General Motors Comments On Lack Of Long-Range EVs From Other Major Automakers

4 weeks ago by Eric Loveday 161

Chevrolet Bolt EV

When asked to comment on the Tesla Model 3, General Motors took the opportunity to divert attention towards other mainstream automakers who still lack a long-range, affordable electric car.

Clever move, General Motors.

Forbes recently asked Jim Cain, Chevrolet Business and Dealer Communications specialist, to comment on the Model 3 and what it might do to sales of the Chevy Bolt, but instead of responding in a direct manner, Cain switched it up a bit and came up with this:

“Tesla is certainly a unique company with a lot going for it.”

He then added:

“Let me respond…where is the 238-plus mile EV from Toyota, Honda, Fiat-Chrysler, Nissan, Hyundai-Kia, Nissan, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Mazda, et al?”

General Motors is indeed the only major automaker with a long-range, affordable electric car (although Nissan, like its Alliance partner Renault in Europe, will have a retort in about ~3 weeks time with the longer range/2018 LEAF’s debut), so Cain’s comment really hits the spot. It seems as though GM doesn’t aim to compete with Tesla (which it really shouldn’t), but rather all the other mainstream automakers, all of whom lack that 238-plus mile EV.

In the end, we still give kudos to General Motors for being first among the majors to offer up what we want…longer-range electric vehicles.  Once someone is first, the others tend to follow…in a hurry.

Source: Forbes

Tags: , , , ,

161 responses to "General Motors Comments On Lack Of Long-Range EVs From Other Major Automakers"

  1. Brandon says:

    This is smart. Tesla is a luxury brand, GM/Chevy is not.

    The Bolt and the Model 3 should really not be competing any more than a BMW M3 competes against a Gulf GTI.

    The ONLY reason this comparison can be made right now is the state of technology has the two cars at nearly the same price.

    1. Ambulator says:

      Or they will be, once the base Model 3 ships.

      The Bolt has various colors at the standard price, the Tesla only black. The price of the options is why Tesla might be able to make a profit.

      1. bro1999 says:

        “once the base Model 3 ships”

        When will a true, base $35k (+$1k delivery fee) Model 3 be delivered? We know the base TRIM ships sometime before the end of the year (with likely additional options being required), but what about the base stripper version?

        1. floydboy says:

          What additional options are required?

          1. bro1999 says:

            Come on, Tesla made only long range 3’s with the glass roof available from the start ($5k upcharge). You don’t think they will do the same thing with the base version?

            1. BenG says:

              You are probably right.

              I expect stripper base model 3s to be shipping in early-mid 2018.

              1. Tom says:

                And it will be extremely limited in quantity. But that’s like EVERY manufacturer. A VW Jetta for instance starts at $17,895 but you don’t need to try real hard to be upper 20s on it. Try finding one for under $18,000. In general I would like the Tesla cult members to recognize this simple fact as ordinary and also the Tesla haters to recognize as ordinary. And the rest of us can rest assured that finding the mythical $35,000 Tesla might be a white whale. Figure $40,000 typical lower end. Then over time as initial demand is satisfied and sales need to be increased, more of those options become standard. It’s how this works.

                Oh and technical correction that seems to be forbidden topic. There is no evidence that any model 3 vehicles at all have been sold. They are being ‘delivered’ to employees but since the EPA has not certified the performance of the vehicle it is not legal to sell it. Additionally in other thread EPA public documentation on initial testing is public (but certification not signed off) so the testing has been done but only on the high mileage model. The lower mileage model has not been even tested yet. Search for Tesla here. https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/pubsearch.jsp

                1. Nix says:

                  Actually there is plenty of evidence that the first 30 Model 3’s were sold.

                  1) EPA gave Tesla permission for limited sales using provisional window stickers. Photos have been posted (ibid)

                  2) Elon stated in the latest earnings call that they were sold, and the employees paid money to buy them. Earnings calls are regulated by the SEC.

                  3) An investor who bought one got interviewed and talked about buying it.

                  So the 3 people who matter, the EPA who makes it legal, the buyer, and the seller all have provided information showing they were legally sold.

                  But you’ve had this explained to you repeatedly and you keep posting the same crap. Stop the willful ignorance.

                2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Tom said:

                  “…I would like the Tesla cult members to recognize…”

                  The only Tesla “cult” members I see are the Tesla haters who come over to a website about EVs to obsessively post pointless FUD.

                  Are forums for GM’s cars, or Ford’s cars, likewise infested with trolls who post there for no reason other than to slam GM’s or Ford’s cars?

                  Nope! It’s only Tesla, and of course what’s motivating trolls like you isn’t an honest dislike of Tesla or its cars; it’s your crazy short-seller attempts to manipulate Tesla’s stock price by posting FUD. Crazy because no matter how much time you spend doing that, you personally couldn’t possibly affect the stock price by even 1¢.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              bro1999:

              “…Tesla made only long range 3’s with the glass roof available from the start ($5k upcharge). You don’t think they will do the same thing with the base version?”

              I can predict one thing with absolute certainty: No matter what Tesla does or doesn’t do, Tesla hating trolls like you will find some excuse to whine about it.

        2. Redmond Chad says:

          Tesla’s delivery estimator says that if I order a stripped car, I will get it in December 2017 plus or minus a month. I am not an employee.

          Of course their plans may change, and I can’t actually order it yet, but that is the best date we currently have.

          1. MTN Ranger says:

            Are you in CA or a previous owner? My 1st hour east coast reservation says base model for me is available Jan-Mar 2018. The loaded long range is estimated fro Nov-Jan. I’m hoping this is accurate!

        3. kbm3 says:

          November. you really do not know much about Tesla do you?

        4. Nix says:

          base TM3 220 trim, at the base price of $35K + dest/doc is scheduled to ship to customers starting in Nov.

          You have had this explained to you repeatedly, and you’ve been provided multiple examples from multiple reservation holders of exactly when they are scheduled to be able to buy the &35k base stripper.

          At this point any lack of comprehension is willful on your behalf.

    2. Peter says:

      Bolt is a great product.
      Best buy at the moment.

      Good looking to compared with Leaf.

      1. (⌐■_■) Trollnonymous says:

        Sure if you’re going to compare it to the LEAF then the EconoBox Bolt is slightly less FUGLY.

        1. bro1999 says:

          Model 3 = (airhead) fashion model
          Bolt = girl next door
          Leaf 1.75 = girl next door’s less attractive sister
          Prius Prime = plastic surgery addict’s 15th attempt to fix a botched previous surgery

          1. SparkEV says:

            Model 3 = (airhead) fashion model who also loves to cook and clean and actively volunteers for charities, AND wants to make love all the time.

            Tesla 3 can tow a trailer, far more extensive charging network, no putting up with socialist “gov’t says you must buy from dealer”, and that Tesla badge will get you noticed.

            1. SparkEV says:

              Actually, (airhead) for Tesla 3 is untrue. Tesla 3 will have Auto pilot capabilities, so if comparing to girls, she’d have PhD in computational neural science.

              (airhead) belongs to Bolt since it doesn’t even have adaptive cruise control which Leaf will probably offer and Prime has as well.

              1. bro1999 says:

                Maybe I should have phrased it “fashion model (airhead driver optional)” 😉

                1. SparkEV says:

                  “(airhead driver optional)” applies more to Bolt with me. When they put that gorgeous Chevy rep when I was test driving Bolt, my brain got filled with air, couldn’t think straight.

            2. MTN Ranger says:

              There is no proof that the Model 3 will be able to pull a trailer. There’s not even a hitch in the options yet. That’s pure speculation at this point.

              1. SparkEV says:

                Pulling a trailer was tweeted by Musk. If it turns out that it can’t, then that’s a broken promise. But for now, you have to assume that towing will be possible, and that they just didn’t get around to announcing the details.

                1. Mark.ca says:

                  You can add a hitch to tow a low load on pretty much any car so what’s the problem?

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    And risk voiding the warranty?

                    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                      Well, if you use your car to pull a trailer that’s too heavy for it, thus causing damage to the car, then I think it’s certainly reasonable for the auto maker to refuse to repair the car under warranty.

                      I guess the real problem there is that cars which aren’t rated for towing aren’t given a maximum towing weight by the manufacturer. Without any such guideline, perhaps clueless people are tempted to tow a trailer too heavy for the car.

                      There is some general advice on why you shouldn’t use a car that’s not rated for towing, to tow a trailer, here:

                      https://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/28/5-things-will-void-car-warranty/

                      But even there, what it warns against is using your non-tow-rated car to tow a “substantial” trailer; i.e., something bigger than a light trailer.

                2. Michael Gill says:

                  Who are all these people that need a car which can tow? I see maybe one every 2nd month in and around Scotland’s most populated city. For me, it seems an unnecessary attribute for the vast majority of drivers.

                  1. Tom says:

                    I haven’t seen a car towing a trailer in 20 years. It’s a ridiculous and moronic requirement. I’d like my car to mow my lawn too.

                    1. Asak says:

                      You see it more often in Europe. Fewer people over there own bigger cars, so being able to tow is more expected on a basic car. It’s pretty rare in the U.S. though, so it’s a pretty esoteric requirement.

                3. MTN Ranger says:

                  Musk also said there was going to be a matte black paint option too. Half his tweets can be taken with a grain of salt.

                4. Leo says:

                  > Pulling a trailer was tweeted by Musk. If it turns out that it can’t, then that’s a broken promise.

                  He also tweeted spaceship controls. Big deal, things change.

                5. unlucky says:

                  He tweets out things that don’t become true all the time. It’s unclear why you think this one will be different.

                  I know you want it to be different, but the reality is that putting a tow rating on their lower end car would be odd. They’d rather upsell you to tow.

                  He tweeted Model 3 would have a solar roof option too. That’s not going to happen either.

          2. Jason says:

            Actually, Model 3 is more like Playboy’s magazine. At the moment all you can do is look at it and dream about owning one someday. And we know what some of you boys do with that magazine, reading these comments I’m pretty sure there’s a few out there doing the same over the Model 3.
            Bolt is like your Mom, there when you need her, fully functional in a utilitarian way.
            Leaf is like your little sister, you put up with her, fine her slightly annoying, but love her all the same.
            And sorry to all the women out there, just flip the gender to suit your preference.

            1. Paul Smith says:

              Model 3 is like the fashion model who will go anywhere (Supercharger network) while the Bolt is like your Mom at home. I’ll take the Model 3. You Jason, have issues.

          3. CCIE says:

            Love this! Especially the PP comment!

          4. EV says:

            Good one , but for those who like crossovers

            Bolt = Model 3’s new upcoming sister Model Y ( crossover)

      2. Terawatt says:

        Available in select markets late 2016.

        Unavailable in most markets late 2017.

        Unavailable in most markets late 2018???

    3. theflew says:

      Let’s be honest. GM designed the Bolt for the eventual loss of the $7500 tax rebate. I think GM is just making a nice profit on it right now. How else would a dealer be able to knock $5k off the price? I guarantee the dealership is still making their cut.

      Tesla on the other hand built the base Model 3 as a loss leader. They never really plan on people buying a base $35k car. I’m sure some will buy it, but it will make up a very small percentage.

      So once the $7500 tax rebate is gone the Bolt will start at $30k. Meanwhile the Model 3 will still be $35k. I wouldn’t be surprised if GM doesn’t cut the price of the 2018 Bolt to undercut the base Model 3. Right now GM has little incentive to do so without competition.

      1. Dav8or says:

        And soon after that, the base stripper Model 3 at $36,000 (let’s compare apples to apples here) will disappear due to “lack of demand”and the base price raised much closer to $40,000.

        1. kbm3 says:

          I can see that like myself, you are predicting the model three to be so popular they can afford to raise the base price.

          It is going to be a massive yet.

        2. Nix says:

          It is pretty funny that half the folks bashing the $35K Model 3 whine that Tesla will have to limit the number made because too many people will buy them and cut into profits. And the other half whine that there won’t be any demand so Tesla will cancel it.

          I wish you guys would get your story straight as to whether the demand will be disastrously too high, or whether it will be disastrously too low. Because it can’t be both.

          *laugh*

          1. Asak says:

            Actually judging from the quotation marks I think he’s saying it will be cancelled, but the lack of demand will not actually true. They just won’t deliver many of the basically by choice.

      2. Mint says:

        GM is knocking $5k off the price?!?

        Man, they must really love their CARB credits. The rest of the world would love to pay full price for one.

        1. MTN Ranger says:

          Bolt EVs initial allocations are $2000 to $2500 discounted on dealer websites in VA. That’s even before negotiation.

      3. Nada says:

        Agree totally…
        The Bolt and Leaf are drasticaly overpriced compared to total build costs…
        Bolt EV parts from online GM sites are actually very cheap and that is what retail customers pay with dealer markups…

      4. menorman says:

        Exactly. The sooner GM gets rid of the magic asterisk, the sooner they’ll start really moving product. Even if they dropped MSRP to equal the TM3, it would still bring a lot more people into the fold. Equaling the price of the Volt would be ideal and makes it a screaming deal, especially somewhere like Colorado with the massive subsidies.

      5. Paul Smith says:

        “Tesla on the other hand built the base Model 3 as a loss leader. They never really plan on people buying a base $35k car. I’m sure some will buy it, but it will make up a very small percentage.” 455,000 with 1,800 added every day. Small percentage…..

    4. unlucky says:

      Just because a Model S is a luxury car doesn’t make a Model 3 a luxury car.

      Hyundai makes the Genesis. That doesn’t make an Accent a luxury car.

      I’m not sure how people look at the Model 3 and see that car and think it’s a luxury car. It simply isn’t.

      The two cars do compete head to head. Certainly not everyone cross shops them but it’s not because of luxury.

      1. Bill Howland says:

        I test drove a bare bones S. And I’ve driven a Loaded S.

        It (the bare-bones one) did not have the feel of a luxury car. Tesla at the time at least, never advertised the ‘S’ as a luxury car.

        Everyone here called it a luxury car, but I think that can only properly be stated with a Loaded “S”.

  2. Alan says:

    What exactly is so “smart” about it ? There are no prizes for being first or getting your fingers burnt before anyone else, it’s only now being made available nationwide in the US and virtually nothing outside of that.

    It’s not as if the Bolt is outselling all other EV’s barring Tesla 10 to 1, granted it’s a great start and has done wonders to help encourage others to get in the game quicker.

    The real game hasn’t even started in earnest yet.

    1. mx says:

      GM still has no high speed charging network, especially now in Summer, when people take vacations.

      GM doesn’t have a good suspension or nice materials in the Bolt either. Which they could fix.

      The Bolt seems to be designed for uptake by only the hard-green car buying population, not the general public.

      GM is also letting slip the Volt reliability score.

      1. SparkEV says:

        “GM still has no high speed charging network, especially now in Summer, when people take vacations.”

        It’s actually worse than that. They are actively destroying existing charging network by giving free charging to Maven ridesharing drivers. Bolt being the slowest charging EV in the world makes it lot worse. When the thing is slower than Leaf, the former slowest charging EV, it is pretty awful.

        At least many Nissan and BMW dealers offered charging at their dealerships, somewhat expanding charging infrastructure, GM isn’t doing none of that. It’s like they are out to destroy EV.

        But they did convince me that EVs are not practical without company wishing to sell EV and being in charge of the infrastructure. Leaving charging to third party simply won’t work.

        1. Brandon says:

          I lean toward the thought that fast charge network operators can and will get the job done. There are numerous DCFC providers in Europe who are doing so, and with HPFC (150+ kW) charging stations coming on the market this year, next year should see minimum 4 stall 100+ kW capable HPFC installations popping up in Europe and the U.S..
          Some HPFC (or ultra fast) projects are announced and planned for Europe already, and Electrify America will do a lot for HPFC Infrastructure here in he U.S. This will undoubtedly help with ridesharing etc.

          1. SparkEV says:

            I don’t know the number of ridesharing drivers in Europe, but current San Diego situation demonstrates why public fast charging without carmaker making things better for drivers simply won’t work. Even if they have 1000 kW chargers today, Bolt being limited to 25 kW beyond about 70% means they will still charge at 25 kW.

            For ridesharing drivers, I noticed they almost always try to get to 90%+ even with severe taper, and sometimes plugging in for the second time. If they have no customer waiting, there’s no reason to get off the charger, and they simply sit there (or sleep there).

            For a third party charger, they’re getting the money regardless of ridesharing driver or not. But for a carmaker, destroying the user experience to satisfy few ridesharing drivers could (or will) mean fewer car sales, and they WILL do something to enhance typical driver experience.

            1. bro1999 says:

              Free anything will eventually get abused. That’s a fact of life. I’m hoping Nissan doesn’t hand out free charging cards for Leaf 1.75.

              1. SparkEV says:

                I suspect Nissan will continue to give out free charging. Let’s face it, as “bad” as Bolt is, Leaf SUCKS compared to Bolt from what little we know about it. I mean, 146 HP? That will still be slower than SparkEV!

                And it’s not just Leaf. IoniqEV is doing it, i3, and probably lot more in the future. Public charging is dead without carmaker getting behind it to ensure good user experience.

                1. john doe says:

                  I’m sure Nissan will sell a lot of cars.
                  I think they will have few waiting in line, due to their production experience and will to produce EVs.
                  It will be more then quick enough for most people, and the range will be OK for most people.
                  The rest can choose between Tesla and GM right now.
                  Still waiting for Tesla to ramp up production.
                  For a stort while, Nissan will probably be selling more of the Leaf then Tesla does of the M3, until Tesla get their production volume in order.
                  I’m also sure the Leaf will come in a longer range version in 2 years time, or when the competition demand so. Maybe the even offer a 2 motor version one day. . If they start to learn from Tesla.

                2. pjwood1 says:

                  Leaf sounds more and more like the Black & Decker of cordless wheels.

              2. an_outsider says:

                What did I miss? Why next Leaf calls 1.75? Du to 40kWh battery?

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  He’s just slamming it by suggesting it won’t be updated that much, so doesn’t really deserve to be called the “Leaf 2.0”, which is what it’s generally called in these discussions.

                  And if Nissan doesn’t put an active thermal management system into the Leaf 2.0’s battery pack… then I might well agree with him.

            2. menorman says:

              So it sounds like the big problem is the software on the Bolt itself, not necessarily the networks. GM was probably being overly cautions and could easily change the taper to allow faster charging for longer.

        2. unlucky says:

          The Bolt is not the slowest charging EV out there. Not even close. When your car is already slowing down because it’s near full the Bolt is still chugging at 125A. Let’s stick to what’s real.

          I don’t like free charging hogging chargers. But that’s not destroying infrastructure. In fact, surely the charger companies are getting paid for those sessions so they have incentive to add more chargers.

          I don’t like how free (subsidized by a third party) charging hogs existing infrastructure. But it doesn’t actively destroy infrastructure, if anything it builds it.

          I’d rather chargers cost money, so that people don’t sit there and try to fill to 90% or 100% because it’s free anyway. But in the end what actually destroys infrastructure is the infrastructure losing money so the owners don’t want to keep it in place. And since we don’t know the financials of the deal between Maven and the charging providers we can’t say this deal is destroying infrastructure.

          1. SparkEV says:

            “Let’s stick to what’s real.”

            Then you shouldn’t claim Bolt chugs along at 125A. Vast majority of Bolt in the real world spend most of their time far above 50%, and most spend above 70% when it has taped down to 25 kW.

            Free charging Maven drivers make the situation worse. But even without them, people who use DCFC with Bolt aren’t going to disconnect at 50% since they are going on a longish trip. They will charge to 80% or more when power is 25 kW or even less.

            1. pjwood1 says:

              Even with Tesla, people frequently let the range drift way down, so they can charge faster and yet leave the car’s state of charge low enough that you’re always grabbing watts at high rates (90-117KW). This is why the superchargers are ~100 miles apart (less nowadays).

              I agree, 25KW is too slow, and invites both squatting problems, and the need to find some kind of activity, for each hour’s ~60-80 miles of charge, or that one time where you need to “fill up” a Bolt on a long trip. I’m sure plenty of gas car drivers will reject this EV, because of this scenario possibly affecting them 2-6 times per year…A no-compromise attitude. I see these people, when I drive by gas stations.

              1. unlucky says:

                “each hour’s 60-80 miles of charge”

                When a Bolt drops to 25kW it’s less than an hour from full. So “each hour’s” doesn’t make sense. It’s not multiple hours. It’s not even one. When the car drops to 25kW you’re at about 70% full (70 miles to go). It will fill the remaining battery in 30 minutes.

                This is all assuming you are on a charger which is over 62A to start with. If you are on a 62A charger then of course it’ll be 25kW from 0% to 70% since that’s the limit of the charger. Of course every car would have that problem if it were using the same charger.

                1. unlucky says:

                  Excuse me. I misread the charts I have. They have different horizontal scales and I failed to notice.

                  When you reach 70% you have one hour remaining to 100%, not 30 minutes. But you also don’t have multiple hours, so “each hour’s” is still an odd phrasing when you won’t be spending multiple hours in that region. But you could spend up to an hour in that region if you want to hang on to 100%.

            2. unlucky says:

              It’s still chugging along at 125A.

              If you want to pretend Bolt customers will be at the top of their range and simply never use the lower range that’s ridiculous and self-serving.

              The only way you can make a claim is if you dismiss that Bolt drivers even need to charge. Well, if you do that then they can say the same to you. You’re clogging up their chargers!

              But once you drop that and realize people charge because they need to (and have the same right to as you) you’ll see that no matter what charge state the Bolt starts at if you start at an equivalent charge state (in mile remaining, up to the max you can have) and you both charge for the same amounts of time you’ll find you never, ever have more charge state than they do.

              Other people are using chargers and the number of chargers installed is not going up proportionally. I’m sorry that inconveniences you. But that’s as far as it goes. You don’t have more right to charge than them. You can implore them to wait until their battery is lower so they can charge quicker. But in the end you have to assume that their reasons for charging are not somehow secondary to yours.

              You’re playing a silly game here. Only if you hamstring the Bolt by not using its capacity does it ever charge slower than your car. And if you do that it’s sitting on a huge range reserve you are pretending doesn’t exist just so you can put it down.

              Your problem is with people, not with the car. You want others to not charge so you can charge. Yes, wouldn’t we all.

              1. SparkEV says:

                “Your problem is with people, not with the car.”

                If Bolt charged like SparkEV, average wait time would be about 10 minutes. That obviously can’t be the case given the 50 kW limit on most chargers. But at least having it keep 50 kW to 90% or higher % would make the waiting lot less, not this 25 kW at 70% crap. People will be people, Bolt simply sucks.

                1. WadeTyhon says:

                  Uhhh Bolt doesn’t suck.

                  So far I can count on two fingers the times I have fast charged my Bolt in the first 2 months. And one time was just to test the charge. Whereas I was charging my Spark EV at a public charger at least twice a week.

                  Most Bolt owners will rarely ever use public charging. And for us owners, we are not offered free charging – unlike Leaf owners. Maven Gig doesn’t exist around here.

                  Best solution for you? Move to a place with home charging! Preferably as far away from Leafs and Maven Gig drivers as possible. 😉

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    Maven as a company probably wants to succeed. That means they will want to expand. You will be singing a different tune when Maven moves into your area and all them Bolts clogging up the chargers, making you wait on every trip over 230 miles.

                    But even without Maven, there are other ridesharing companies, and they may choose Bolt. They will make you wait and all the bad behavior that go with it:

                    . plug in way above 50% or 70% when it’s tapered to 25 kW, and insisting taking it over 90%

                    . plug in for the second time even after 80%.

                    . sleeping in the car while slow charging beyond 90%

                    . sleeping in the car waiting while another Bolt driver is also sleeping in the car with > 90% charging.

                    Think of my complaints here as caution for the future.

                2. unlucky says:

                  The Bolt actually charges FASTER than the SparkEV.

                  Its peak speed is faster. And it can charge at that speed until well past when the SparkEV has slowed further.

                  So no, if it charged like the SparkEV the wait time wouldn’t be 10 minutes. Wait times would actually INCREASE.

                  Again, your problem isn’t with the car, it’s with the people. You don’t like people using DC chargers to charge when you would rather you charge.

                  I’m sorry you’re having to wait to charge because others also use the chargers. Beyond that there’s really nothing to say. It’s a shared resource.

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    You have no idea how quick SparkEV charges. SparkEV isn’t Leaf, which by the way, also charges quicker than Bolt. It keeps 125A all the way to 80%, peaking about 48 kW. And that’s with battery 1/3 the size of Bolt.

                    Bolt charges 125A to 50%, but the nominal voltage is 350V. That means it’ll top out at 44 kW before tapering to 36 kW (100A). But most people (or every Bolt I saw) charge way past 70% (60A). Bolt is definitely much slower than SparkEV. In fact, slower than ANY EV.

                    But kW means little to most people since they look for %. Do the math; Bolt is the lowest C rated EV in the world. Quite literally, Bolt charging to 80% is about 2/3 the rate (or half the rate beyond 70%) using over 3 times bigger battery. That is my definition of SUCK; doing hell of a lot less with 3 times more resources.

                    1. unlucky says:

                      I looked it up. Yes, I have an idea how fast the Spark EV charges.

                      No, LEAF doesn’t charge quicker than Bolt. The original charged slower, the 30kWh charges at the same rate.

                      I think you’re right, it’s the lowest C charge rate in any existing car. Part of the problem is that chargers were designed for cars with smaller packs. Even if it were prepped for 500A it still wouldn’t charge in 30 minutes because there is no charger to do it.

                      Yes, every person you saw charged past 70%. Again, a behavior problem. You don’t want them to charge to full because it means they use the charger in times you could be using it.

                      Again, NO, it’s not slower than a SparkEV. It’s actually faster because it will still be chugging away at 125A when your car has slowed down. Somehow you insist on measuring a car only by charging at the highest states of charge, even when those states of charge are ones your car can’t even achieve.

                      This isn’t a flaw in the car. It’s a problem with behaviors. You don’t want others using the chargers in this way. But what you want doesn’t dictate what others do.

                      Yes, charging people for charging would hopefully change their behaviors. I support this. But even charging for charging isn’t fixing a flaw in the car it’s just trying to change behavior.

              2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                “Your problem is with people, not with the car. You want others to not charge so you can charge.”

                Yeah, Sparky has to be the most misanthropic person I’ve ever seen posting to the internet. I think he’d be much happier if he didn’t have to share the world with other people.

                So it seems odd that he seems to want others to read his remarks. O_o

                1. SparkEV says:

                  People seem to gobble up all the climate change gloom and doom despite the evidence that humans are doing better than ever before. I’m presenting actual gloom and doom facts when it comes to charging, and Bolt SUCK at it.

      2. Bill says:

        Were it that I could only buy a Bolt… The availability here in Cleveland Ohio is still virtually nonexistant. Even advertising for Bolt and Volt is nonexistant. It is easy to have vaporware with great specifications when one only produces it in gratuitous quantities for sale in coastal compliance states.

        I am still glad to see the Bolt exist at all, as it helps catalyze EV interest and prods serious manufacturers to try to match GM’s battery capacity game.

        Two days ago I was at the level 2 charger at the local Walmart parked next to a family driving a Chevy SUV. They were surprised to see an all electric car (my 2011 LEAF). They knew of hybrids and Tesla, but didn’t know that Chevy made the PEV/hybrid Volt and the electric Bolt.

        There is really a huge publicity and information gap out there and Chevy is not doing anything to bridge the gap with consumers. I can only conclude that GM doesn’t really want to sell PEVs and EVs.

        1. Brandon says:

          I like what Alan said above: “The real game hasn’t even started in earnest yet.”

          Battery prices are just about there, and it takes time for manufacturers to develop new vehicles. I don’t see GM pushing EVs until they are profitable to make and sell, and until they can really promote them because of HPFC (150+ kW) infrastructure being available.

        2. ModernMarvelFan says:

          ” They knew of hybrids and Tesla, but didn’t know that Chevy made the PEV/hybrid Volt and the electric Bolt.”

          That is because it is OHIO!!!!

          (I should really shut up before I offend the entire state of OH).

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        mx said:

        “GM still has no high speed charging network…”

        And likely it never will. From GM’s viewpoint, why in the world would they want to help accelerate the EV revolution, and thus help make their own gasmobiles obsolete?

        I think that from GM’s viewpoint, when the market for EVs develops sufficiently that it’s worth trying to make and sell them in large volumes, then there should be sufficient demand for outside companies to build for-profit EV charging stations, just as outside companies build gas stations.

    2. JeremyK says:

      If I’m not mistaken, the Bolt was the best selling EV in the U.S. last month.

      1. Nix says:

        ….and this is why Tesla doesn’t release monthly US delivery numbers.

        Tesla US sales drop off on a quarterly pattern because of how they batch build for different markets around the world. But I guess it also works to make other car makers feel good for a month or so, until the quarterly numbers come out.

        If you are comparing anything other than the total after each last month in each quarter, you aren’t doing anything other than proving why the public can’t be trusted with official Tesla monthly numbers, because they don’t know how to read them.

        http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

  3. Warren says:

    Our Bolt was crazy expensive, at $36,509. I look forward to seeing an under $40K, 200 plus mile range EV, from any manufacturer, making a profit over the next five years. GM has said they are losing money on the Bolt. Nobody is making a profit building mass market electric cars at this point. There is lots of talk, and lots of hype. But I still wouldn’t be surprised to find myself driving a “collectible” in five years.

    1. Paul says:

      But do you like it and how do you find the seats (which is what is putting me off from getting one)

      1. Warren says:

        Read my posts back here.

        http://insideevs.com/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-review/

        Briefly, I think it is frickin’ amazing, but our toys won’t save us. Our kids are screwed.

      2. Warren says:

        My wife and I joke, calling her the princess from “The Princess and the Pea.” She has to have the sheets perfectly flat, no wrinkles, or she can’t sleep. She has back and neck issues, from arthritic. She has had zero complaints about the seats. I have been in cars with seats I hated, but I love these seats. We are both pretty slim by today’s standards. As always, YMMV. Test drive any car before buying. The seats are definitely reminiscent of the foreign sports cars of my youth.

        1. Paul says:

          Thanks! I’m slim but I have lower back problems and I thought the seat could use a few more adjustable points to be really useful.

        2. ModernMarvelFan says:

          “We are both pretty slim by today’s standards.”

          From what I can see and my own experience, it is ONLY a problem if the driver has an extra wide butt or hip…

          I guess Bolt wasn’t designed for the typical Extra Large American fat asses…

  4. bro1999 says:

    So Jay, what’s your opinion on Nissan actually being able to join the (EPA) 200 mile club, as opposed to the ~175 mile club? 😉

    1. Jay Cole says:

      fo sho

      1. Brian says:

        Jay,

        I have to assume at this point that you know something which an NDA is preventing you from sharing. 2.5 weeks and counting. I don’t know whether I should get my hopes up, or just assume that 40kWh is “it” for the Leaf for at least 6-12 months. The suspense is killing me!

        1. MarkT says:

          If it is just the 40, I’d be more concerned if it has a TMS or will the range drop by 20% in a few years in warm climates as a result.

        2. bro1999 says:

          I know for a fact there was a “media only” event in Japan last month involving Nissan. Guess what vehicle all those media invited members were checking out? Rhymes with Beef. 😉

          1. menorman says:

            Nissan Grief? So named for what the battery puts the owners through…

      2. Mint says:

        I’m desperate for Canadian 2018 Leaf info. I need to decide whether to buy a Volt now or wait for a Leaf+ProPilot. I burn $250/month in gas…

        1. Leo says:

          Volt now. Zero compromise. I really enjoy our Leaf but we do have access to a second car for longer trips.

  5. WadeTyhon says:

    Yeah, I noticed this quote a few weeks ago and thought it was great. Surely Nissan will have a 200 mile EV by the end of 2018. As for the rest…? Gonna be a while.

    1. menorman says:

      Hyundai/Kia likely will too…

  6. Murrysville EV says:

    “Once someone is first, the others tend to follow…in a hurry.”

    Not if it means losing money on an EV program.

    1. bro1999 says:

      I think the Bolt was one reason Fields got the ax at Ford. Along with his blasse attitude towards EVs. Letting your cross-town rival completely de-pants you.

      1. ffbj says:

        That and the fact that during his entire tenure the stock laid there like a dead fish.
        After a while it begins to stink.
        Also his complete lack of forward thinking might have sped his movement towards the egress.

      2. floydboy says:

        I don’t believe that for a second! Your bias is showing.

  7. BillT says:

    I think the question that really needs answering is “Given Equinox sized and priced CUVs are white hot right now where are all the 200 mile BEV / 40 mile PHEV versions?”

    1. Alan says:

      In the waiting for battery prices to come down pile !

      1. F150 Brian says:

        Exactly. That’s why a PHEV (I prefer the EREV variant) makes so much sense. Less cost/space for a battery now, which in a decade will have much higher density so you can just phase out the range extender as total capacity increases in the same packaging, so no architectural change to the vehicle.
        It also eliminates the problem of sparse charging infrastructure, which again will be a problem fixed in a decade or so.

        Please don’t refute the last point. I live in Ontario where there are HUGE rebates for electric vehicles but there are extremely few chargers and most of the places I traveled this summer on family vacation (where I’d really need a charger), there were virtually none. That includes Tesla chargers

    2. vdiv says:

      In camouflage being tested by Audi and Jaguar. Where’s the GM version?

      1. James says:

        XT4 Cadillac with a plug has been captured testing in spy photos…

        Most likely a PHEV, but these are all $60K+ two row crossovers.

        The Caddy could be a China-only move also.

        We have to wait for Model Y. Even that will be over $40K.

        1. vdiv says:

          Thanks. Any hope on a plugin pickup truck? VIA has disappeared 🙁

          1. MTN Ranger says:

            There still is the Workhorse (PHEV) and the Havelaar Bison (EV) coming soon.

  8. Vexar says:

    The dialogue is changing. I do like that he put Tesla off in a corral of its own. That’s smart on his part and extremely respectful, which is alien for GM. Looking forward to September when the next-gen Leaf shows up. Meanwhile, Ford is sitting in their own crater of irrelevance on the subject, across town from GM.
    Cadillac-badged Bolt rebuild would be nice. Feel free to not overcharge for it this time, like you did with the Volt redo.

    1. ffbj says:

      No, that’s an old technique when you can’t argue a point, you put that point out to pasture.
      Tesla’s great, what about all these others, and then never mention Tesla again.

      1. WadeTyhon says:

        I’d say it is absolutely both. On the EV front, GM sees Tesla as having a lot of advantages and they see them as being successful. And the nature of the vehicles means they will appeal to different buyers. And the Model 3 will outsell the Bolt in 2018 quite easily. So attacking Tesla is pointless.

        Whereas the other competitors are lagging behind significantly with inferior technology. Currently no other automaker is building an EV as affordable and capable as GM or Tesla.

        Compare this to Bob Lutz who still will not shut up about how GM and Tesla are going to lose big time by going full EV. Or VW who keeps saying they can outdo Tesla at any time but is not delivering on that promise in any way. Or the non-Nissan japanese/korean automakers who are still convinced EVs are doomed and FCEV will win out. These automakers are forced into a defensive position when confronted with the success of other EVs.

        I think GM knows it is a leader – but not the only leader. With that leadership position comes a level of confidence where they can recognize the contributions of competitors without hurting their own products or image.

        1. Mint says:

          At least with automakers from Japan and Korea, you can see where they’re coming from, as the share of their populations with garages is low, as is the average annual mileage.

          Otherwise, I think you’re pretty much bang on.

  9. Alaa says:

    Range is no longer the Strong Selling Point. It is the autonomous Level 5. I am not sure if it is a must to have the massive data that Tesla collects from its fleet to have a level 5 or not. Let us assume that it is. Then Tesla is the only one that has that data. If it is not important to have that data then the others have a chance to make a level 5 car. But none and that includes GM have enough batteries. And none have the data either. So the day Tesla comes with the level 5 AND it gets approved to be on the public roads then the others have no chance. I suspect that that date is soon. The safety of that level 5 will force it to be on the road. No one will argue that we have to drive UNSAFE cars. So we will see if GM can get enough batteries then we can talk. I suspect that the software for level 5 is not a big deal for such big boys like VW GM etc. It might be a problem at first to get the right work force to do that job, but the batteries is the problem. They will need to invest like Tesla did. The risk of them investing and not being able to sell these batteries is less today than it was few months ago. The demand is there, so I am expecting a few large factories of batteries very soon.

    1. mx says:

      Tesla built an all around better car.
      Acceleration, suspension, automatic safety systems, crash protection, materials, ride.

      And sized like a standard car.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        ” crash protection”

        Bolt is IIHS’s top pick which is better than Tesla Model S.

        Model 3 has yet to be tested. So, how can you make that claim? Because your “blind faith” as a fan boy?

    2. Brian says:

      I’m pretty sure that Tesla’s SC network is a far bigger selling point than AP. At least that’s the impression I get from reading forums and talking to people about it. Don’t get me wrong, AP is nice. But I think an EV without AP but supported by a robust charging network would easily outsell one with AP level 5 and nowhere to fast charge.

      Another point, I don’t understand what autonomous level 5 has to do with batteries. Noone has given me a compelling reason why an ICE cannot have level 5 autonomy. The only thing it cannot do by itself is refuel (which of course an EV can via wireless).

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        It probably will be a bit easier to design and build a BEV for Level 5 autonomous driving, but I think we’ll see gasmobiles with Level 5 autonomous driving sold. Sorta the “last gasp” of the gasmobile, like clipper ships were the last gasp of the commercial sailing ship.

    3. floydboy says:

      In addition to seeking level 5 autonomy, Tesla has, according to scuttlebutt on TMC forums, set up the car for autonomous ride service. With ‘touch screen only’ access to the glovebox, hvac controls, frunk and rear seats fold down function. So there seems to be some method to their minimalist madness. Also adding revised voice control and interior cabin-facing camera.

      I don’t know if they can pull off their cross country drive this year, but they’re pushing hard!

      1. unlucky says:

        I see that more as a group of people working really hard to claim the lemons they were handed are lemonade.

        Any electronic button in the interior could be disabled by the car during car sharing, not just ones on the touchscreen. The reason the interior doesn’t have those buttons is a combination of cost savings, a poor understanding of what buttons are good for and the sheer tenacity to try removing them.

        1. kbm3 says:

          I understand your name now. It must be incredibly frustrating for you to see Tesla’s success. Get ready for a miserable couple of years ahead.

        2. Jason says:

          It is certainly a polarising decision. Once we can actually drive the Model 3, then we will have a clear understanding as to whether this decision works for us. I think buttons are necessary, and I think Tesla knows that as well because there are buttons on the steering wheel. The issue will be whether their UI can be as fast and intuitive as regular buttons. And to be honest, some cars with buttons are so confusing they could do with less or different buttons.

        3. Nix says:

          Yea, like customers were really aching for more buttons.

          I hate to break it to you, but for decades customers have been complaining about TOO MANY buttons on cars, and car makers have been desperately working on ways to reduce the number of buttons.

          BMW idrive didn’t come into existence because drivers wanted more buttons. It came into existence because drivers wanted less buttons, and that was the best BMW could come up with.

          Now the best technology to remove buttons is touch screen technology. And that is where the market is going.

          I’m sure some folks still love their carbs on their V8’s too. But the market for those are dead too.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Tesla has, according to scuttlebutt on TMC forums, set up the car for autonomous ride service. With ‘touch screen only’ access to the glovebox, hvac controls, frunk and rear seats fold down function.”

        I can understand why the car owner might not want a ride-sharing passenger to be able to access, for example, the glove box; but why in the world would you want to lock out the HVAC controls? “Too bad if you’re too hot or too cold; tough it out” doesn’t seem like a very friendly attitude to me.

    4. menorman says:

      Tesla isn’t the only company with a self-driving database and there is certainly a point of diminished returns in regards to the machine learning needs where an extra million autonomous miles make virtually no difference in performance. Batteries also aren’t a massive advantage for Tesla. All the other automakers can source them from suppliers as necessary.

      1. Jason says:

        This remains to be seen. Tesla Giga factory is only for their battery range. Other battery suppliers are supporting many diverse and demanding companies. I actually wonder if Bolt availablity isn’t related to LG not being able to source the quantity of batteries GM needs. Add all the other manufacturers they are supposedly going to support and it is doubtful they have enough battery manufacturing capability right at the moment.

        1. unlucky says:

          It’s really hard to square what “unable” and “needs” means there.

          LG will provide as many packs as GM guaranteed they would buy. Perhaps a few more.

          If there is a restriction on cars made due to pack counts then it’s because GM ordered too few packs, perhaps because they underestimated demand.

          So GM could ramp up production over time if they agree to buy more packs. It wouldn’t happen overnight, but it could over a period of many months or a year.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “Batteries also aren’t a massive advantage for Tesla. All the other automakers can source them from suppliers as necessary.”

        That didn’t work for Tesla; they couldn’t get Panasonic to ramp up production as fast as they needed. Why do you think that will work for other EV makers?

        At the moment, BYD is probably the biggest EV maker on the planet. Soon Tesla may surpass BYD. What to these two companies have in common? These are the only two EV makers to control their own battery supplies.

        Coincidence? Apparently you think so!

  10. BillyLai says:

    Ford is not even in his radar!

    1. bro1999 says:

      Ford is so far behind they are out of radar range.

      1. ffbj says:

        Ha,ha. Yeah their blip just went off the screen.

    2. Dave86 says:

      Interesting that Ford wasn’t listed by the GM representative.

      Ford did release the Focus EV and at least a couple of Energi models. They do have a 300 mi BEV SUV due sometime around 2020.

  11. Rick says:

    Well I have a comment to make about the lack of gm bolt outside the US… local Opel dealer says no avail before 2019 and they only sold 14 units so far.

    1. Epicurus says:

      While there is a lot of unsold Bolt inventory here in the U.S.

      I don’t understand why GM isn’t selling Bolts abroad where buyers are waiting for them if they can’t sell them in the U.S.

      1. BenG says:

        Those 2017 Bolts will get sold. As the model year comes to a close and then the 2018 models come out in a few months, dealers will cut prices on 2017s and offer bigger incentives to move the metal.

      2. unlucky says:

        It was the number one selling plug-in in the US last month.

        They are not having a problem selling them. And GM pointed out that the average Bolt-qualified Chevy dealer has only 5 cars on the lot.

        There’s no massive inventory problem in the US. There’s no lack of sales.

        1. Mark.ca says:

          That’s misleading and you know it! There are tens even hundreds on some Cali lots while 0 on lots in other parts of the country because GM made no effort to spread out so of course the average is low. The truth is the car is not selling as fast as it should.

          1. unlucky says:

            It’s not misleading and I know it.

            My argument was *there is no glut*. Now you are ripping me for saying my comment doesn’t prove *there is no shortage*?

            Bizarre.

            Yes, the car just rolled out nationwide so many places outside California don’t have many or any. This supports my point that there is no glut and the car is selling.

            It was the #1 plug-in in sales last month in the US. Even if you think that it should have sold more.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        “I don’t understand why GM isn’t selling Bolts abroad where buyers are waiting for them if they can’t sell them in the U.S.”

        Because beyond the number of Bolt EVs that GM needs to make to earn ZEV credits, it’s selling the car outside CARB states in only token numbers.

        “GM appears to be losing $10,000 a car on the Bolt. No, they’re not. They are making it up on CARB credits… But the CARB credits are only effective at a production rate of about 20,000 to 30,000 vehicles a year. So that’s why you’ll see, mark my words, it’s not going to be any higher than that for the Chevy Bolt.”

        — Elon Musk

        http://insideevs.com/elon-musk-talks-carb-zev-credits/

  12. Jane Doe says:

    I might make the Bolt my next purchase, and the added range will be very nice but to be honest my 2017 Volt covers 99% or more of my travels with it’s electric mode. I do wish the Volt looked more sporty like the Volt.

    1. pjwood1 says:

      It seems sorta bizarre, but the Bolt looks aimed at not cannibalizing Volt sales. LOL

  13. McFly says:

    Most people drive less than 50 miles a day. Plus, there are lots of chargers to choose from.

    What’s all the hub bub, bub?

    1. Ron says:

      Lots of Chargers? I live in Albuquerque and do a lot of travelling to take kids to gymnastics competitions in other cities. It seems to me the only all-electric car I can reasonably use to drive to Flagstaff, Denver, or Dallas would be a Tesla. (A Bolt EV might be able to make it relying heavily on L-2 EVSEs – unreasonable in my mind).
      I recently purchased a Volt – entirely electric 6 days a week. 2.5 gallons to drive 90 miles each way on Saturday with partial charge at destination.

  14. Lou Grinzo says:

    I strongly suspect that most/all of the major car companies not currently offering BEVs are working on at least one behind the scenes. (And any company not doing so deserves to be punished severely in the marketplace and the stock market.)

    Once we get to batteries being cheap enough to sell a 200 mile car for under $30k (pre incentives), we’ll be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) by the sudden announcements that Toyota has a Camry EV or a RAV4 EV coming out, Honda has a new version of the Clarity EV with a much bigger pack, etc., all arriving in under a year.

    1. BenG says:

      Prius EV is a no-brainer.

      1. Asak says:

        For everyone besides Toyota, anyway…

        1. BenG says:

          It will be coming. Toyota has taken a conservative approach of waiting for battery technology to improve before building mass market plug-ins. But they certainly aimed for mass market with the Prime, as witnessed by the pricing and rapid sales.

          In a few years we’ll see a Prius EV, I bet, and it will be an affordable mass market car.

  15. Chris O says:

    Bolt definitely blows the competition out of the water. Too bad for GM it is itself blown out of the water by Model3 as a result of the complete mismatch between Bolt’s expensive powertrain and the compact hatch form factor. The market for $40K compact hatchback is just not that big.

    Of course there is a place for Bolt but GM cannot expect Bolt to compete with Model 3 at current MSRP. It doesn’t of course, discounts abound.

    1. mzs.112000 says:

      They should do an Impala EV.
      Imagine 300 miles of range, in a $35k car.
      The only thing I would ask is that they upgrade the onboard charger to be able to handle 12kW.
      Then upgrade the firmware, so it can take 100kW+ from the DCFS’s.
      When the VW settlement money comes rolling out, they will be building a 100kW+ fast-charge network.

  16. M3-Reserved Niro/Leaf - TBD says:

    @SparkEV – does public charging really matter that much with a 238+ miler? I understand the concept and reasoning for the consternation, but I personally believe local charging is silly for the common person.

    Destination charging and freeway network chargers are key players for medium/long haulers. — eg; I’d take our EV to Disneyland if a destination overnight charger is avaiable — o/w it’s the ICE car.

    Bolt is a great car, just not a suburban car enough for the family of four + junk car — extend the boot 9 inches and you’ll have a HUGE winner — do a Prius – and have a V-version and an instant winner on your hands (at least we’d be getting instead of waiting for Niro/Leaf/Updated RAV4).

    1. SparkEV says:

      The problem is that it’s not just local charging. Suppose you’re making a trip to LA (eg. drive electric event) from San Diego. You will need to use DCFC. Then you can pretty much count on waiting. If you’re unlucky like me, there will be a Bolt (hour, or 1.5 hours if he plugs in second time) and i3 (0.5 hours) before your turn.

      I once saw 2 Bolts (both with Lyft sticker), i3 and 2 Leaf at DCFC. The wait would’ve been over 2 hours! This is likely to happen during times that you really need to charge since your “holidays” will coincide with everyone else.

      1. Marshal G says:

        Yep same here. I needed to charge at the ONLY DCFC on the section of I-5 I have to travel on one a week, and there were 2 Leafs, a Bolt, and i3, not 1 but 2 Kia Soul EV’s (what are the odds??) and a Tesla all circled around waiting their turn. While we were wasting time on an L2 charger we saw 2 more Leafs drive by and leave disappointed I’m sure. What sucks is a few miles further down the highway there is a 16 stall Tesla supercharger site. THIS IS WHY TESLA WILL WIN.

        1. M3 - Reserverd; Niro-Leaf: TBD says:

          Sounds like a perfect opportunity for private enterprise to install 8 stall charger and make a profit for those who don’t want to wait at a single charger.

          Private enterprise (or one that takes advantage of the free money VW is soon to give away) – will drive this as critical mass increases.

          Tesla was fortunate enough to actually have the capital resources of VC funding to do this. Ford, GM, Chysler, Toyota, Honda all never built gas stations.

          We’re still in the infancy of EV and really just the start. VW’s cheating killed diesel and if the dollars are implemented even 50% better than the half idiotic NRG EvGO settlement, we’ll be in fine shape.

      2. mzs.112000 says:

        This is why we need to do away with the DCFC stations only providing 1 stall.
        If we want EV’s to take over a majority of car driving, we need 8 stalls at least per station.

        Even if they were slower, I would rather charge at a rate of 80 miles per hour of charge(24kW), than have a 8 car long line, and have to wait for them to finish.

        1. Jason says:

          Tesla got this right. One car, gets 100% of capacity from charger. 2nd car pulls up and the capacity gets split so they both get something, and the overall power to the station is reasonably controlled.
          If we had 4x100kW stations, that shared the power between them (so 1x100kw or 2x50kW,etc),I think that would be a reasonable solution.

          1. unlucky says:

            That’s what chargepoint announced for other cars too. It doesn’t appear to be ready yet.

            http://insideevs.com/chargepoint-express-plus-debuts-offers-industry-high-400-kw-dc-fast-charging/

  17. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    “Let me respond…where is the 238-plus mile EV from Toyota, Honda, Fiat-Chrysler, Nissan, Hyundai-Kia, Nissan, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Mazda, et al?”

    I completely agree with the Chevrolet rep. The main competition for the Bolt EV won’t be the Tesla Model 3; it will be gasmobiles. Of course, he’s ignoring the fact that the Bolt EV will compete with Chevy’s own gasmobiles, too… or more likely, compete with other Chevys even more than it will compete with other brands of cars, because many car buyers stick with one make of car they’re familiar with.

    Compelling, well designed long-range PEVs (Plug-in EVs) like the Bolt EV and the Tesla Model 3 won’t compete mainly with the 1-2% of the new car market which is PEVs; they will compete mainly with the 98-99% of the market which is gasmobiles.

    1. Asak says:

      That’s probably true. Even by definition since the EV market appears to be growing rapidly, the sales have to be coming from somewhere.

  18. Robert Middleswarth says:

    All reports are that the Leaf isn’t going to be an answer to the 200+ mile EV market. Where their current next-gen only coming in at 40kw (150) Miles. We might be surprised and find out they are offering 2 battery sizes but all reports suggest they won’t be answering GM’s question.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      There has never been a report at IEV saying the won’t be answering the ~200 mile bell.

      /just saying

  19. jim stack says:

    GM is averting their lack of Nationwide Fast Charging like the Tesla Super Chargers.
    You can also ask where is the truck EV?
    The Van EV?
    The Semi truck EV?
    The Lifetime battery warranty like Hyundai IONIQ has?
    So GM also has a long way to go.

Leave a Reply