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

Tesla has sold 110,000 cars world wide through the end of 2015, but only about 60,000 of those cars have been sold in the USA. Ford and Nissan have used more EV credits than Tesla so far, in 2017 maybe Tesla passes them up, but GM, Ford, Nissan and Tesla will all run out of credits around 2018, then they have to sell without help and compete with their gas counterparts head on.  Good news is Mercedes has 191,000 tax credits left for S-class and GLE plug-ins, although you only get $4,040 credit for those due to battery size.

11 hours ago, smk4565 said:

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%.

They are undoubtedly expensive to maintain.  For me personally they just do absolutely nothing for me...at least the modern ones.  I really love the vintage ones. Do not tell Oldsmodrew, but I would love to own something like a 78 450 convertible or an older Benz diesel.  Guy I know here on the east side of town runs q shop that fixes nothing but vintage Benz.  But the modern stuff leaves me cold.

The former owner of my Mini Cooper S traded it in at a specialty vehicle dealer here in Columbus on a C63 AMG.  Found myself parked next to her quite by accident at a local restaurant. Decided at that point I would rather have the MINI Cooper S.

But you have no condemnation from me personally.  I am thinking about buying an FRS/BRZ/Toyota 86 to replace the TDI, either new or gently used.  That sum of cash would easily buy a gently used ATS, a decision every last other person on this board would probably make.

10 hours ago, balthazar said:

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 :

And no one in the thread is touching the other issues regarding Teslathat I brought up.  Although I do think that they are somewhat supply constrained as to their sales being flat.

And once again, go back to my comments about Tesla still learning how to build cars. Tesla has had some reliability issues, many of them simple things someone like Cadillac would have simply gotten correct for a car that was that price.

I have to imagine the average income of a Tesla buyer is over $100,000, they don't need a tax credit to make the car affordable.  I read a survey that said 89% of Tesla buyers would still buy the car even if there was no tax credit.  

Chevy buyers look for a deal though, it is a value brand customer that wants cash back or a low lease payment.   A Bolt with no incentive is a hard sell, Tesla doesn't need it.  

On another board, a poster who likes to lord his 6-figure income and deride Cadillac buyers as 'value shoppers' ordered a Model 3 and was quick to point out how he hoped he was early enough in the cue to get the full $7500 tax credit (he won't). 

In my experience, having numerous multi-millionaire clients; they are JUST as 'value conscious' as anyone else. 

Bolt is likely to get higher federal rebate than the Model 3… whenever that car may eventually come to market. More at issue will be the disparity of price, when the Model 3 is sticking for $50K, a LOT of people are going to be shocked and ask 'where's the "affordable" Tesla again?'

On 9/13/2016 at 5:43 PM, 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.

Apple products suck outside of the graphic design industry and Sheeple who want a company to tell them what they can and cannot do. Tesla is no different and their concept Tesla 3 is as BUTT Ugly as the S series or the Steroid X. Only thing going for the X is the funky Gull Wing Doors.

I take a Bolt every day over the Tesla 3 concept.

Hopefully instead of comparing apples to oranges, you would debate it on a level field like Bolt to Leaf and acknowledge that not everyone likes Apple, wants Apple. Same with Tesla. 

I am very glad Tesla came along to push the others, but their products do nothing for me and millions of others also. Seem 400,000 Sheeple love to have their money taken from them for years with nothing back but a vapor ware promise.

On 9/16/2016 at 8:43 AM, 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.

Now your just making things up. The base Tesla 3 is  RWD auto with unknown 0-60 speed and could actually be slower than the BOLT.

Tesla 3 is supposed to have an option for AWD, Ludicriss mode, etc. but since right now it is vaporware with no firm facts, lets keep to the facts and that is that the BOLT is a game changer that no one else has at this time not even your coveted MB.

On 9/18/2016 at 8:28 AM, smk4565 said:

I have to imagine the average income of a Tesla buyer is over $100,000, they don't need a tax credit to make the car affordable.  I read a survey that said 89% of Tesla buyers would still buy the car even if there was no tax credit.  

Chevy buyers look for a deal though, it is a value brand customer that wants cash back or a low lease payment.   A Bolt with no incentive is a hard sell, Tesla doesn't need it.  

I have seen that the higher the income, the cheaper they become and that not having a rebate in the future will only hurt Tesla Sales. Just read the Tesla Forums and you will see how many comment on how they love their car and got it for the $7500 rebate. 

The rebate makes a major impact for at least 1/3 of these buyers. 2/3rds of the buyers would get a less featured auto if no rebate and clearly 1/3 like you said would buy no matter what. 

End result is that the loss of rebates in the future will affect the sales and I expect 1/3 of the Tesla 3 buyers to cancel and ask for a refund when they realize the car is not available for $35,000 before rebate and that the rebate amount of $7,500 is gone.

Another 1/3 of these people are looking at getting the car and reselling it at a markup as they think they can profit on it. But by the time Tesla delivers, I doubt the Tesla 3 will have the appeal after so many other OEMs deliver their EV auto.

Back on BOLT!

In reviewing the colors, I am disappointed that their is no Metallic flake Forest Green or Jade green or any proper Green color to represent that this is an Awesome Green Auto!

Wonder Why GM is not offering Green? 

38 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Hopefully instead of comparing apples to oranges, you would debate it on a level field like Bolt to Leaf and acknowledge that not everyone likes Apple, wants Apple. Same with Tesla. 

The only difference between the 3 and Bolt are FWD vs RWD, right?  Why can't they be compared? If one metric difference is key why would you compare a 100mile range car to a 240 range car?

Right now they are all in their own leagues, for the most part. They have to be to carve our their own niche as to not even have a competitor and own the segment.

10 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

The only difference between the 3 and Bolt are FWD vs RWD, right?  Why can't they be compared? If one metric difference is key why would you compare a 100mile range car to a 240 range car?

Right now they are all in their own leagues, for the most part. They have to be to carve our their own niche as to not even have a competitor and own the segment.

I understand the point your making, but the Tesla 3 is Vaporware at this point. In 2018 or 2019 when ever they actually get delivered, then you can compare them. At this point lets talk about what is reality. BOLT, Leaf, etc. there are plenty of current auto's to compare that are actually at the point of being built like the BOLT or in production like the Leaf. We actually have EPA numbers to compare rather than vaporware statements.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

The only difference between the 3 and Bolt are FWD vs RWD, right?  Why can't they be compared? If one metric difference is key why would you compare a 100mile range car to a 240 range car?

Right now they are all in their own leagues, for the most part. They have to be to carve our their own niche as to not even have a competitor and own the segment.

One exists... the other doesn't.

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

One exists... the other doesn't.

Bingo!

5 hours ago, dfelt said:

Now your just making things up. The base Tesla 3 is  RWD auto with unknown 0-60 speed and could actually be slower than the BOLT.

Tesla 3 is supposed to have an option for AWD, Ludicriss mode, etc. but since right now it is vaporware with no firm facts, lets keep to the facts and that is that the BOLT is a game changer that no one else has at this time not even your coveted MB.

The Model 3 is supposed to do 0-60 in 6 seconds.  Of course that is their claim and we don't know what the actual car will do, but 6 seconds puts it in line with ATS 2.0, C300, 328i, A4 etc, cars that are around $40k.  If it is sized like those cars and performs like them, Tesla can make a compelling argument.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

The Model 3 is supposed to do 0-60 in 6 seconds.  Of course that is their claim and we don't know what the actual car will do, but 6 seconds puts it in line with ATS 2.0, C300, 328i, A4 etc, cars that are around $40k.  If it is sized like those cars and performs like them, Tesla can make a compelling argument.

Bolt has been stated to be below 7 sec in 0-60, everyone that has driven it says it feels like a 5 or 6 sec car to 60, so this Reality FWD CUV is equal to a Vaporware RWD 4 door Sedan.

On 9/18/2016 at 8:28 AM, smk4565 said:

I have to imagine the average income of a Tesla buyer is over $100,000, they don't need a tax credit to make the car affordable.  I read a survey that said 89% of Tesla buyers would still buy the car even if there was no tax credit.  

Chevy buyers look for a deal though, it is a value brand customer that wants cash back or a low lease payment.   A Bolt with no incentive is a hard sell, Tesla doesn't need it.  

You need to stop using your imagination and understand reality. Those well off folks got that way by using the credits and saving money. That's personal economics 101. 

You know, you keep coming up with these wild excuses as to why the Bolt won't succeed while ignoring every reason why it can succeed. Could it be because it comes from GM because if this were an odd looking EV Benz for that price, I feel you would be singing a completely different tune. 

On 9/17/2016 at 7:04 PM, smk4565 said:

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%.

Sources please because I'm calling 100% BS on every bit of you claim. 

No one stop-light drag races in normal driving... 0-60 is even less relevant than horsepower numbers.  Even an 8-second B-Body Wagon can get you an "excessive acceleration" ticket from your local 5-0.    The Buick Encore's 0-60 is 10.5 seconds, yet the Encore has outsold the entire Mini brand 2 years in a row....  So maybe you can find some other goal post to wrap your hand around,. 

I will add this about the Encore.  Our 2004 Honda CR-V is an 8.5 second car... yet the Buick feels faster in every day driving because they geared the first and second gear so low that it is very spritely off the line where the old Honda 4-speed heaves through each gear.  I'm mentioning this only drive home the point of 0-60 being largely irrelevant. 

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

You need to stop using your imagination and understand reality. Those well off folks got that way by using the credits and saving money. That's personal economics 101. 

 

You know, you keep coming up with these wild excuses as to why the Bolt won't succeed while ignoring every reason why it can succeed. Could it be because it comes from GM because if this were an odd looking EV Benz for that price, I feel you would be singing a completely different tune. 

Sources please because I'm calling 100% BS on every bit of you claim. 

@FordCosworth--So, what was the reason this time?

Passing power and highway merging power is more important than 0-60 I'd agree.    And my car never really feels fast at all, but the speedometer tells a different story.  

5 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Passing power and highway merging power is more important than 0-60 I'd agree.    And my car never really feels fast at all, but the speedometer tells a different story.  

Anything faster than 8 or 7 seconds is typically more than sufficient, faster than that is not really practical for daily use.   My Toronado is something like a 14 - 15 second car, and yet I drove it out to 7 Springs and back this weekend just fine with @HoLottaBuicks complaining that I drive too fast. 

9 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Anything faster than 8 or 7 seconds is typically more than sufficient, faster than that is not really practical for daily use.   My Toronado is something like a 14 - 15 second car, and yet I drove it out to 7 Springs and back this weekend just fine with @HoLottaBuicks complaining that I drive too fast. 

Most of the eco friendly drivers are not really wanting to enter our Buckeye Miata Club Autocross events....again, we are off track with this discussion.

11 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No one stop-light drag races in normal driving... 0-60 is even less relevant than horsepower numbers.  Even an 8-second B-Body Wagon can get you an "excessive acceleration" ticket from your local 5-0.    The Buick Encore's 0-60 is 10.5 seconds, yet the Encore has outsold the entire Mini brand 2 years in a row....  So maybe you can find some other goal post to wrap your hand around,. 

I will add this about the Encore.  Our 2004 Honda CR-V is an 8.5 second car... yet the Buick feels faster in every day driving because they geared the first and second gear so low that it is very spritely off the line where the old Honda 4-speed heaves through each gear.  I'm mentioning this only drive home the point of 0-60 being largely irrelevant. 

Encore also is packaged much more nicely than the MINI products.

BOLT having LT and Premier packages makes me think pricing will be like the Trax's with their LT & LTZ packages.

All this discussion between the Bolt and Model 3.. All I know is the Bolt looks like a lame piece of sh!t in comparison. It might perform magically(and it sounds like it is) but it looks terrible in comparison.

16 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

All this discussion between the Bolt and Model 3.. All I know is the Bolt looks like a lame piece of sh!t in comparison. It might perform magically(and it sounds like it is) but it looks terrible in comparison.

The discussion is primarily around pricing.  No one in the industry thinks that the Model 3 will really come in at $35k, and it will mostly be a $50k and up car.  It's an affordability question.  Yes the Model 3 will be the "more affordable" Tesla, but it will still be out of reach of the bulk of consumers.  The Bolt is closer to reachable (especially if there are attractive lease deals) for most people than the Model 3 will be. 

Plus Millennials are more inclined to lease a BOLT than a gas powered auto. GM seems to have done their research and based on reviews so far have a solid winner on their hands. Now we just need to get them on the lot for purchase or lease and see how it really performs.

GM makes sure it is a solid reliable CUV like the Volt and the BOLT will just sell like crazy I suspect.

9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The discussion is primarily around pricing.  No one in the industry thinks that the Model 3 will really come in at $35k, and it will mostly be a $50k and up car.  It's an affordability question.  Yes the Model 3 will be the "more affordable" Tesla, but it will still be out of reach of the bulk of consumers.  The Bolt is closer to reachable (especially if there are attractive lease deals) for most people than the Model 3 will be. 

On top of all that, I will say that while I like Tesla overall, the 3 looks awful. The proportions make it look like an S that has been pinched in from the front to the back. The Bolt, while not being a "looker" in the traditional sense, at least is (compared to the 3 at this point),

A. A usable hatchback with a more than usable range for the price.

and

B. (and this is the most important part here) Real.

I also think the 3 will not come in anywhere near $35 when it's all said and done.

21 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

On top of all that, I will say that while I like Tesla overall, the 3 looks awful. The proportions make it look like an S that has been pinched in from the front to the back. The Bolt, while not being a "looker" in the traditional sense, at least is (compared to the 3 at this point),

A. A usable hatchback with a more than usable range for the price.

and

B. (and this is the most important part here) Real.

 

I also think the 3 will not come in anywhere near $35 when it's all said and done.

At the very least, I think if GM works with its dealer network and markets this correctly, they should obviously beat Tesla to market and do well with the product.

The other takeaway that no one else is dealing with here is how much better GM hybrid and battery tech works out in the real world.  The E golf has all sorts of issues as does the Leaf with its battery issues.  The Volt by comparison has done very, very well from a durability and reliability standpoint.  I would expect the same from the Bolt.

26 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Plus Millennials are more inclined to lease a BOLT than a gas powered auto. GM seems to have done their research and based on reviews so far have a solid winner on their hands. Now we just need to get them on the lot for purchase or lease and see how it really performs.

GM makes sure it is a solid reliable CUV like the Volt and the BOLT will just sell like crazy I suspect.

Given proper marketing, yes-we are thinking on the same page.

See my previous comment about the millennials on the college campus where I work-they want electric.

2 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

At the very least, I think if GM works with its dealer network and markets this correctly, they should obviously beat Tesla to market and do well with the product.

The other takeaway that no one else is dealing with here is how much better GM hybrid and battery tech works out in the real world.  The E golf has all sorts of issues as does the Leaf with its battery issues.  The Volt by comparison has done very, very well from a durability and reliability standpoint.  I would expect the same from the Bolt.

It does sound like the dealerships could be the only real hurdle for this car. If they are not serious about the product at a dealership level, then this car will be dead in the water. Like you said though, if they do it right, there is no reason why this can't succeed. Time will tell I guess.

I would also like to clarify that I meant $35K and not $35 for the Tesla 3. Hell, if that's the case, I'll take ten!

1 minute ago, surreal1272 said:

It does sound like the dealerships could be the only real hurdle for this car. If they are not serious about the product at a dealership level, then this car will be dead in the water. Like you said though, if they do it right, there is no reason why this can't succeed. Time will tell I guess.

 

I would also like to clarify that I meant $35K and not $35 for the Tesla 3. Hell, if that's the case, I'll take ten!

I am bullish on both the 3 and the Bolt.  This is sort of like where the personal computer industry was with the Apple IIe.  When it took off, it really took off.  When people realize they can have near zero maintenance, not bother with refueling at a gas station, and cut their fuel bills by eighty percent, things will change quickly.

And again, GM is well positioned for this.  Even better than Toyota with its diversion into fuel cell technology, and Honda with its sub par hybrid technology AND diversion into fuel cell technology.  Ford sells and Electric Focus, but they are not serious about the development of electrics like GM. .

Just as an example, Washington state has some of the cheapest if not the cheapest electrical rates in the country. We have level 1 to 3 chargers all over and the cities are pretty much letting you charge for free at this time to get people to convert over.

BOLT, 238 miles on their 60 KWh battery, at 6 cents per KW equals $3.60 cents to fill up the battery. At 1000 miles per month, you have $15.12 per month energy cost to drive that 1000 miles.

That compared to my trailblazer at $2.25 per gallon, getting an average of 14 miles per gallon, costs just over $400 per month to fuel.

EDIT: Before anyone says anything, yes my wife drives much more than the 1000 miles, but I used that as an example of how much sense this BOLT makes as a commuter car, daily driver.

I can take my paid for Trailblazer SS and just enjoy it on road trips, weekends but also buy the BOLT and still come out ahead in local driving.

Gotta Love the Video's Chevy is doing on the BOLT!

 Love the fact that this little CUV is 128 MPe City and 110 MPe highway.

23 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Just as an example, Washington state has some of the cheapest if not the cheapest electrical rates in the country. We have level 1 to 3 chargers all over and the cities are pretty much letting you charge for free at this time to get people to convert over.

BOLT, 238 miles on their 60 KWh battery, at 6 cents per KW equals $3.60 cents to fill up the battery. At 1000 miles per month, you have $15.12 per month energy cost to drive that 1000 miles.

That compared to my trailblazer at $2.25 per gallon, getting an average of 14 miles per gallon, costs just over $400 per month to fuel.

I can take my paid for Trailblazer SS and just enjoy it on road trips, weekends but also buy the BOLT and still come out ahead in local driving.

Gotta Love the Video's Chevy is doing on the BOLT!

 Love the fact that this little CUV is 128 MPe City and 110 MPe highway.

Trailblazer SS is one of the better Ideas GM had over the last 15 years or so....I would be enjoying that until someone pried it out of my cold dead hands.   Seriously.  And I am not even an SUV guy!

2 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Trailblazer SS is one of the better Ideas GM had over the last 15 years or so....I would be enjoying that until someone pried it out of my cold dead hands.   Seriously.  And I am not even an SUV guy!

Yup, it will stay in the garage once I buy a BOLT for the wife to use in running around for her errands, visiting friends, family, etc. No need to put miles on the trailblazer for local city driving.

BOLT just makes sense!

2 hours ago, dfelt said:

Just as an example, Washington state has some of the cheapest if not the cheapest electrical rates in the country. We have level 1 to 3 chargers all over and the cities are pretty much letting you charge for free at this time to get people to convert over.

BOLT, 238 miles on their 60 KWh battery, at 6 cents per KW equals $3.60 cents to fill up the battery. At 1000 miles per month, you have $15.12 per month energy cost to drive that 1000 miles.

That compared to my trailblazer at $2.25 per gallon, getting an average of 14 miles per gallon, costs just over $400 per month to fuel.

EDIT: Before anyone says anything, yes my wife drives much more than the 1000 miles, but I used that as an example of how much sense this BOLT makes as a commuter car, daily driver.

I can take my paid for Trailblazer SS and just enjoy it on road trips, weekends but also buy the BOLT and still come out ahead in local driving.

Gotta Love the Video's Chevy is doing on the BOLT!

 Love the fact that this little CUV is 128 MPe City and 110 MPe highway.

1,000 miles is considered average nationally for non-commercial use, so it's a good metric to use.  It's why so many leases are based off of that. 

The Bolt would be a very good car for an Uber driver who has access to free charging stations (there are a few around Pittsburgh)

Awesome, being a person that loves to drive, I always drive way more than most people, so did not know that 1000 miles per month is the national average. Good Info Drew!  

Green people, why buy a Bolt when you can get a Volt and not have a care in the world?  Sawr a '17 Volt at the local dealer, an LT with Comfort for $33k MSRP, in that new Pepperdust color (which I thought was going to be a straight tan, but turns out it reminds me of that pearl olive color Chrysler had in the early 90's, only this skews black and green, cool!)

18 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Green people, why buy a Bolt when you can get a Volt and not have a care in the world?  Sawr a '17 Volt at the local dealer, an LT with Comfort for $33k MSRP, in that new Pepperdust color (which I thought was going to be a straight tan, but turns out it reminds me of that pearl olive color Chrysler had in the early 90's, only this skews black and green, cool!)

Depends on your personal needs for the automobile. And eys, Volt is VERY much on my radar.

18 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Green people, why buy a Bolt when you can get a Volt and not have a care in the world?  Sawr a '17 Volt at the local dealer, an LT with Comfort for $33k MSRP, in that new Pepperdust color (which I thought was going to be a straight tan, but turns out it reminds me of that pearl olive color Chrysler had in the early 90's, only this skews black and green, cool!)

Volt Great Car if your under 5'10" tall, otherwise the Volt is a No Go especially for tall people in the back seat. BOLT deals with tall people by having plenty of interior head space, leg room etc.

Plus BOLT as a CUV addresses the current love affair many have with SUV/CUV type auto's over cars.

I tried every which way to fit into a Volt when they came out and then with Generation 2, no way in hell you will get my 6'6" frame into that car. BOLT on the other hand should fit me and the wife loves it over the lower sitting Volt.

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 7:39 PM, ocnblu said:

Green people, why buy a Bolt when you can get a Volt and not have a care in the world?  Sawr a '17 Volt at the local dealer, an LT with Comfort for $33k MSRP, in that new Pepperdust color (which I thought was going to be a straight tan, but turns out it reminds me of that pearl olive color Chrysler had in the early 90's, only this skews black and green, cool!)

That's kind of how I see it. I would(and will when I have a home of my own) seriously consider a Volt and I guarantee you I'd be one of those people getting 200+mpg because I don't do a ton of driving so a 50 mile daily range and nightly charge would suit me perfectly. At my yearly average of right around 12,000 miles that's only about 33 miles driven a day. I'd say on average there's only one day a week that I really drive over 50 miles anyway. And exactly like you said, no care in the world because of the gasoline engine/generator for when I do travel long distances to visit my sister or vacationing.