Prius has 58 mpg for $25,000, If GM had a Cruze hybrid that was $25,000 and got 58 mpg, GM fans would run through the streets singing it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You can buy a Prius and enough gas to travel 120,000 miles for the price of a Bolt, and the Prius is larger than the Bolt is.  That is a hard value proposition to overcome.  Tesla doesn't have to argue value, they sell performance.  

19 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

While ignoring that Tesla has a $35K competitor coming out eventually that also looks kind of fugly. 

And all those cars you mention at the end run on gas. Knowing that and willfully ignoring that, as you are here, is just silly to the pointless of sadness. This is by far the best option for the EV crowd right now. If you want an EV and want a nice range (both of which the Bolt offers), there simply is no better choice right now. 

Absolutely without a doubt correct.  I have no doubt Tesla will tweak the styling, I am more concerned about the long term financial viability of Tesla.  the important takeaway here is that GM is on the right track in offering this vehicle.

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Both of those cars have less than half the range of the Bolt.  Even if you get the regenerator on the i3, the range is pitifully small, 100 miles even when using gasoline. 

The range on the Bolt is a game changer.  Nice to see GM in the lead on this.

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

If people who cared about saving on fuel cared about looks at all then this wouldn't be the best selling hybrid out there and Fisker would still be in business.

 

And no... the Bolt is substantially larger than a Spark inside.  It's more like a taller Sonic in terms of size. 

The problem is real simple here Drew. The problem he has is not because of the price range or how it looks. It's because of who makes it. 

Great point about the Prius. It is living proof that most folks don't care about looks when it comes to these types of cars. 

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Oh right, I was thinking of the Sonic 5 door, and wrote Spark, that was my mistake.  

 

The Prius has Camry level pricing, The Prius is actually $2,000 less than a Camry hybrid and the Prius beats it by 15-20 mpg.  Prius has 58 mpg for $25,000, If GM had a Cruze hybrid that was $25,000 and got 58 mpg, GM fans would run through the streets singing it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You can buy a Prius and enough gas to travel 120,000 miles for the price of a Bolt, and the Prius is larger than the Bolt is.  That is a hard value proposition to overcome.  Tesla doesn't have to argue value, they sell performance.  

And GM has the solution to that gas problem as well, in case you forgot. It's called the Volt. 

And at $35K, Tesla is arguing for value. To think otherwise is just silly. 

But the Model 3 is a larger car than the Bolt and will be made for performance.  Tesla could make a Model 3 for $50k that does 0-60 in 4 seconds.  That is M3 performance.  That is how they will get sales.  Toyota could make a 200 mile range Yaris EV for $40k and no one would buy that either.

I just know that 240 miles of range is plenty for probably 99.5% of us. When I'm on my own and/or done with school and have my own garage I guarantee I will have something electric in there. I'd have to do some research and number crunching but the Volt is insanely enticing. At least until there is a sufficient charging network in the area. Right now it's basically home or nowhere. Which, at 240 miles shouldn't be an issue unless I'm traveling to see my sister or vacationing.

26 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But the Model 3 is a larger car than the Bolt and will be made for performance.  Tesla could make a Model 3 for $50k that does 0-60 in 4 seconds.  That is M3 performance.  That is how they will get sales.  Toyota could make a 200 mile range Yaris EV for $40k and no one would buy that either.

Could.. but won't.  First off, there is serious doubt that the Model 3 will be a $40k base car even before tax incentives.  Second Tesla had already sold 50,000 of its 100,000 cars eligible for the tax incentive as of March 2016 and they're moving between 2,000 - 3000 vehicles a month.... and there are still a few more years to go before the first Model 3s hit the road, so on the optimistic side, maybe a couple thousand of the first Model 3s get the tax credit.

The $50k Model 3 will be as mundane as an Accord V6 on 0-60.  You're simply not going to get a Tesla Model 3 P75D for $50k.

15 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Could.. but won't.  First off, there is serious doubt that the Model 3 will be a $40k base car even before tax incentives.  Second Tesla had already sold 50,000 of its 100,000 cars eligible for the tax incentive as of March 2016 and they're moving between 2,000 - 3000 vehicles a month.... and there are still a few more years to go before the first Model 3s hit the road, so on the optimistic side, maybe a couple thousand of the first Model 3s get the tax credit.

The $50k Model 3 will be as mundane as an Accord V6 on 0-60.  You're simply not going to get a Tesla Model 3 P75D for $50k.

And there are other issues with Tesla as well as long term financial stability.  GM has a large dealer network and a much more developed engineering department for two things. It also has a much larger base of established buyers whoa re sued to and comfortable with its products.

Probably no one thought Tesla would make a sedan that does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, but they did.  If they can make the Model S accelerate as fast as a Bugatti Veyron, I am sure they can make a Model 3 accelerate with a Camaro or Mustang.

43 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Probably no one thought Tesla would make a sedan that does 0-60 in 2.5 seconds, but they did.  If they can make the Model S accelerate as fast as a Bugatti Veyron, I am sure they can make a Model 3 accelerate with a Camaro or Mustang.

I'm sure they can also.... But not at the price you're talking about.

Maybe $60k then for that level performance, but the $35k target car is 0-60 in 6 seconds, which puts it in line with a base 3-series or C-class or A4.  Even if the Tesla is $40k that is what most of those cars cost.  The turbo 6 versions are near $50k, if Tesla was targeting $35k and 6 seconds 0-60 I think $50k and 4.5 seconds 0-60 is doable.  They'll be competitive for sure as far as price and performance and brand image goes.  Interior is where they might drop the ball compared to the Germans.

11 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

...Tesla had already sold 50,000 of its 100,000 cars eligible for the tax incentive as of March 2016 and they're moving between 2,000 - 3000 vehicles a month.... and there are still a few more years to go before the first Model 3s hit the road, so on the optimistic side, maybe a couple thousand of the first Model 3s get the tax credit.

As of end of 2015, Tesla had moved 125K EVs on their way to the EV allowance of 200K. The brand should in the neighborhood of 175K at the end of 2016CY. By my calculations, the Model 3 will only see a short stretch of $1875 credit (25% of the original $7500).
Question is, how many of the 400K people who put deposits on were calculating '$35K -$7.5K = $27,500'… when Musk has already stated most will be closer to $50K than $35K.

$50K is pretty much double $28K.

9 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Maybe $60k then for that level performance, but the $35k target car is 0-60 in 6 seconds, which puts it in line with a base 3-series or C-class or A4.  Even if the Tesla is $40k that is what most of those cars cost.  The turbo 6 versions are near $50k, if Tesla was targeting $35k and 6 seconds 0-60 I think $50k and 4.5 seconds 0-60 is doable.  They'll be competitive for sure as far as price and performance and brand image goes.  Interior is where they might drop the ball compared to the Germans.

Germans are building overly technical cars that have largely list their way in terms of handling, cost of ownership and reliability.  Go try to sell a ten year old Lexus and a ten year old BMW or god forbid Benz.  People will line up for the Lexus and walk away from the BMW...and in general run from the Benz.  People are not stupid when it comes to the off lease ownership costs.

As for Cadillac, I regularly see Cadillacs from the seventies, eighties and nineties tooling around the streets of Columbus Ohio where I live. GM design and engineering philosophy has been flawed at times, but when they get it right, they get it really right.

Which they are doing with the Bolt.  Toyota has excellent hybrid technology, but is not marketing full electric cars.  They along with Honda have chosen the fuel cell route.  It costs well over a million dollars to build a fueling station for a fuel cell car, fifteen grand to build an electric charging station from scratch.  Given two hundred plus million cars in the USA and those costs, who is on the right track, GM or Toyota?

8 hours ago, balthazar said:

As of end of 2015, Tesla had moved 125K EVs on their way to the EV allowance of 200K. The brand should in the neighborhood of 175K at the end of 2016CY. By my calculations, the Model 3 will only see a short stretch of $1875 credit (25% of the original $7500).
Question is, how many of the 400K people who put deposits on were calculating '$35K -$7.5K = $27,500'… when Musk has already stated most will be closer to $50K than $35K.

$50K is pretty much double $28K.

They will be a successful niche marketer, GM will be a very successful mainstream marketer.  GM has a huge lead.  Tesla has nailed selling electrical cars, but GM has over a century of experience building actual cars. Tesla is still figuring out how to build cars. GM can learn to market cars much faster than Tesla can figure out how to build them.

12 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I'm sure they can also.... But not at the price you're talking about.

And price is going to be huge for young professional people with a ton of college debt to pay back and an expensive apartment lease in that city they just moved to for that entry level dream job. This will be the market for electric cars.  I work on a college campus.  Most of my students do not want ICE, they want electric.  They also will not be able to afford a 50 thousand dollar car until well into their career.

And this is where GM has an advantage with the Volt.  People buy them as affordable used cars and love them, especially young people who cannot afford a pure electric.  Volt to Bolt will be an easy transition for them.  Or even Prius to Bolt, as they will have grown comfortable with the idea of buying from a very established mainstream carmaker.

On 9/15/2016 at 10:43 PM, smk4565 said:

Oh right, I was thinking of the Sonic 5 door, and wrote Spark, that was my mistake.  

 

The Prius has Camry level pricing, The Prius is actually $2,000 less than a Camry hybrid and the Prius beats it by 15-20 mpg.  Prius has 58 mpg for $25,000, If GM had a Cruze hybrid that was $25,000 and got 58 mpg, GM fans would run through the streets singing it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You can buy a Prius and enough gas to travel 120,000 miles for the price of a Bolt, and the Prius is larger than the Bolt is.  That is a hard value proposition to overcome.  Tesla doesn't have to argue value, they sell performance.  

Prius, the current generation is indeed a brilliant car. People will want pure electrics though, and it is here that GM has the best long term strategy.

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Maybe $60k then for that level performance, but the $35k target car is 0-60 in 6 seconds, which puts it in line with a base 3-series or C-class or A4.  Even if the Tesla is $40k that is what most of those cars cost.  The turbo 6 versions are near $50k, if Tesla was targeting $35k and 6 seconds 0-60 I think $50k and 4.5 seconds 0-60 is doable.  They'll be competitive for sure as far as price and performance and brand image goes.  Interior is where they might drop the ball compared to the Germans.

I like Tesla a lot, but Musk has a problem with over promising and under delivering... Especially on timelines and pricing.

To get the speeds you're talking will require at least the upper mid-level battery and all wheel drive. On the model S, that's a $23,500 price increase while selecting no other options, and on the 3 that won't include supercharging. So even if the base 3 comes in at $35k (which most people in the industry think is unlikely) you're looking at $57k for a Model 3 with no options and no supercharging only to tie with your buddy in a Ford Focus RS in a stop light race and get toasted by any Cadillac with a V on its trunk... Even the old ones...

42 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I like Tesla a lot, but Musk has a problem with over promising and under delivering... Especially on timelines and pricing.

To get the speeds you're talking will require at least the upper mid-level battery and all wheel drive. On the model S, that's a $23,500 price increase while selecting no other options, and on the 3 that won't include supercharging. So even if the base 3 comes in at $35k (which most people in the industry think is unlikely) you're looking at $57k for a Model 3 with no options and no supercharging only to tie with your buddy in a Ford Focus RS in a stop light race and get toasted by any Cadillac with a V on its trunk... Even the old ones...

...as if the average Tesla 3 buyer is looking at running down an RS or a V as part of the buying calculous. SMK is being profoundly absurd.

12 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Germans are building overly technical cars that have largely list their way in terms of handling, cost of ownership and reliability.  Go try to sell a ten year old Lexus and a ten year old BMW or god forbid Benz.  People will line up for the Lexus and walk away from the BMW...and in general run from the Benz.  People are not stupid when it comes to the off lease ownership costs.

As for Cadillac, I regularly see Cadillacs from the seventies, eighties and nineties tooling around the streets of Columbus Ohio where I live. GM design and engineering philosophy has been flawed at times, but when they get it right, they get it really right.

Which they are doing with the Bolt.  Toyota has excellent hybrid technology, but is not marketing full electric cars.  They along with Honda have chosen the fuel cell route.  It costs well over a million dollars to build a fueling station for a fuel cell car, fifteen grand to build an electric charging station from scratch.  Given two hundred plus million cars in the USA and those costs, who is on the right track, GM or Toyota?

70% of Mercedes total sold since 1954 are still on the road, that is incredible.   In another study of percentage of cars still on road sold since 1985, Porsche was #1 which makes sense since they are low milage type cars.  Mercedes was #2.  Granted this study was done in 2010, but in 2010 over 60% of 1987 model year Mercedes were still on the road, over 70% of 1990 Mercedes were still going against an industry average of 15%.   Let's think of that, after 20 years, only 15% of cars in general are still on the road, but 70% of Mercedes are.   Lexus, BMW and Audi also ranked really high.

Here is the graph:

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/ocscion/media/Untitled_zps357462cd.png.html

While we talk prices, I hope everyone realizes that GM has sold about 120,000 plug-in or electric cars already, and will be at at least 125,000 by the end of the year before the Bolt even goes on sale.  If Bolt and Volt combine for 70,000 sales next year, come 2018 those incentives dry up.  GM has used more EV tax credits than any other auto maker so far.

9 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

...as if the average Tesla 3 buyer is looking at running down an RS or a V as part of the buying calculous. SMK is being profoundly absurd.

The average $40-50k car buyer is buying 3-series, C-class, IS250/350, Acuras, Infinitis, etc.  They'll like a Model 3, they won't touch a Bolt.   Notice they aren't touching the i3 even with the BMW badge on it.

The average $40k crossover buyer wants a 3 row Traverse/Explorer/Pilot/Highlander to haul the family, Bolt can't do that.  So they need to steal away MKC, NX250, XT5, X3 MDX type buyers, that seems unlikely.   If Bolt was Equinox size, and a crossover, I think they could have a hit.  

35 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

70% of Mercedes total sold since 1954 are still on the road, that is incredible.   In another study of percentage of cars still on road sold since 1985, Porsche was #1 which makes sense since they are low milage type cars.  Mercedes was #2.  Granted this study was done in 2010, but in 2010 over 60% of 1987 model year Mercedes were still on the road, over 70% of 1990 Mercedes were still going against an industry average of 15%.   Let's think of that, after 20 years, only 15% of cars in general are still on the road, but 70% of Mercedes are.   Lexus, BMW and Audi also ranked really high.

Here is the graph:

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/ocscion/media/Untitled_zps357462cd.png.html

Your graph actually proves my point quite well.  Notice the Kermit the Frog green line for Lexus, which crosses the line for Mercedes in the early 1990's and never looks back. The older LS400 was a car Toyota spent a ton of money developing to beat Benz.  Benz cheapened their products in the early 1990s and they have never been the same.

Also my remark was about running costs, which are in no way remotely comparable.  Nothing whatsoever can touch Lexus for reliability in terms of imported Luxury cars. Mercedes are maintenance and repair pigs, a fight you have lost repeatedly here at C and G.  No sane person wants to own a European luxury car out of warranty.

19 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

While we talk prices, I hope everyone realizes that GM has sold about 120,000 plug-in or electric cars already, and will be at at least 125,000 by the end of the year before the Bolt even goes on sale.  If Bolt and Volt combine for 70,000 sales next year, come 2018 those incentives dry up.  GM has used more EV tax credits than any other auto maker so far.

The average $40-50k car buyer is buying 3-series, C-class, IS250/350, Acuras, Infinitis, etc.  They'll like a Model 3, they won't touch a Bolt.   Notice they aren't touching the i3 even with the BMW badge on it.

The average $40k crossover buyer wants a 3 row Traverse/Explorer/Pilot/Highlander to haul the family, Bolt can't do that.  So they need to steal away MKC, NX250, XT5, X3 MDX type buyers, that seems unlikely.   If Bolt was Equinox size, and a crossover, I think they could have a hit.  

The Bolt will have a market.  This is the same sort of irrational whining this forum was filled with seven or eight years ago on the Volt, and the Volt is doing fine.

Lexus did pass up Mercedes, and they do have solid reliability for sure.  But people here always claim that no one wants an old Mercedes, yet 70% of 20 year old Mercedes are still running, while most brands can't crack 20%.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

I hope everyone realizes that GM has sold about 120,000 plug-in or electric cars already, and will be at at least 125,000 by the end of the year before the Bolt even goes on sale.  If Bolt and Volt combine for 70,000 sales next year, come 2018 those incentives dry up.  GM has used more EV tax credits than any other auto maker so far.

Wrong; Tesla hit 125K units at the end of 2015; Tesla is a full year ahead of GM. 
I do believe GM will surpass Tesla within a few years; Tesla sales are largely flat.

And the incentives are pro-rated; they go to 50%, then 25%, then 0. Here's how the rebate is stepped once a brand hits 200K units :