GM’s Reuss: Believes Chevrolet Bolt Pricing Will Be Below $30,000 With Tax Breaks – Video

2 years ago by Jay Cole 124

A recent piece by Yahoo! Finance frames an interview with GM’s Product Development Chief, Mark Reuss as “How GM Plans To Beat Tesla” – but we just don’t see any of the two company’s products being rivals anytime soon.

GM CEO Mary Barra And Product Chief Mark Ruess Put EVs Front And Center At Recent Conference

GM CEO Mary Barra And Product Chief Mark Ruess Put EVs Front And Center At Recent Conference

One could suggest that GM’s upcoming 200 mile, all-electric Chevrolet Bolt will cut into Tesla’s Model 3 market somewhat, but considering how even Mr. Reuss frames GM’s next EV as “a little utility-type crossover if you will,” should end any Tesla vs GM confrontation right there.

No, the part that really interests us from the interview (from 0:40) with Ruess from GM’s Global Business Conference, is the statement the Chevrolet Bolt is likely to be cheaper than we had originally been lead to believe (Specifically, “around $30,000” after tax breaks – which generally translates to “low 30s” in auto-speak)

“It (the Chevy Bolt) will be around $30,000, but I think it’s going to be below that when you get the tax break on it.  It will have over 200 miles of range.”

Really, there is nothing we appreciate more than when we hear an auto executive lower pricing expectations on a upcoming EV, while also talking up its abilities at the same time!

GM Outline Chevrolet Bolt Battery Cost - How Much Clearer Can You Get?

GM Outline Chevrolet Bolt Battery Cost – How Much Clearer Can You Get?

Perhaps this price reduction has something to do with GM’s revelation (and reiterated by Ruess in the interview) that the raw cells found inside the Bolt are only costing the company $145 per kWh from LG Chem?

Interestingly, the GM exec doesn’t state today’s charging infrastructure is the number one roadblock to EVs as many of his peer’s do, but rather the main impediment to EVs is the charging times of the cars themselves; of which Ruess says “that charging quickness will be radically changed here in the next few years.”

The 2017 Chevrolet Bolt is expected to debut just before the end of 2016.

Yahoo! Finance, Hat tip to ffbj!

Tags: , , , ,

124 responses to "GM’s Reuss: Believes Chevrolet Bolt Pricing Will Be Below $30,000 With Tax Breaks – Video"

  1. Sveno says:

    As an European I like what he says but I am sceptical of delivery since the Opel Ampera was not really what we expected (european Volt)

    1. Sveno says:

      Meaning it was pricier and it had vastly inferior manufacturer support – more like a bastard child for Opel.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        The Opel Ampera, as I understand it, was significantly priced higher than the Volt because of all the import taxes.

        They’re not trying to gouge European customers. It’s the Volt price + shipping costs + import costs, and my understanding is it’s the last one that really hurts.

        1. Sveno says:

          Yes, it was made in Michigan

  2. Mister G says:

    I can’t see a car manufacturer that makes 99% of its profit from selling ICE vehicles pivot and begin selling BEVs. I hope I’m wrong.

    1. kdawg says:

      The Volt (and Bolt) will be profitable for GM.

      Also, every car maker will have to evolve or go out of business.

      1. Bob says:

        Says who?

        GM has suffered from grossly unrealistic sales expectations in the past.

        I’d like to see some sales numbers first.

        1. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

          Because GM said so…….lol

          Blind Allegiance.

    2. Chris O says:

      It’s called compliance.

      1. +1

        Producing ZEVs is not optional.

        I think GM is doing a great job creating EVs people are going to want to buy. Bravo, GM.

    3. no comment says:

      it’s simply not realistic to expect gm to “pivot” to bev’s unless people actually *buy* the thing…something that many “critics” on this forum apparently fail to do.

      1. RexxSee says:

        Yes, we’re all stupid enough to buy compacts at the price of large sedans.

        $29,995 is below 30k$

        1. Sri says:

          I would suggest comeback after 5 years and save yourself and us some time, if you are seeking feature parity between ICE and Electric. But the equation is pretty decent if you take TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) into consideration. Unless you are not willing to pay the premium you should not be around here for a while.

        2. Mike616 says:

          Try driving an electric.
          It’s a premium product compared to a gas engine car.
          Torque and quiet.

          Secondly, there are many small cars from many manufacturors that sell small expensive cars.
          They’re buying utility, they’re not buying steel at dollar per ton thinking.

          Third, there are many large cars that have lousy interior room.

        3. ModernMarvelFan says:

          $30K with $7,500 incentives would put the Bolt around $22.5K which is effectively the cost of Honda Civic Turbo.

          Well worth the price.

          1. Ambulator says:

            But it won’t be that, at least not at first.

          2. mr. M says:

            around 30.000 = 25.000 – 35.000
            around 40.000 = 35.000 – 45.000

            Therefore i percieve around 30.000 to be the same as “below 35.000”. This means 34.950$ minus 7.5000 –> 27.450.

            1. Mike says:

              Technically, $29,999 is less than $30,000 so my bet is the base model will retail for about $37,400 (minus the federal tax credit of $7,500). Will that credit still be available in 2017?

        4. Mart says:

          Because bigger is always better? Better tell Mercedes to stop making the C class, as everyone wants full size cars, instead.

  3. taser54 says:

    This price revelation will surprise the market.

    1. Narg says:

      Yeah… Too high. Needs to be closer to $20K after tax stuff.

  4. Leptoquark says:

    Should I be worried that, in spite of mentioning that charging time is an issue, the plug they showed on the Bolt was L2 only? I would really be interested in this car if it had DC Fast charging, otherwise I’ll stay in my Leaf.

    1. kdawg says:

      No worries. It will have DCFC. Those pics are of just the concept car.

      1. RexxSee says:

        Tesla will make L3 charging obsolete soon..

        1. In your fairytale world.

          1. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

            There are already Tesla SC’s at 135KW.

          2. ffbj says:

            They have created a fairy-tale world already, as many experts claimed years ago what Tesla was attempting to do was a fairy-tale.

            1. ModernMarvelFan says:

              Yes, the fairy tale that Tesla got a poor quality and got removed by Consumer Report from its recommendation list.

              http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-84763618/

              1. ffbj says:

                All fairy-tales have goblins, or some evil witch, or some such things, otherwise they would not be fairy-tales.

                Its just the chapter where the hero faces another challenge to achieve his eventual goal. Still even if it ends badly its still a fairly-tales as it co-mingles with many fairy-tales that did so too.

        2. kdawg says:

          With what, battery swapping? Tesla uses L3 now to charge.

          1. taser54 says:

            Sometimes the fanbois don’t realize what they are posting.

          2. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

            2 years ago SC’s were at 122KW real world, today they are at 135KW and soon to be at 150KW.
            http://insideevs.com/tesla-cranks-superchargers-up-past-120-kw/

            What will GM offer? and what is your DCFC at today?

            1. Raymondjram says:

              GM will use the same SAE J1772 standard as many other North American and European manufacturers are using. Look it up, and see how powerful L3 DCFC can be.

        3. no comment says:

          tesla is actually planning for level 3 charging. you need level 3 charging to reduce recharge time. the problem with level 3 charging is that a level 3 evse is not something that you would be able to use; it would either require specialized staffing (sort of like the old full service gas station model) or some kind of highly automated contraption.

          1. Djoni says:

            Getting fuzzy again no comment?
            L3 already exist and is handle easily by their user.
            CHADEMO 50 kW cable are cumbersome, but Tesla SC 135 kW liquid cooled one are pretty sleek and easy to use.
            As usual, you discard those for your own personal view.
            Unless you have your own definition of L3 charging?

            1. no comment says:

              the tesla supercharger stations are at the low end of what might be called “level 3” evse (as there is no standard for level 3, you can’t precisely say what is and what isn’t). tesla is also looking to get recharge times down to that of a gas tank refill. to get to 5 minutes or so, they are thinking a 720kW charger. the current tesla supercharger stations are probably at about the top end of what you can do with 240v; the 720kW charger envisioned by tesla would be more like 1,500v/480a. no, you would not be allowed to handle that kind of apparatus, because if a short occurs, there would be 480a of current coming at you, and there is no circuit breaker in existence that would be able to respond quickly enough to keep you from getting fried.

              1. Djoni says:

                True that the L3 is not totally set, but L2 is quite clear.
                If you talk about the protocol, CCS, CHADEMO or Franken plug, it’s another matter.
                Any of those, as I understand, is L3 charging.
                L1 or L2 are just a plug link on usual voltage line to the onboard charger with all the whistle and safety to protect individual and the premise.
                L3 is any onsite charger that connect directly the battery on board, bypassing the lame inboard charger.
                Power level available at those site may vary and could be incremented as soon as there is a common agreement on it with the chosen protocol.
                Still L3 IS fast charging.
                Will never be fast enough for you or other, but this is another matter.
                BTW, nothing is impossible to insure safety with high voltage.
                For example it could be that you connect your car with a dead plug and have to leave the area to get behind door or wall to activate the charge far enough from any risk.
                Any intrusion close to it would simply shut it off instantaneously.
                If you are open minded you can’t rule anything out.

        4. Raymondjram says:

          No, the L3 standard is from SAE, the U.S. organizaion that established many other automobilestandards, including OBD II. I see the other way happening: TM will have to accept the SAE standard!

    2. Mike616 says:

      With a 200 mile range, there is No Infrastructure problem as long as you can charge at home.

      1. Completely agree, except for long distance trips. Tesla gets it with the supercharger network.

        5 minute charge is a red herring. After 3 hours of driving a short meal or stretch break is perfectly reasonable, especially if the fuel is free.

        Considering how frequently the typical person takes a 6 hour plus trip, (a few times a year, maybe?) it’s a very small accommodation for thousands of dollars in fuel savings over the course of the year, tens of thousands over the life of the car.

        If you really can’t wait more than 5 minutes, PHEV will accomplish that requirement and still let you drive around town zero emissions and super cheap fuel.

  5. Alan says:

    I would imagine this kind of news wouldn’t harm the GM brand too much either (assuming the car lives up the the billing).

  6. MarkSTJ says:

    I will have to take a good long look at the Bolt. I am thinking Tesla but if Bolt adds up I might have to rethink my logic. I love my Leaf But 200+ mile range I have to go with and I do not want to wait an additional 2 years for Leaf or Tesla.

    1. Michael Soremekun says:

      Of the many factors, it will also need to be AWD. I live in the northeast.

    2. mr. M says:

      Tesla is more like 4 years away. They will release Model 3 in 2 years. Read: at the end of 2017 the first signature/founder model 3 are leaving, then there will be one year of production of signature and/or performance models. So at the beginning of 2019 you can get your standard model 3 without all the bells and whistles (if you ordered early in 2016).

  7. MarkSTJ says:

    I am impressed with battery cost falling off the cliff and quality and density improving at the same time.

    1. EVCarNut says:

      I WOULD NOT GO As FAR ,AS TO SAY THAT!Prices could never fall fast enough!

  8. bro1999 says:

    “Reuss says charging times ought to improve as well, falling significantly below the 45 minutes or so it now takes to refill a battery at a fast-charge station.”

    So Ruess is basically saying the full recharge time of a Bolt will be SIGNIFICANTLY quicker than 45 minutes….is that how other people take that statement?

    If we figure the Bolt’s battery pack will have ~50 kWh useable, charging at 50 kW (with ~10% charging overhead factored) would take approximately a little over an hour.
    A 100 kW charge rate would take around a half hour.

    So that makes me think that the Bolt EV will be able to quick charge at a rate up to 100 kW.

    1. philip d says:

      The only limit will be that we will need CCS chargers that charge at twice the rate they do now. I live in Atlanta and as of now there aren’t very many CCS chargers around.

    2. Brandon says:

      Ruess said that charging quickness will be radically changed in the next few years. But the Bolt is said to take around 40 minutes or so to fast charge, so that must be at 50 kW speeds. So it sounds like the Bolt will not be 100 kw capable. What I wonder is what else needs to happen besides there being a larger battery? Maybe the answer is that the charging speeds GM has given are for what is available at with today’s chargers, which is 50 kW.

    3. Anthony says:

      DCFC is 90kW, so that is plenty fast for a 50kW battery to get recharged from near 0 to 80% in 30-40 minutes.

  9. Kosh says:

    If GM were smart, they would buy into the Tesla super charging network. Instant QC all over the country.

    1. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

      IMHO, I don’t think that’s necessary. I think the Bolt will do perfectly fine with just the DCFC.

      No need to pile on additional cost just to be on the SC’s. GM needs to appeal more to the budget conscious not the Teslarites…..lol

      1. JeremyK says:

        Absolutely correct. Most people that buy the Bolt will use it as a second car, meaning that they will charge overnight in their garage. This will handle 95+% of the vehicle usage. Why invest extra money in an expensive on-board charger and/or pay Tesla to go after that last 5%? Please somebody explain why that makes business sense.

        1. Kosh says:

          I mostly agree with you… but where the heck are all the DCFC stations for that thing? I don’t see a big build out happening. And it’s frankenplug right? not Chademo?

        2. Anonymous says:

          If it will handle 95% of the driving, that sounds like the first car?

          1. JeremyK says:

            The Volt was designed to drive about 80% EV miles. With a 200 mile battery (vs 40) that number will go up to well over 90%.

            There will always be people that exceed a BEV range on any given day. Even Tesla can’t meet the driving requirements of “100%” of the population. No matter how fast the charging capability or presence of the Supercharger network.

  10. kjd says:

    Talk is cheap. Put a real EV in the showroom with a price tag on it GM.

    1. kdawg says:

      There are spy shots of Bolts driving around and GM recently announced they are ahead of schedule. So this is much more than “talk”.

    2. JeremyK says:

      You can go buy a Spark EV right now that gets almost 100 miles of range for less than $20K after tax credits. How’s that?

    3. Raymondjram says:

      Your comment is so late! The Chevy Spark EV was first sold in June 2013!!

  11. EVCarNut says:

    GM may help keep th model 3 price in check., but as far as competing with Tesla is actually funny…I don’t think Tesla is capable of producing such an UGLY CARTOONish looking car as GM and/0r the Japanese for that matter….So If Tesla Plays Their Cards Right & makes a Long Range Madel3 , They will do just fine …

    1. Stuart22 says:

      That is a pretty big ‘IF’.

      1. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

        GM priced the Bolt ~$3500 more than what the Model 3 was announced. That’s about right because Tesla will most likely increase their price and of course be late with it.

  12. bro1999 says:

    Conference call about the Bolt involving Chevy and LG Chem officials to start in a few minutes: http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/oct/1019-bolt-ma.html

  13. Rick Danger says:

    Of course there’s no mention of charging infrastructure, GM still doesn’t get it.

    If the price is right on the Bolt, and the engineering is on par with the Volt, I have little doubt they can sell 30k of them a year, but that hardly competes with Tesla’s plans to sell 500k Model ≡s a year, and Tesla won’t be able to build them fast enough.

    1. no comment says:

      auto makers (other than tesla) would get involved in the establishment of standards for charging, but they aren’t likely to get into the business of actually running charging networks any more than they are likely to get into the business of running gas stations.

      1. Rick Danger says:

        Which is exactly why Tesla is eating their lunch.

        1. no comment says:

          when it comes to electric vehicle sales, at present, the lunch is very meager.

          but forget tesla; hey jay, have you got any mercedes-benz stories? i’ve got to get the benzo. i’ve been hoping to get an s-class, but i’m starting to think that the lottery might not come through for me.

          1. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

            So Tesla is eating their “Meager” lunch.

            1. no comment says:

              more precisely, if the “lunch” is the current total market for electric vehicles, then that is a very meager lunch indeed.

        2. JeremyK says:

          I hope Tesla is filling their belly because it’s going to be a lean couple of years while Nissan and GM are selling 200 mile EVs for under $35K and Tesla is still “talking” about it.

          1. Brian says:

            Wait, are you implying that demand for the S / X will dry up because of the Bolt / Leaf 2.0? Keep dreaming.

            1. JeremyK says:

              Demand for the S and X will be flat. Production volumes of those vehicles will always be a tiny tiny fraction of the automotive market. GM and others are more than willing to let Tesla have that fraction, but they are not willing to concede the bulk of buyers which are the ones buying vehicles in the sub-$35K market. Tesla will have a fight on their hands if they go after those traditional buyers.

  14. EVCarNut says:

    Tesla is a Fully Dedicated pure EV car company . These other GUYS are Undecided half of them are in bed with “SPECIAL INTERESTS” with their own personal agenda’s to fullfill, untill that problem is solved they will never biult a sincere worth while EV,Let alone a competative EV…THEIR HEART IS “IN THE MONEY” $$$$$$$$$$ & That Is the a strong barrier to break!

    1. ffbj says:

      A house divided against itself cannot stand.

    2. SparkEV says:

      GM is more like 10% genius (EV folks), 90% morons (the rest). Unfortunately, morons run the show, despite them building the best EV for the money (SparkEV) and Hybrid (Volt) in market. If Bolt is going to similar, it will be kickass, but morons will inevitably kill it. Tesla has nothing to worry about.

      1. kdawg says:

        There’s more to building an EV than just an EV drivetrain. A lot of those engineers, office workers, assembly people, managers, etc. do a lot more than than work on just 1 product, or a product that is only used for 1 vehicle.

      2. Sri says:

        You cannot turn a super-tanker on a dime. GM is a huge company, and it takes a decade or two to completely turn it, especially since we are talking about changing the CORE technology from ICE to Electric. No the technology is the easy part, but the eco-system of manufacturing, sales, support, service and refueling etc. They all take time. Tesla certainly acts they are better than others, but their footprint is TINY. Once the workflow lines up, it is much easier for GM and BMW to make EVs than Tesla to scale up in to millions and retain the same kind of service they do to UltraLux vehicles. I welcome TSLA, I own some stock, but to condemn GM for not hollowing out their business based on a Car that needs federal subsidies to be moved out in thousands is illogical.

        1. EVCarNut says:

          I agree By the time they get that tanker turned around it may be way tooooooo late for GM & the rest of them ,Unless They wake Up & get with he program Really fast & soon!..Problem is., all the different department heads Have their 0wn Agenda’s to fullfill ..In that Rat Race,It’s every man for himself!

          1. ziv says:

            EVCN, the problem is that the vast majority of car buyers don’t care about electric cars and won’t until the price of gasoline goes back up over $3 a gallon. We love our electric cars but we are a small minority. Gas prices will go up but with Iran selling oil and the Bakken and Eagle Ford producing so much oil, until the world economy booms again, oil prices will stay low. Barring a big war in the middle east, of course.
            Tesla will be lucky to sell 60,000 Model III’s a year for the first couple of years unless gas prices go up. There just isn’t much demand for a $37,500(?) compact car, even if it is a Tesla. And Tesla will be a victim of its own success. Their tax credits will be close to running out when the III arrives.

            1. I don’t think the Model 3 will be classed as a compact.

              BMW has no problem selling almost half a million 3 Series a year.

              A 3 series with the zero emissions equivalent of 100 mpg, gas bill of ~ $50 per month or less (essentially free if you have solar and TOU utility rate) is going to address a much bigger market than a BMW 3 + $200 month fuel bill.

              1. Ziv says:

                Musk and other Tesla employees said that the III will be 80% of the size of the S. No matter how you slice that loaf, it is a compact one.

                Tesla S: Length 196.0″; Wheelbase 116.5″
                Tesla III: Length 157″; Wheelbase 93″

                Ok, the III might not be a compact car, it could turn out to be a sub-compact.

  15. Anderlan says:

    Charging speed going down will be a function of battery size increasing. Using present typical conventional lithium specs, 20 minutes gets you 5% to 65%. One day, you’ll have a 500 mile battery, so at that point you have 300 miles in 20 minutes. What I’m getting at is that you can *either &go with tweaking the chemistry or just pay for/wait for the capacity to go up. Or both.

  16. Speculawyer says:

    I hope he is laying the groundwork for a campaign to extend the EV tax-credit. I really think that would be a good thing. The pioneering early investors like GM and Tesla should not be penalized for being the brave pioneers that moved first, they should be rewarded for it.

    1. Phr3d says:

      Yep, against somewhat prevailing opinion, IF a manufacturer reaches the production numbers for sunset on the Fed ‘rebate’, Guv’m’t gets into bed with their EV R&D, a one-time gift of mumbldy-dollars, and a relaxing of write-offs for R&D to continue to improve EV, or investments in charging infrastructure.
      It all comes down to public safety, in reducing reliance on imported oil..
      add in boosts for US activity, a tax break for every vehicle (mfg US) sold overseas..

      Good, sound guv’m’t investment says me.

  17. Speculawyer says:

    “that charging quickness will be radically changed here in the next few years.”

    Uh . . . it better. No matter how good the Bolt is, you are going to have a tough time competing against Tesla because of the Supercharger network.

    1. bro1999 says:

      I have this gut feeling the Supercharger network will be the Bolt’s best friend, not enemy. GM probably doesn’t want to invest significant money developing its own fast charging network…..striking an agreement to use Tesla’s existing network would be much cheaper, along with some extra $$$ for Tesla.

      1. Heisenberght says:

        Well I hope GM is smart enough to take the right decision. Using the supercharger network would be great for the customers. It would create a “de facto standard”.

        And given the fact that Tesla is really close to 200 superchargers in europe that could be a really cheap way to make the Bolt more attractive to european customers…

        Imagine if Tesla would put the fee that GM would have to pay into even more SC that would be a great marketing for GM, TESLA and EV’s in general.

        When people see, that established companies are finally willing to just use the already existing more than 500 superchargers to satisfy their potential customers instead of fighting about standards that would put GM’s perception from the actual “old dinosaur doing what they want” to “they made it possible for me to charge my car really fast” (even if in fact Tesla would have made it possible 😉 )

        IMO Tesla should even bill GM for that “image lifting”

        …but well, I think I’m just dreaming. No way someone at GM has the guts to turn around that huge sinking ship…

        1. Brian says:

          You bring up an interesting point. Going in on the supercharging network would allow GM to quickly overtake Nissan for BEV marketshare. As long as GM sees Tesla as a potential ally against a common adversary (Nissan), this relationship could work. Then CHAdeMO would truly die because Nissan would be forced to follow suit.

      2. EVCarNut says:

        Yea, & GM Is to Big & Proud To Stoop & Partner Up With little Ole’ Tesla on superchargers & get in the gas station Business…Meanwhile Tesla Has opened their Patents to whom ever wants them for the taking …..It’s Time to stop & smell the flowers GM.

  18. Brian says:

    The Bolt is a great little EV, and should appeal to many. I will probably still wait for the Model III, which looks to be much sportier and less utilitarian. The Supercharger network is a nice bonus, although I suspect DCQCs will start popping up once more cars hit the road!

    1. SparkEV says:

      Problem with independent DCFC is it’s hard to make money when government controls them (ie, NRG eVgo). OTOH, free charging for lots of EV will create HUGE problems. I don’t know how Tesla will handle Supercharging for Model 3. I mean, why charge at home when Supercharging is free?

      1. Brian says:

        I agree. There are huge problems with “free” (technical pre-paid, unmetered) charging. I’m hopeful that once EVs reach critical mass, public pay-as-you-go charging will become profitable. Because only then will we see a robust, reliable DCQC network which can continue to scale up.

        Personally I hope that Tesla starts billing by the kWh for Model III owners. I’m fine with the premium cars (e.g. Model S/ Model X) having “unlimited” plans. By definition, there will be far fewer of them than the more mainstream cars. And yes, Tesla has the technology in place required to set up an account and bill the driver per kWh consumed and/or time plugged in.

      2. bro1999 says:

        Tesla will almost assuredly have to establish charging limits (XX kWh per year or XX charging sessions per year). Plus, Model X and S owners probably won’t be very happy if Supechargers are clogged up with Model 3’s that are 1/3 to 1/4 the price of what they paid.

        1. Brandon says:

          A+!

        2. sharkvolt says:

          How happy will Tesla owners be if they have to wait in line behind numerous Bolts? (Assuming GM were to go the Supercharger route with Tesla)

    1. bro1999 says:

      So does news of this partnership change any of your guys’ views on the Bolt aka “The LG Car”?

      1. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

        Yes.
        It is more Foreign than it is domestic now.

      2. Anthony says:

        What it means is that other companies can go to LG and get the same or similar parts. Apple doesn’t need a huge amount of talent, they can go to LG and get the battery pack, PEEM, etc. needed to build an EV, and just be responsible for the chassis, interior, safety, software, etc.

        1. ModernMarvelFan says:

          Today, any Chinese suppliers (such as Xiaomi) can just buy the same core as either iPhone or Galaxy and make their own smartphone. But it doesn’t make them iPhone or Galaxy.

          Same with cars. Just because you use ZF transmission, Cummins Engine, it doesn’t make the truck the same across platform.

          Building the cars takes more than just a powertrain.

  19. Bill Howland says:

    True, the Bolt is unnecessarily uglier than it need be (IMHO GM needs to hire an Italian firm like GHIA – they made real looker sheet metal).

    But the car apparently will be very practical. Not sure If I would want the fast charging option – depending on the pricing, because I still do not see why, if businesses are *NOT* installing EVSE’s around here, even with heavy incentives, I don’t see what will make them install L3 products sans even heavier incentives.

    But a practical ‘Micro – SUV’ with 203 mile range is in itself quite compelling. I think, based on what I know right now, that I’d get one.

    1. kdawg says:

      Bolt was designed in Australia.. not sure how much influence that had though. Personally I’m not a big fan of most Italian sheet metal I’ve seen, but this is all subjective opinion.

      Ideally we would have lots of affordable 200+ mile BEV options, so everyone can buy what they like. One day..

    2. no comment says:

      i’m not a big fan of italian auto design, that goes for ghia and pininfarina, which to me looks a bit too stuck in the 1960’s.

    3. MTN Ranger says:

      It depends on where you’re located. In NC, they are building a statewide network of CHAdeMO/CCS stations for beach and mountain routes. I would definitely want the DCFC option.

  20. Lad says:

    The first to build a successful battery electric family sedan will own the market. The ‘Bolt,’ build on the GM Sonic platform, is not it and will compete with the Leaf, i3, etc., in the fanboy’s segment. Perhaps Tesla’s model 3 will be that family car.

    1. MTN Ranger says:

      Until we see the Model ≡ unveiling next year, it could be the same size as the Leaf, Bolt, etc. A twenty percent reduction in Model S size results in a compact car.

      1. EVCarNut says:

        I would think that Tesla Maintain it’s standards & I truly Hope the 3 will not look anything like these Cartoon cars from these other manufacturers…

    2. kdawg says:

      The Bolt is built on it’s own platform. It was a new design from the ground up.

      Isn’t the Model S a family sedan?

      1. Ambulator says:

        It’s a hatchback.

  21. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

    I think the Bolt and Model 3 will run nose to nose all the way with the Bolt a year head start, maybe 2 with Tesla’s track record.

    Either way, it’s Advantage AMERICA!

  22. ModernMarvelFan says:

    “but considering how even Mr. Ruess frames GM’s next EV as “a little utility-type crossover if you will,” should end any Tesla vs GM confrontation right there.”

    Hmm.. Model 3 will have a Crossover variant called Model Y. So, they are still in direct competition unless Tesla can’t hit its price target.

  23. ModernMarvelFan says:

    Why are there so much hating on other BEVs that competes against Tesla?

    Isn’t competition a good thing? This kind of blind loyalty to Tesla is just tiresome and stupid.

    Maybe the fan bases should explain why Consumer Report has taken Tesla off its recommended list for poor reliability!

    Maybe Tesla should focus on building a more reliable car instead of working on a cheaper model.

    1. CherylG'sDirtyLittleSecret says:

      So you join the bashing?

      Welcome to the party!

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Use poison to fight poison, naturally.

    2. Heisenberght says:

      I agree on the useless hating.

      Everyone would benefit if there was a healthy cometitiveness, in the best case paired with cooperation.

      Every car company has it’s ups and downs, best would be to take the good things of both and divide the market (which is huge enough as the german car makers stil refuse to finally join that competition (I know that all of them proclaim that one day they will, if…).

      So in this case:
      Why not take the advantage of GM (huge production capacities) and those of Tesla (Superchargers) and share the cake in peace???

      Bolt buyers would benefit from the ability to fast charge.

      Tesla buyers would benefit due to the fact that Tesla would have more money to invest in whatever increases customer satisfaction, production capacity.

      Everyone would benefit in that case… (And maybe this useless bashing in from BOTH sides would finally come to an end…)

      …again I get lost in fairytale-land 😉

      1. kdawg says:

        If the Bolt could use the Tesla SC network, my decision would be made, and I would buy one in 2017. However, I don’t think that is going to happen, so I’m going to keep driving my Volt until I see what the Model 3 ends up as (and when).

        1. Brandon says:

          If the Bolt were to use the SC network what would that mean for the outlet type on the car? Would it be Tesla’s connector? That just doesn’t seem likely to me.

  24. Yup says:

    There is definitely competition between the Bolt and Tesla. Many people, including the author of this article, assume that current Tesla buyers went out looking for an $80k large electric sedan. Actually, many of those people didn’t even need a new car, but they wanted an electric vehicle with usable range, and Tesla is the only game in town. So those buyers stretched their budget and bought a more expensive car than they would normally buy.

    So yes, the Bolt actually will be competition for the Tesla, because it will be the first alternative long-range BEV.

  25. Phr3d says:

    Once, not long ago, 200AER was the magic bullet, taking out that last PITA of over the hills and dales in Rotten weather to visit family and charge there.. it was the Goal.

    Now if LG/GM have given Bolt the Ability to use the SC, then it seems a walk in the park to sell the adapter and a “Use Card” that would allow Further distance travel if a customer so desired. Tesla decides the cost, the transaction is between the Bolt owner and Tesla.

    per the dream mentioned above, IF this all works out well, GM may decide it is just Easier to add the option to the Car, and develop a full relationship with Tesla.

    1. MTN Ranger says:

      Sadly, I feel the only car manufacturer that will sign up to use the Tesla SC network is the one that ends up purchasing Tesla. No other company wants to leave something like this to a competitor.

      1. Ambulator says:

        Yes, but I think Tesla should seriously consider spinning off their charging network into a separate company. That would remove a big barrier to getting other car companies to join.

  26. Loaddown says:

    I’m sorry, I am lost in the thinking here. Why is the name Tesla even shown in a comment for a Bolt??? Do I need Google Translate? Tesla says: “is aiming for the $35,000 range with the Model 3”. Cutting the “S” price in half, I will believe it when I see it! I can see Leaf verses Bolt, but Tesla? The interim choice may be a Volt 2 until all the range/charging issues are comparable. Definitely tired of my Prius C, below 40 mph ev mode!
    I think my understanding is based on the documentary on “How it’s Made”. Hardly a human hand touches a $100,000+ Tesla in their robotic assembly line. It just doesn’t seem worth it for the components that make up the car. Of course, I am not a prestige driver anyway, just looking for the most efficient, present-day offering.