Chevrolet Bolt Start Of Production Set For October 2016?

1 year ago by Eric Loveday 149

Chevrolet Bolt Pre-Production Version Rolling Off Assembly Line Back In April 2016

Chevrolet Bolt Pre-Production Version Rolling Off Assembly Line Back In April 2016

It’s a classic case of now you see it…now you don’t.

Fortunately, Hybrid Cars was able to capture the now you see it part, which suggests that the Chevrolet Bolt electric car could enter production starting in October 2016.

As Hybrid Cars points out, General Motors’ 2017 Fleet Guide initially listed Start Of Regular Production (SORP) for the Bolt at Orion assembly as October of this year (see image below) – exactly where it was expected.

Bolt Start Of Production Listed For October 2016

Bolt Start Of Production Listed For October 2016

An updated 2017 Fleet Guide was released a day later with the SORP Oct 2016 line completely removed from the Bolt’s status.  A quick look at other industry resources simply list a “Q4 2016” start date.

This October start of production date reveal would seem to (once again) underline the validity of the original leaked disclosure from multiple suppliers over a year ago (February 2015) that confirmed the Bolt EV would indeed enter production (well before GM announced it), would be built in Orion, Michigan (well before GM announced it), would have an Opel sister car (also well before GM confirmed), would be built starting in October (Bolt EV), and that suppliers were told to expect a volume of 25,000-30,000 units.

It would seem the only piece of original leaked info yet to be verified is the 25-30k production run…but with so much else proven accurate at this point, it is hard to imagine it is not.


Hybrid Cars reached out to Fred Ligouri of Chevrolet communications for response on the matter. Here’s what he stated:

“We’re excited to bring the Bolt EV, the world’s first affordable, long-range electric vehicle, to market. Our plan remains to begin production in the fourth quarter of 2016. We look forward to providing our customers the highest quality and best-in-segment performing electric vehicle.”

Q4 could mean as early as October, but Chevrolet was not willing to confirm this.

When asked about the dealer ordering timeline, Ligouri responded:

“We’re leveraging the strength of our dealer network and the relationships they have cultivated with their local customer base to manage the anticipated high demand for Bolt EV.

“While distribution plans are not yet finalized, we want to first satisfy demand in markets where EV acceptance is strongest.”

Source: Hybrid Cars

Tags: , , , , ,

149 responses to "Chevrolet Bolt Start Of Production Set For October 2016?"

  1. jelloslug says:

    Getting a few production cars to California before the end of 2016 looks doable with that schedule. It will still be mid 2017 before they are available nationwide though.

    1. theflew says:

      If it takes that long in means it’s selling really well in CARB states. When GM says it starts production in October it means at whatever rate they plan on producing Bolts at. This isn’t like Tesla’s slow ramp up. That’s basically what GM is doing now with the preproduction cars. As time goes by they just keep ramping up preproduction until they are production builds.

    2. Joe Friday, the Fact Guy says:

      That’ll probably wind up being at least 2 years before Telsa and their Model 3. By the time Tesla’s out there in volume, GM will have upqraded the Bolt.

  2. ffbj says:

    This is what the originally said. Pam Fletcher or Mary B.

    1. ffbj says:

      Btw the amorphous “were evs are most accepted” means the CARB states. Just like the 2017 Volt.

      1. no comment says:

        “where EV acceptance is the strongest” is merely a common sense statement that, from a marketing perspective, you want to put the product first where the demand is the highest. in the U.S. that is clearly going to be california.

        1. MikeG says:

          Or where sales give you needed ZEV credits.

          1. ClarksonCote says:

            Chevrolet has way more EV credits than they need with the Spark EV, enough to take them close to 2020 in fact. So rest assured, they don’t “need” to garner any with the Bolt for many years.

            The anti-GM people will try to claim otherwise, but that’s not what the facts say, as reported here several times in the past.

            1. ffbj says:

              Regardless those are the states where it will be released first. GM already said it in so many words where demand is greatest is code for the CARB states.

              1. ModernMarvelFan says:

                “GM already said it in so many words where demand is greatest is code for the CARB states”

                It isn’t GM’s fault that people live in the CARB states want to buy EVs more than non-CARB states.

                Maybe because those CARB states encourage EV adoptions?

                If you don’t like it, then either write to your local government or move to CARB states.

                Just like Model 3. If you don’t like waiting because you live on East Coast, then move to California and Fremont, CA to be precise…

                1. TedFredrick says:

                  CARB = California Air Resources Board

                  The California Air Resources Board, also known as CARB or ARB, is the “clean air agency” in the government of California

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    …and several other states have adopted the CARB standards:

                    “Currently, 16 other states have either adopted, or are in the process of adopting, California’s strict emissions standards. These states include New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Florida, and several others. They vary on when they adopted the standards: Connecticut, for example, adopted California emissions in 2004, and the strict regulations will impact cars made in 2008 and beyond. New York agreed to do the same in 2005, and that state requires a reduction in emissions by 2016.”

                    source:
                    http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/carb4.htm

                    1. jimstack007 says:

                      Pushme- you might note that Arizona WAS a clean car CARB state but our AZDEQ cancelled it. Department Of Environmental Quality (NOT). Now we get dirty versions of every car and almost no Electrics or even the new Volt. So we just order them from California and drive Electric anyway.

                2. Larry says:

                  What a self-serving attitude!

              2. Larry says:

                Well, it’s hard to develop demand in an area where they refuse to supply product. I’m still waiting for 2017 Volts to become available within 100 miles of my home. I may end up with another Leaf since GM has such a restricted strategy.

              3. no comment says:

                it is foolish to focus on CARB *states* when the vast majority of sales go into a single state; namely, california. the underlying implication in these arguments is that gm is not concerned about actually making money on the chevrolet bolt, which is a nonsensical inference.

                1. Anon says:

                  If GM really wanted to make money on BEVs, they’d build more than 25-30k of them.

                  Economies of scale = lower production costs.

                  Seems like they’re just positioning for CARB and PR Credits.

                  1. no comment says:

                    the part of the equation that you’re missing is that you’ve also got to *sell* what you produce.

                    i don’t fault gm for being measured in their market introduction; if they underestimate the market, gm has much more ability than tesla to adjust production to actual demand if necessary.

  3. Breezy says:

    I don’t think anyone is doubting that suppliers were told to expect 25,000 to 30,000 units of production. What has happened is that some people have taken statement and twisted it to mean that GM is intentionally limiting production to that level.

    It isn’t a production limit. It’s a target, and a reasonable one.

    Since then we have GM on record saying that they could produce 50,000 or more. So, GM will build enough Bolts to satisfy demand.

    1. ffbj says:

      GM will build as many as they decide to build, which will probably be around 22k, certainly not 50k.

      1. jerryd says:

        GM can’t build more than they ordered batteries for 18 months ago as it takes 2yrs to ramp up new production.
        LG refused to ramp up when Musk warned them they needed to.

      2. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “GM will build as many as they decide to build, which will probably be around 22k, certainly not 50k.”

        GM decides to build exactly what the market is willing to buy.

        The best ever sales of any BEV in the US was barely 25K per year.

        Why set a goal of 50K when you know you won’t sell more.

        Sure, idiots will claim that Tesla got 400K orders, but that is Tesla and this is GM. GM knows that many EV owners hate GM so it knows its place.

    2. no comment says:

      i agree that gm is being reasonable in their forecasts. i would add that 25,000-30,000 is a lot more than tesla is going to produce in the first year of the model 3.

      ev enthusiasts, on the other hand, don’t have to worry about reason; they don’t have any money on the line, so the limits of enthusiasm are unbounded…

      1. Inc says “i would add that 25,000-30,000 is a lot more than tesla is going to produce in the first year of the model 3.”, and while you might be thinking that is correct, I, for one, highly doubt that when Tesla starts making cars in the line for the Model 3, that they will produce less than 50,000 in their first full 12 months, or first year, when Elon figures 100,000 to 200,000 will be the target!

        Funny thing is, Elon could be overstating capability by 2X to 4X as much as reality, and they could still make 25,000 to 100,000 Model 3’s in their 1st year!

        Also, I think that 5% of Model 3 reservists might sample a Bolt EV on lease, just to ‘Test’ the new GM EV, while they wait for their Tesla to arrive! So maybe 20,000 of their first sales will come up off lease in 2-3 years! Good opportunities for used EV buyers then!

    3. Ralf Gulden says:

      I don’t understand anyway why GM is so pessimistic about the sales quantity. If you announce world’s first affordable, long-range electric vehicle and you really believe this, why shouldn’t that car be a bestseller? With 200 k units annually and not 20 k.

      1. Nick says:

        CCS

      2. ClarksonCote says:

        Because, when the production estimates are missed due to circumstances outside of their control, the press ridicule them relentlessly.

        Such was the case with the Volt when it was produced. Bailout-naysayers hated it, since it became the defacto bailout poster child, die-hard Republicans hated it because it doesn’t use oil, fearmongerers hated it because one caught fire two weeks after a crash test when not properly discharged, etc. It became a political football for all these things and more. All this despite being a damn good car that owners love.

        GM will not make that mistake again.

        1. jerryd says:

          No one discharges crashed EV batteries as that would cost them $2 k to $10 k in used battery sales.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Quite correct. And GM got bad press for having to idle the Volt production line for weeks every summer, because demand was lower than they anticipated… partly due to the reasons you cite, ClarksonCote.

          So yes, unfortunately, there is a good reason for GM to limit the first year’s production on the Bolt.

          But unfortunately, by relying on a third party to make the entire EV powertrain, GM has tied its hands and made it impossible to make a profit on high volume production. Of course, we can hope GM will signal a change by bringing production of the Bolt’s powertrain partially or even entirely (aside from battery cell supply) in-house.

          But as I’ve said many times, GM is pretty clearly signalling it has no interest in high volume production of long-range EVs, because it is not yet moving to build its own battery factories. If and when GM moves to do this, it will be time to seriously consider that they might challenge Tesla and/or BYD for volume production.

          And not until.

          1. Mathias says:

            I think it takes more than money to open a battery factory. It takes know-how. Is LG Chem likely to share proprietary information to competitors?

            1. no comment says:

              the ability for gm to get know how is not of much concern to me. the bigger issue is technology risk. unlike tesla, gm is not “all in” on lithium battery technology, it would be somewhat foolish for gm to sink large amounts of capital into a venture that not only faces market risk but technology risk. ev enthusiasts can say anything because they have no skin in the game – if they’re wrong, it’s no monetary loss to them. businesses need something about bit more solid than mere enthusiasm.

      3. Breezy says:

        GM recognizes that they’re entering a highly competitive market. The is of course the largest factor in two ways:

        1. The Model 3 is a desirable car that people aspire to own, which is great, but

        2. Tesla is making unreasonable claims about the Model 3’s price and schedule that are encouraging people to delay purchase of another EV.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Breezy said:

          “Tesla is making unreasonable claims about the Model 3’s price…”

          That seems unlikely. We now know that Tesla is pretty far along in developing the Model ≡, so they should have a fairly accurate idea of how much it’s going to cost to produce. And after having promised a base price of $35k so many times and so loudly, they can’t change that without losing a lot of sales. And Tesla knows it.

      4. Jychevyvolt says:

        Because GM left LG hanging the first time the volt came out. Won’t make the same mistake again.

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “So, GM will build enough Bolts to satisfy demand.”

      No, GM will do no such thing. Farming out the entire EV powertrain to another company, as Toyota did with the RAV4 EV (to Tesla) and GM did with the Bolt (to LG Electronics & LG Chem), is what an auto maker does when it doesn’t plan to make a car in large numbers, and wants to limit development costs.

      Auto makers which want to make a model in large numbers do so by making as much of the car in-house as is practical, to reduce per-unit costs for volume production.

      Furthermore, GM has shown absolutely no intent of building its own battery factories. Only BYD, Nissan, and Tesla have done so or are doing so, and only those EV makers have any intent of selling long-range EVs in large numbers in the near future.

      Investigative journalists say “Follow the money”. When it comes to prediction production of long-range EVs, “Follow the battery supply”.

      1. theflew says:

        Cell production is a low profit business. You’re going to be hard pressed to see traditional automakers want to get in that business. Instead they will partner with a supplier that will give them a deal (LG).

      2. Breezy says:

        Assuming reasonable demand numbers at the low end of this range (I think 80,000 is too high) then GM has plenty of battery supply from LG. Battery suppliers are experts at battery production lines and they will ramp up if necessary.

  4. Alan says:

    That good news for EV’s !

    Spotted this story about Nissan battery tech which hopefully will hasten their longer range EV’s !

    http://www.nextgreencar.com/news/7650/new-research-proves-boost-to-battery-development/

    1. DTM says:

      Hmmm, ussually I don’t show much interest in these battery breakthrough announcements… But this Time May be Different.

      If this is really up for Mass production, insideevs beter cover this story.

      Thanks for sharing anyway

    2. Mathias says:

      Yes, thanks for sharing this article. It is great that Nissan is continuing battery research but it looks like they will be an LG Chem customer in the short term.

  5. Trollnonymous says:

    I don’t care for this car designed by LG.
    That said, I think it will still sell BUT! only as many as the stealerships are willing to push.

    Expect some crazy stealership markup.

    I will personally go take a look at it and take a pic of the stealership sticker and post it when available.

    1. Jacked Beanstalk says:

      Well you are in luck, because the Bolt is designed by GM. LG only designed the battery, motor, and electronics, of course with strict oversight by GM.

      It’s not as if GM would just take whatever LG gives them and say “that’s good enough!” All of their expertise was brought to bear on the Bolt’s design.

      1. Trollnonymous says:

        Well, GM designed the Bolt’s “Shell” hence the Fugliness.

        http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/26/new-chevy-bolt-really-lg-bolt/

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “Well, GM designed the Bolt’s “Shell” hence the Fugliness.

          http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/26/new-chevy-bolt-really-lg-bolt/

          Quoting cleantechnica basically make you into a blogger troll… LOL

          So, some of those components make the whole car?

          What about all the accessories that make a car a car? What about chassis, interior, body?

          Motors are GM designs as well.

          Basically LG is doing the battery and all the associated parts related to that. And infotainment system.

          Model 3 will use LG for its center display as well.

      2. Tech01x says:

        I’m not sure why it matters to people where GM sourced the parts and which parts are designed by GM versus not.

        After all, the entire Gamma II platform was developed by GM Korea, which is actually Daewoo – GM bought them in 2001. GM renamed GM Daewoo to GM Korea in 2011.

        Is it really surprising that GM Daewoo/Korea turned to LG as a major drivetrain supplier? Is the Bolt worse because it is designed and mostly built in South Korea? Sure, final assembly is done in Michigan, but if you look at the cost of components, this is a South Korean car. But does that matter?

        Should we knock Ford because Magna supplies the drivetrain for the Ford Focus Electric? Maybe… probably not.

        1. Trollnonymous says:

          Sure, lets keep going down that road of being oblivious to the obvious.
          Doesn’t meant crap till it’s your job sent out of this country, right?

          http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/12/news/companies/carrier-moving-jobs-mexico-youtube/

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “Sure, lets keep going down that road of being oblivious to the obvious.
            Doesn’t meant crap till it’s your job sent out of this country, right?”

            Of course hater will look at this way.

            One can also look at it as that GM is actually keeping more assembly jobs in the US by assembling the Bolt here instead of building it in Korea and import it back like the Spark EV which is actually an improvement.

            LOL. Funny how things can be twisted to prove any points you want…

          2. Jacked Beanstalk says:

            Listen, I’m very liberal on trade and manufacturing policies that aim to preserve and build the US manufacturing base. But that is a political objective. GM does assemble the Bolt in Michigan, so they are ahead of the curve compared to a lot of the products Americans purchase. Don’t expect American companies to act on their own to keep jobs in the country because it’s the right thing to do. They act in their own self interest and our trade and tax policy incentivizes them to outsource.

            The sad truth is that most of the Bolt’s electronics couldn’t even be manufactured in the US because we lack the expertise. Oh sure, a Korean company could build a plant in the US and hire Americans to do the grunt work, but could an American company fabricate all the electrical components? Nope. We are a country of American’ts.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Tech01x said:

          “Should we knock Ford because Magna supplies the drivetrain for the Ford Focus Electric?”

          Of course we should. Ford is getting Magna to build the EV drivetrain for the Ford Focus Electric because Ford is making it in much too small a volume to justify the in-house development expense. So they tradeoff not having to spend much on development for a higher per-unit cost for the car, because that will save them money overall.

          It seems naive to suggest GM isn’t doing exactly the same thing by farming out the Bolt’s entire powertrain to LG Chem/Electronics.

          Let’s put it another way: If GM farmed out making the entire powertrain for one of its its top-selling gasmobile pickups to a third party, would that make any sense to you? And assuming you know GM would never do such a thing, why do you see it differently just because the Bolt is a BEV?

          We’ll know GM is serious about making BEVs in large numbers when they start building the powertrain in-house. And we’ll know they are not serious until that happens.

          1. Jacked Beanstalk says:

            GM invested big time in the Voltec drivetrain, so yeah I think it’s safe to say they are serious about electrification. A full EV is a little different since it requires charging infrastructure. GM are a VERY conservative company who constantly sabotage their own future with inane risk avoidance strategies. For them to even make the Bolt at all is a BFD.

      3. Dan says:

        Don’t feed it.

        1. Trollnonymous says:

          FEED ME SEYMORE!
          FEED ME MOW!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7SkrYF8lCU

      4. ModernMarvelFan says:

        “Well you are in luck, because the Bolt is designed by GM. LG only designed the battery, motor, and electronics, of course with strict oversight by GM.”

        No. GM designed the motor and controller and LG is going to build it.

        1. Trollnonymous says:

          OK, GM designed the motor and controller, so LG gets the “Jobs” to build it along with their chunk of the project.
          Got it!

          I sure am glad the tax payers bailed GM out so they can design something and send the manufacturing jobs elsewhere so it can be imported back here…..lol

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “I sure am glad the tax payers bailed GM out so they can design something and send the manufacturing jobs elsewhere so it can be imported back here…..lol”

            GM still build more cars in the US than anyone else and has more cars on the top 10 list with highest domestic content than any other manufacturer…

            It isn’t GM’s fault that American buyers don’t give a damn whether something is built in the US or not.

            Apparently, Chinese buyer love GM cars more than American buyers..

            1. Mark says:

              Chairman Mao did ride around in a Buick.

              Buick’s success in China is largely due to the legacy of a single car.

    2. JustWilliamPDX says:

      A ridiculous argument in an entrenched global industry. Nearly every vehicle available is an assemblage of components, most of which are obtained from outside sources. To claim otherwise is simply disingenuous.

      More specific to the Bolt, GM isn’t lacking in experience with electric motors. The motors in the Volt and Spark EV were designed and are built in the US, and are proven, admired components. No doubt the motors produced by LG for the Bolt will be to GM’s design and specifications. As will be the other electronic components that LG excels in producing, in both quality and quantity.

      Tesla uses suppliers themselves, and as evidenced by legal battles with some of them, they do not always work out as planned. It is simply the nature of the business, and highly competitive. Nobody is immune.

      Both my Spark EV and my LG television were competitively priced, well reviewed, and have performed as or better than expected with 100% reliability. I am not ideologically “married” to either company, but I do find it strange that a studied collaboration between them should yeild a poor product.

    3. Larry says:

      How can the dealers (“stealerships”) extort premium prices if there is no demand for these vehicles, as the dealers maintain?

  6. Kosee says:

    What about the opel version? Will that be made in the orion plant as well? Somehow still exiting stuff. Soon this car will be real and the model 3.. Not yet.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Hey Kosee,

      The Opel version of the Bolt (with equally bad Ampera-e naming) will be built in Orion as well, but has a release date for later in 2017. (looking at the sked, if we were WAGing, we’d say late Q3 for deliveries)

      Couple of notes according to ‘those who shall not be named butgenerally know what they are talking about’ – no RHD, and production allocation is estimated (via parts) at 2.5-5k/year

      1. Texas FFE says:

        That’s not what the article says. The article says the Ampere-e will start production in October of 2016. That would make a lot of sense because of the strong EV market in Europe.

        1. Jay Cole says:

          Hey Texas FFE,

          Which article says the Ampere-e will start retail production in October of 2016?

          Only word we have is that GM has decided to not have a dedicated plant, and will produce the Ampera-e alongside the Bolt EV at some point. When GM announced the Opel Ampera-e (~Feb 2016) they were very specific to say it was launching in 2017.

          Realistically, I think even people living outside CARB states in the US would consider themselves lucky to get a Bolt EV by the summer of 2017, much less retail deliveries in Europe.

          1. Texas FFE says:

            The 5th paragraph in the article above specifically states, “would have an Opel sister car (also well before GM confirmed), would be built starting in October”.

            1. Jay Cole says:

              Hehe, guess that is on me then, lol.

              They were meant to be separate thoughts on a list (hence bolding and comma).

              “…the Bolt EV would indeed enter production (well before GM announced it), would be built in Orion, Michigan (well before GM announced it), would have an Opel sister car (also well before GM confirmed), would be built starting in October, and that suppliers were told to expect a volume of 25,000-30,000 units.”

              Definitely not what was intended…but can see how it might be taken that way, so apologies on that (will make that more clear).

              Our take on it is that there won’t be any initial tooling for retail Euro prouduction until GM converts to MY 2018, or at the very tail end of the 2017 NA run…the debate of course being when that would be.

        2. Kosee says:

          For instance the company cars in the Netherlands. With 200 miles you can drive through the whole country. A full BEV is now the only type of car that goes in the 4 % tax bracket for company lease cars that are used privately. The Ampaera-e should be just right for that purpose and perhaps can mimic the succes of the outlander phev for a year.

  7. Alaa says:

    This confirms what I thought. GM is scared that Tesla will start production before the end of 2016. Note that Tesla said it will make half a million cars on 2018 and not by 2020. The other thing that is floating around is that Tesla will finalize the works of the model 3 by the 1st of July this year. So this means that they will start producing the model 3 on the 2nd of July 2016.

    That is what I think. I do not think for a minute that it will take Tesla six months trying to get these robots to put a model 3 together. They already made the robots to do that. We all saw the 3 model 3s on stage. Does anyone think that these were hand welded? I don’t think so. So the software is there. The final design will be ready by the end of June. SO what is left? The supply chain I suppose. Now will it really take months for Tesla to chose from the long line of suppliers that are already bending backwards to be suppliers to Tesla? I suspect the deals are already done.

    So the bottom line guys is that Tesla will beat GM and will produce the Model 3 before the Bolt. I also expect Tesla to produce more Model 3 in 2016 than what GM will produce in 2016 and 2017 combined.

    What do you think guys?

    1. Alan says:

      As much as I like Tesla, I seriously doubt that !

      Middle of next year in reasonable quantity for sure.

      1. Alaa says:

        Tell me where I went wrong with my logic?

        1. Alan says:

          It’s not the logic, it’s the logistics of such a huge problem,

          For starters, they are going to need an enormous injection of cash, possibly a rights issue or principle investors to stump up, in addition they will also need to arrange for an increase in debt most likely.

          All this takes time in order to get the cars churning out.

          1. Alaa says:

            I will try and addrwess each point

            The injection of cash. We know that Tesla has at least 400,000 *$1000 = $400 million from reservation alone. I personaly think that that number will reach a billion by year end. but let us be conservative and work on the $400 million. Is that a small um of mony? No it is enough to start.

            “possibly a rights issue or principle investors to stump up, in addition they will also need to arrange for an increase in debt most likely.”

            I don’t really understand that part. As I mentioned they have enough cash. As for the debt part, well the minute they sell the 1st M3 they will have money so they really do not need to borrow money. Not at the start at least. The money they have is enough to make a at least 1000 cars if not more. Now once they sell these 1000 cars then they will have a good income.

            1. Sese says:

              I would love me a Model E this year but I don’t think it will be possible. That 400 mill you talk about is already paid to creditors according to recent earnings call. They are not going to Hand build any cars except few test vehicles. Building on scale takes lot of cash for buying robots setting up assembly lines and tooling, paying suppliers.

        2. mxs says:

          Almost everywhere …. your post are always like shots in the dark.

        3. Barbar says:

          Those displayed Model 3 prototypes were almost certainly indeed welded by hand, in preliminary jigs, as the production version of the body is, according to Tesla, only to be finalised around mid-July 2016.

          After that, commissioning a robotic body plant capable of producing 200,000 parts/yr inside 12 months would be considered quite an accelerated schedule by industry standards.

          For a relatively novice company attempting to get everything right at this scale on the first go, well that would be a quite amazing feat, so don’t be at all surprised if Tesla lags by ± a year in reaching their lofty goals.

      2. Khai L. says:

        Forget the logistics, Elon Musk has already declared that July of 2017 is their target for themselves and their suppliers for start of production. AND he also said that they won’t make that deadline since someone is bound to not make it. Having 99% of the parts ready for a car is still an incomplete car.

        Anyone who expects anything sooner is saying that Musk is lying.

        1. Alaa says:

          In this case I would not mind if he is lying.

          1. mxs says:

            Of course you wouldn’t, but if GM or BMW was late as many times as Tesla, your comments would clearly reflect your displeasure.

            Take-off the Tesla tinted glasses … at least for a day.

          2. ffbj says:

            The big recent surprise was when Musk moved up the production numbers by 2 years, a prognosis which was almost universally condemned, so logic apriori, dictates your supposition is flawed.

    2. Jacked Beanstalk says:

      October ’16 was the scheduled production date a while ago. I don’t believe GM is “scared” of Tesla’s model 3 since it doesn’t directly compete with the Bolt, and because the Bolt will be on the roads as much as a year prior to the M3.

      Furthermore, Musk has said the first M3s will be the most expensive models. It will be YEARS before Tesla has a $35K car to compete with the Bolt. Hopefully GM will be on Bolt V2 by that time and offer real EV acceleration in under 6 seconds, and maybe a longer wheelbase for more cargo space. One can hope, at least.

      1. Michael Will says:

        Lol I certainly think that GM is scared that the Bolt has no chance if Tesla is meeting their new aggressive timeline of delivering 200,000 vehicles that quickly.

        The perception is probably that the only reason why you would buy the inferior Bolt is it being available early, or if GM gives up even more of their likely already thin margins on it. No adaptive cruise control, no auto park, no supercharger network, no sexy looks, no full size 5 adult seats, no space age technology, no membership in the tesla club.

        That being said I still think that they can sell their 30k to 50k projected Bolts easily, because there will be people not yet on the model 3 waiting list that want it now, and I expect the availability of lower optioned model 3 to be much later than the higher optioned model 3.

        And also note that while everybody is complaining that GM is not building out a fast charger network for the Bolt, they have at least silently started rolling out a free Level 2 destination charger network through Volta promoting the Volt and probably soon after the Bolt as well. I downloaded the app on my iPhone and while its just very few stations around where I live, I was able to use one already and it was in front of a bakery cafe I wanted to go to anyways, so classic destination charging. For free.

        So this looks to me like they want to position the Volt as the intercity car and the Bolt as the inner city car, selling one each to a dual car household.

        The supercharger network of the model 3 will be a main differentiator, but also will be a challenge to build out to satisfy charging needs of the mass produced model 3.

        1. tom911 says:

          I for one could care less about a fast charge network for the Bolt. Been driving (two) Volts for the last four plus years @ 15K miles per year and 13K of them being electric. The Bolt is a commuter car for me, as I still need an SUV/Pick-up for trips to mountains and carry gear and such. Model 3 won’t change that. If the X didn’t have those stupid FW doors it might be an option. Guess I’ll be waiting a few more years for a plug-in SUV with 25 miles of range min.

          1. mxs says:

            Of course he forgot to state clearly, that most people who require more than a commute drive are the ones giving supercharges a significant weight point … everyone else could care less, as you stated.

        2. Yoda says:

          I am a Tesla fanboy but some of you people are just redicolus….

          No adaptive cruise control, no auto park…
          Really??? So these are features Chevys self driving cars wont have?
          http://insideevs.com/general-motors-and-lyft-to-test-self-driving-chevrolet-bolt-ev-taxi-in-2017/

          no supercharger network…
          This one is correct for now…

          no sexy looks…
          Eye of the beholder… last time I checked people buy SUVs and those are the uglist things on the road… The model 3 moght not be ugly but sure as hell aint no Porsche…

          no full size 5 adult seats….
          Maybe maybe not that depends on how over weight the pasengrrs are….

          no space age technology…
          Because Teslas electric self driving cars have some great tech that GMs electric self driving car wont??? Yeah right…

          no membership in the Tesla club…
          None needed as Chevy has more fan clubs than Tesla just not the same members…

          1. Trollnonymous says:

            Personally I think the Bolt will sell at a descent quantity.
            Only as long as the Stealerships will sell them and we still have to wait to see what the stealerships will tack on for stealership markup.
            Remember, when the Volt came out, there were some places adding $5k to $9k of markup.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              Smart buyers will just use Costco program or other purchasing program.

              When the stupid dealership can’t move those overpriced cars, they either have to lower price or order less inventory. That just means those dealers that are willing to sell will get more volume.

    3. JustWilliamPDX says:

      There is zero evidence that the Model 3 will launch this year. ZERO. You are claiming that because they intend to finalize the design in July, they can begin production the following day? Impossible.

      I love that Tesla inspires so many people by making truly remarkable EVs. But baseless fantasy claims such as yours border on the offensive, and belittle the enormity of the endeavor being undertaken. Spreading “positive” misinformation is nearly as bad as spreading FUD, and certainly isn’t doing Tesla or the industry any favors.

    4. Texas FFE says:

      Even if the Model 3 design is completed in July it’s going to take at least a year to equip the factory and get the production line operational. It’s taking GM a year to go from production model to production and GM already has fully equipped factories. It’s inconceivable that Tesla can go from production model to production quicker than GM.

      1. Alaa says:

        Why one year? What will they do in that year?

        1. Texas FFE says:

          Okay let’s try this. First they have to design the production line, that alone could take six months or longer. Then they have to order the tool and die equipment and the conveyor systems and wait for all this stuff to get built and shipped. Then all the tool and die equipment and conveyor equipment has to be installed and tested.

          Then finally they have to train and certify the assembly line workers before even the first car rolls off the assembly line. That’s a lot of stuff for even a large auto manufacturing firm with an existing experienced labor pool to achieve in a year. For a company like Tesla which will have to virtually start from scratch in terms of labor pool, this appears to be a very daunting task to achieve in any less than a year.

          The fact that you think Tesla can magically start building cars without an assembly line is disturbing. Hopefully I have provided you with enough information for you to see why it takes so long to get a factory into production. If you still don’t understand I think I’m just going to have to write you off as a lost cause.

          1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Thanks for trying, Texas FFE. Alaa seems to have very little understanding of this subject… nor several other subjects he’s posted about.

            1. Mxs says:

              Finally something we can agree on … 🙂

    5. Richardd962 says:

      Tesle will produce the model 3 only when they will be abled to make a profit from it,that is really close to calling it vaporware… we wont see it in 2016 or 2017.

    6. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “So the bottom line guys is that Tesla will beat GM and will produce the Model 3 before the Bolt. I also expect Tesla to produce more Model 3 in 2016 than what GM will produce in 2016 and 2017 combined.

      What do you think guys?”

      I think you are a Tesla Lunatics… LOL

      GM said end of 2016 last year and it has kept that promise which is exactly what Oct production would allow shipment of 2016 based on its distribution sales model.

      Your claim of Model 3 production in 2016 is just wishful thinking at a lunatic fan level which are completely baseless.

    7. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Alaa said:

      “So the bottom line guys is that Tesla will beat GM and will produce the Model 3 before the Bolt.”

      Can I have some of whatever you’re smokin’? 😀

  8. Someone out there says:

    What happens to the pre-production cars? “Founders edition”?

    1. no comment says:

      “founder’s editions” are for fanboys. gm does not have a cult following, so it doesn’t run those kinds of scams.

      1. Rick Danger says:

        No, they just let their dealers tack $10,000 onto the price of the car with NO extra options.
        Wow! Whatta deal!

      2. floydboy says:

        What an asinine comment.

        1. ffbj says:

          A fine appraisal.

      3. Mark says:

        Well… for the EV crowd, there’s no cult following outside of the great state of Michigan.

        But for the truck and sports car crowd, trying telling them that an electric motor is better than a small block or an LML. There is a cult following for GM.

    2. Aaron says:

      Pre-production cars typically get crushed. “Founder’s Editions” won’t be available for the Model 3 (per Elon).

      1. no comment says:

        tesla may not sell model 3 cars under the name “founder’s edition” but i guarantee you that they will deliver high priced model 3’s long before they would ever deliver one priced at $35,000. i would not be surprised if model 3 pricing didn’t get into the $70,000+ range.

        1. Skryll says:

          There is no scam in founders edition cars, its all different options to help kickstart the startup. I am buying an $120k model X not just because its an awesome car, the price looks ridiculous even for an awesome car, but because I want everybody to be able to drive affordable cars like model 3 and model 4 in the future. It is an investment into the future, to change the world to a better place with less stinky loud fossil cars and affordable options that are cheap and fun to drive. If I was a millionaire I might have gone for the model X founders edition early on, and locked $40k in since 2012. The personal opportunity cost of doing so is immense, putting it into tesla options from 2012 to 2014 would have turned it into several hundred thousand. But the communal opportunity cost of not succeeding in reducing the effects of global warming and poisonous gases and particles (‘clean’ diesel) and fracking messing up ground water and plant watering quality may very well be immensely higher than that.

          1. Chaz Smith says:

            Good point Skryll, wish there were many thousands more with your perspective.

            1. no comment says:

              just out of curiosity, are you a tesla shareholder?

        2. Someone out there says:

          “Founders Edition” is actually a great move from Tesla. Some people are willing to go to ridiculous lengths to be among the first to own something like camping outside an electronics store for days to be the first one to buy a games console so why not try to take advantage of that? Let them pay for it!

      2. arne-nl says:

        What ppl here are calling ‘Founders cars’ seem to be the ‘Signature series’. The founders cars are only a small numbers, only available to people very much involved in Tesla. You couldn’t just buy a Founders car if you wanted to. The Signature series were open for the general public,

        1. no comment says:

          “founder’s edition” is, the first instance, a public relations stunt, so that the public could see all the “influencers” who wanted to drive tesla cars…nothing wrong with that. in the second instance, it was a way to get owners of tesla cars to act as salespersons for tesla motors. the latter was a move of questionable legality in some states in the U.S.

      3. Spider-Dan says:

        Yeah, no “Founder’s Edition.”

        Instead, we will have “Benefactor’s Edition,” or perhaps “Insignia Series.”

        1. Terawatt says:

          Opel has already trademarked “insignia”, so watch out!

  9. Terawatt says:

    I really like the quip about first satisfying demand where EV acceptance is highest..! If they really mean that, the rollout ought to begin in Norway with the Ampera-e this year…

    Instead, Opel presented the Ampera-e back in February. I went to Opels website, intending to sign up for updates – only to find they offered no such thing. I found a “contact us” link and sent them an email explaining this, hoping someone at Opel might realize what a waste of opportunity this represents. (Opel has struggled in Norway for years, and having the best affordable EV by far can do a LOT to correct that – the e-Golf is among the best-selling cars here, not just best-selling electric cars.) To their credit, Opel called me just minutes later and told me they’d put me on “the mailing list”. Apparently it existed, even though you couldn’t sign up to it on their site. Opel also said they expected sales to start in spring 2017. But I haven’t heard from them since. Zero updates of any kind. So I don’t know whether spring 17 is it or not.

    Obviously the Ampera-e isn’t going to happen before the Bolt does, but at least this gives some hope Opel Norway will be prioritized when it’s time for the European sibling – both in terms of sales start and number of vehicles allocated. I think it will kill the other affordable EVs for model year 2017.

    1. V. Stenbekk says:

      I did the same. Went to my local Opel dealer and asked to reserve one, but I couldn’t. I was told to come back closer to Christmas. And I will.

      1. Marty says:

        Yep, its amazing.. There is a Poll about how GM sells their EV’s over at GM Volt forum, and as of today, no-one thinkss that the “dealership only” model should continue, and 80% said they would buy online if they could.
        I am one of those 80%. I refer to buy online, so I ordered a model 3.

    2. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “I really like the quip about first satisfying demand where EV acceptance is highest”

      Don’t you get that autoamker satisfy its home market first.

      Maybe that is why Norway doesn’t get cars before California either..

      1. Terawatt says:

        Maybe I “don’t get that automaker satisfy their home market first”. In any case I was just pointing out what the logical consequence of going by EV acceptance would be, not expressing my expectations.

  10. LOL says:

    It does seem that Bolt design is better suited to European taste, than any other market. The only factor constraining better Bolt selling results in Europe is unbuilt charging infrastructure. Should GM decide to push anything in that direction ahead by itself, it just might beat Tesla to the punch, at least in Europe. Especially if they choose to install extremely fast Wirelees Chargers by their dealerships. One more thing to bear in mind – Opel doesn’t stand as most reliable brand so it would be wise to offer it in Europe under its original badge – – screw all the nuts with Bolts, Chevy Bolts.

    1. mxs says:

      I think you are completely wrong …. why would success of EV in Europe be predicated on publicly available charging??? The much denser Europe certainly could not care less …. what they do care about is the price/incentives. This is the number one factor, especially in the not so wealthy EURO countries … if they can get smaller ICEer much cheaper they will. Plenty of cool small cars available there.

      1. arne-nl says:

        You’re wrong. Europeans have less cars on average. The one car that many households possess must perform all kinds of stuff. And that most importantly includes going on holiday to France, Spain or Italy.

        1. Mxs says:

          I have lived there long enough to know that flying or using train is the way to go. Or rent a car for the two weeks of vacation you really need to drive long distance.

          Density s their friend in this case, something North Americans cannot rely on.

    2. MDEV says:

      Bolt is the i3 killer, I think BMW is getting ready to scrap the i3 or pushed to 200 miles BEV just to keep a car n this segment.

      1. jelloslug says:

        BMW will call the ’17 i3 a 200 mile car to keep the buzz positive.

      2. alohart says:

        Let’s wait until an i3-Bolt comparison occurs before declaring the i3 dead. I think that there will be enough difference between the cars that the i3 will have enough sales to stay alive. Some of us prefer a light, compact rear wheel drive car with a sophisticated multi-link instead of a twist-beam rear suspension, and built with corrosion-free materials like aluminum, CFRP, and thermoplastic.

        1. Larry says:

          Yeah, but are they willing to pay $10,000 more for what are arguably obscure features.

      3. Yoda says:

        The i3 is getting a range boost for the 17 model year and is rumored to be getting another range boost for the 18 model year…

        http://pushevs.com/2016/05/07/samsung-sdi-went-to-beijing-motor-show/

      4. Terawatt says:

        Nah. The BMW is the more cutting edge car and has the image that many BMW buyers are happy to pay for.

        But the Bolt/Ampera-e will be felt, also by BMW. And they may need to lower the price a bit or accept a falling share. In Norway this will likely depend on how many Ampera-e is allocated to Norway – I don’t think there’s any chance there will be any unsold ones here in 2017.

    3. Joe says:

      You can’t generalise across EU countries so easily. Some already have the infrastructure in place, others don’t.

      I agree the Bolt is suited to European taste, especially with the vertical rear hatch. Generally though, I think the minivan format is equally successful in America.

      ICE competition for the (stupidly named) Opel Ampera-e includes Opel’s own Meriva/Zafira, VW Golf Sportsvan, BMW 2 series (but not much), an Audi A2 (if it comes back after all), the Skoda Roomster, Citroen Cactus, Nissan Note, Peugeot 2008, Renault Scenic, Citroen C3/C4 Picasso, etc.
      Quite some!

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Joe said:

        “Generally though, I think the minivan format is equally successful in America.”

        Your info is out of date. Rather few minivan models are still being produced for the U.S./Canadian market; most of that market has been lost to SUVs and CUVs.

    4. Joe says:

      Oh, and I think the number one question still remains:
      will it supercharge (CCS)?

      1. Terawatt says:

        This isn’t an open question. It will get CCS. But as an option only (incredibly, if you ask me).

        Remaining questions are (1) maximum charging rate (perhaps just 50 kW, even though the pack should handle 100 kW or more), and (2) how much will the optional CCS charge port cost.

    5. Spider-Dan says:

      Trying to figure out “European taste” seems an exercise in futility.

      Europeans seem to love small hatchbacks, yet Ampera sales were incredibly underwhelming there, ostensibly because it was “too small”(?!). And America is supposed to be the land of SUV-driving soccer moms, yet the Outlander PHEV still isn’t for sale here and is the top selling plugin across the pond.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Europeans seem to love small hatchbacks, yet Ampera sales were incredibly underwhelming there, ostensibly because it was “too small”(?!).

        No, it’s mainly because the Volt (aka “Ampera”) was about twice the price in the EU as it was in the U.S/Canada. The Volt is certainly an excellently engineered car, but doubling the price makes it far less compelling.

        “…yet the Outlander PHEV still isn’t for sale here and is the top selling plugin across the pond.”

        That is probably primarily due to a poor currency exchange rate with the U.S., so that Mitsubishi would have had to greatly increase the price here to make a profit on the car. That coupled with a possibly limited battery supply. If they only had enough batteries to make a limited number of Outlanders, then why not sell them in Japan and Europe, where they’ll make a healthy profit margin?

      2. no comment says:

        the reason why more fuel efficient cars are more popular in europe is because gasoline is a lot more expensive in europe. the reason why gasoline is more expensive is because it is more highly taxed. if you had higher taxation on gasoline in the U.S. people would “discover” that that SUV wasn’t such a “necessity” after all.

        1. Spider-Dan says:

          …and yet the Outlander PHEV, an SUV, is the top-selling plugin in Europe.

          That’s my point. The Outlander PHEV uses significantly more gas than the Volt/Ampera, and is packaged in a form factor that is not very popular in Europe (at least, compared to USA).

          Yet the Volt is the top-selling EV in the USA, while the Outlander PHEV is the top-selling EV in Europe.

          1. no comment says:

            since you are limiting the auto market in europe to the plug-in segment, any plug-in would probably beat the carbon tax. furthermore, the outlander PHEV has really high mpg compared to an ICE vehicle. if you are thinking that auto buyers in europe are one-dimensional buyers who all buy the car with the highest stated mpg, i doubt that hypothesis is actually true.

            1. Spider-Dan says:

              But again: the Outlander’s MPG is not particularly outstanding for a plug-in, and it comes in a form factor that is not as desired in Europe as it is in USA. Yet, for whatever reason, it’s the top-seller over there.

              1. no comment says:

                as an ev enthusiast, you obsess over details like whether or not a car is a plug-in; but you are missing is that most people don’t. to a potential buyer of an outlander phev, they see it as a car that avoids carbon taxes and is less expensive (in terms of fuel economy) than other cars that they might consider.

      3. Terawatt says:

        IDK about the European market at large, but in Norway the failure of the Ampera comes down to price. BEVs enjoy huge incentives here, PHEVs didn’t have any at the time. Now PHEVs are getting some tax rebates and lately have been outselling BEVs in Norway. A situation that will hopefully rectify itself with the next generation affordable EVs.

  11. przemo_li says:

    “””
    It would seem the only piece of original leaked info yet to be verified is the 25-30k production run…but with so much else proven accurate at this point, it is hard to imagine it is not.
    “””

    GM may be interested in ramping up production in light of Model 3 success… or not.

    But I would say that number is more uncertain then ever. Even if GM would want to increase production for 2017 suppliers would be able to do it for H2 without much issue.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      LG Chem would have to ramp up its battery supply for the Bolt, in order for that to happen. Just how much flexibility is there in LG Chem’s supply? Customers have to sign contracts for delivery in industrial quantities at least two years in advance. And with so many customers competing for LG’s new, cheaper batteries, I rather doubt that there is much more available to sell GM in the short term.

      Of course, in the long term, LG can build out more battery production, and is doing so. But the “nine women cannot produce a baby in one month” rule applies here. LG Chem cannot just turn a dial and crank up more production than they’ve planned for over the next few months. Now, according to Jay Cole (who I presume knows of which he speaks), there is unused capacity in some of LG’s battery factories in other countries. But those are almost certainly in countries with higher production costs, so LG wouldn’t be able to offer GM more batteries from those factories at the same very low price of $145/kWh that has been so widely quoted.

      Is GM willing to lower its profit margin on the Bolt in order to increase production? Keep in mind they’re probably already making a rather narrow profit on the car, much narrower than they make on their more popular gasmobiles. It might make sense for GM to use a business strategy of trying to grab as much of the future market for BEVs as they can, before the Tesla Model ≡ captures it. So you can imagine a scenario where GM might be willing to significantly increase Bolt production, even though it would almost certainly mean they start seriously losing money on the model.

      But the bean-counters at GM wouldn’t be happy about that.

  12. Texas FFE says:

    The 25,000 to 30,000 units is just the initial production run. There is no time frame identified for this initial production run but I bet the manufacturers are going to try to build these initial production units as fast as possible. If GM starts the initial production run in October they may be able to compete the initial production run by the end of this year. If sales of the Bolt are hot we may see 30k Bolts getting built per quarter or 120k+ units produced in 2017

    1. ffbj says:

      Unlikely.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Texas FFE said:

      “There is no time frame identified for this initial production run…”

      Don’t auto makers generally contract with suppliers for a year’s production? Why would you think this case would be different?

      Of course, there is no proof it is, but given that almost every bit of information from that leak, supposedly a GM supplier, has been proven correct, and none of it has been proven wrong, I think it’s fairly safe to conclude that the 25-30k figure quoted for Bolt production is exactly what it appears to be: that this is how many Bolts GM plans to produce in the first model year.

  13. Texas FFE says:

    Did anyone notice in the graphic that the LaCrosse is switching brands from Buick to Chevrolet? I don’t understand this move, I thought the LeCrosse was the Buick flagship.

    1. no comment says:

      must be a mistake, the 2017 lacrosse is going to be sold under the buick badge.

  14. super390 says:

    The sooner the better. We can finally start weeding out the EV trolls. First we weed out the GM haters and the general EVs at any cost haters. In 2018 we weed out the Tesla haters. Enthusiasts will no longer find themselves under relentless attack on their own websites; a condition that was never a problem for enthusiasts before the Internet. You used to have the right to be an enthusiast in the privacy of your own home.

    1. Jacked Beanstalk says:

      There are good reasons to be skeptical of Tesla’s cars that have nothing to do with them being EVs.

  15. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Good news. Just right on schedule as GM originally claimed.

    I am guess we will probably see about 2K Bolt sold in 2016 and vast majority will be available by Feb 2017 as inventory build up across the country.

    2016 and 2017 will be good years for EVs with finally some real growth.

  16. Tim says:

    If demand is high it will be interesting to see what premium price (above sticker) the sleazy independent dealers will try to get.

    1. no comment says:

      the chevrolet bolt starts at $37,000, which is a lot of money for a car like that. in addition, it is more expensive than the chevrolet volt. so the bolt is a car that is going to be targeted for ev enthusiasts. that’s why the 25,000-30,000 first year production target makes sense to me.