Photos Of Production 2017 Chevrolet Bolt Surface Before 2016 CES

2 years ago by Mark Kane 126

Bolt Compared To i3 - Image Via Sal Camelli

Bolt Compared To i3 – Image Via Sal Camelli

The production version of 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV was spied a month ahead of its official unveiling at the 2016 CES.

The production versions looks different than then concept. Some are saying it resembles a mash up of a BMW i3, Nissan Murano, smaller Hondas and the 2016 Chevrolet Volt.

All in all, we think the Bolt looks swell. It definitely has the potential to be a mainstream electric car.

The Bolt was discovered by a photographer at SpiedBilde, and uploaded by YouTuber Thomas Bondan.

Be sure to scroll down for past images of the Bolt both in concept form and from mule testing.

Chevrolet Bolt Concept Debut At 2015 NAIAS(InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Chevrolet Bolt Concept Debut At 2015 NAIAS(InsideEVs/Tom Moloughney)

Chevrolet Bolt Concept

Chevrolet Bolt Concept

Chevy Bolt Concept Turned Up At This Year's National Drive Electric Week Festivities In LA

Chevy Bolt Concept Turned Up At This Year’s National Drive Electric Week Festivities In LA

1 Of 55 Chevrolet Bolt Pre-Production Cars Out Testing

1 Of 55 Chevrolet Bolt Pre-Production Cars Out Testing

Tags: , , , , ,

126 responses to "Photos Of Production 2017 Chevrolet Bolt Surface Before 2016 CES"

  1. kdawg says:

    Can’t wait to hear the specs.

    1. Draighven says:

      This, I can’t wait to hear the specs on this thing. I really hope this is an actual Tesla M3 competitor. Decent interior, and a not insignificant amount of range over 200 (225 ish hopefully) and decent performance.

    2. Josh says:

      Do you think we will get full specs at CES? Actual price/options too?

      1. bro1999 says:

        Probably not. For the Gen 2 Volt debut, GM didn’t disclose price, options, charge rate, or even the final EPA figures. We’ll get maybe 80% of the details in Jan.

    3. SJC says:

      200 mile range may be under special circumstances, actual real work range may be more like 150 miles, which would be adequate. People don’t want to leave home with the equivalent of 2-3 gallons of gasoline in the tank.

      1. DonC says:

        So far the GM electrics have outperformed the EPA ratings on range. This will probably be the same. But cold weather can reduce range considerably. On average most should get five or ten percent better range.

        1. ziv says:

          Don’t is right. My 2013 volt gets 44 to 46 nine months of the year and 30 to 32 during the winter.

  2. Tom says:

    Ugh…another 5 door hatch… How does that saying go? “Form follows function”

    Where’s the beef?!

    1. Aaron says:

      It’s a very versatile form factor that utilizes space efficiently. Do you not remember the compact cars of the 80s? No room whatsoever in the backseat. Now a smaller (length) car can hold 5 adults.

      1. John Hansen says:

        I agree, five door hatches are far more functional than sedans. Sedans are for people who value “normality” over functionality. The only form factor for a small car that is more functional than a five door hatch is a station wagon.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Indeed, a hatchback is much more useful than a sedan in terms of carrying luggage and cargo. The only advantage a sedan has is that someone can’t tell what you’re carrying in the trunk by peeking into the car.

          But the Tesla Model S gets a lot of the same advantages, since it’s a hatchback sedan, not a straight sedan.

          It’s surprising to see, in 2015, someone claiming that a sedan is preferable to a hatchback because of styling. No doubt when horseless carriages with the engine in front started appearing, instead of having the engine bolted to the back axle, there were similar complaints about that!

          1. James says:

            Pushmi-Pullyu said: “The only advantage a sedan has is that someone can’t tell what you’re carrying in the trunk by peeking into the car.” – with “only” in italics.

            There are multiple attributes to every style and size of automobile, good thing is there is so much variety…almost TOO MUCH variety, that choices can sometimes be very confusing to the average consumer who is not well versed in cars. “Hatchback” cannot be so generalized that we forget to specify what kind of hatch we are speaking of. Small “CUVs” as Bolt plainly falls into, are less aerodynamic as all sedans due to their increased frontal area because of the basic height and larger shape. Sedans have a lower form factor – lower cars are required by some folks who find it difficult to get into taller vehicles or ones with smaller-shaped doors.

            A good deal of the unpopularity of hatchbacks in America comes down to aesthetics – and, shall we say, vanity. Strangely, Americans believe a “car” is a shape that falls into the “three box” area – a hood a roof and a trunk. It’s embedded into our brains from childhood. While a low-profile hatchback like Volt or Prius is inherently aerodynamic, low to the ground and has gobs more practical storage space with seats up or folded down — they just don’t resonate with the average American.

            Second only to full-sized pickup trucks, the top sellers today are the tall station wagon we call “CUV” or truck-based, “SUV” – in the USA. Why? Untold millions will tell you they are practical, and while they are tall and boxy which accommodates people more comfortably in the rearward seat(s), they inherently have tiny storage areas behind those seats that do not accommodate large loads-say, from the grocery, warehouse store or hardware – unless the rear passenger seats are folded down. As some have said, many do not have a flat, or mostly flat floor as well – C-Max Energi and FocusEV stand out in having huge battery bumps back there.

            In all, arguments can be made for each type and class of vehicle – the main thing in marketing them is making the consumer feel good about their decision while pointing out the pluses and minuses of each car type.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              James said:

              “Sedans have a lower form factor – lower cars are required by some folks who find it difficult to get into taller vehicles or ones with smaller-shaped doors.”

              You’re not gonna have a really low roofline on a BEV that has the battery pack under the floor. That alone raises the roof by a few inches.

              Also, women (or at least short women) prefer taller cars because it puts them higher in the driving seat, giving them a better view of the road. That’s one reason CUVs and SUVs are so popular among American women.

          2. sven says:

            Pushmi=Pullyu said:
            “The only advantage a sedan has is that someone can’t tell what you’re carrying in the trunk by peeking into the car.”

            Automakers long ago invented the “cargo cover,” which conceals the contents in a hatchback’s trunk from peeking and prying eyes. Cargo covers are pretty much standard on hatchbacks.

      2. Scott Franco says:

        Ditto, I *love* hatchbacks. I have two EV hatchbacks, A leaf and a Spark. 4 seats when you need them, fold down the rear seats to carry large items. The only thing I would like better is to have the rear seats fold flat to the cargo floor so that the rear is one continuous large surface, which neither the leaf nor spark really do,

    2. Tom says:

      My LEAF was great for “function”, but I got tired of its “form”… My new 5 door hatch (MS) has equally good function and far better form…. I guess it’s all about individual tastes…

      1. mr. M says:

        Its all about tastes and available money for purchases 😉

      2. David says:

        We were seriously looking at a MS and didn’t like how low the ceiling is. Poor visibility out the front. I prefer the taller stance of the LEAF with a good view out the front.

    3. Steven says:

      I had an ’02 Hyundai Elanta GT, a hatchback that from a distance looked a bit like a Saab 93 of the same year, as a “car”, it seats four adults in “cramped comfort”, with the rear seats down, it had enough cargo space to make a trip to IKEA tolerable. It even brought a 27″ TV (old picture tube type) home, in the box.

      With the right styling, a hatchback can be (to me) the most practical form of car.

  3. Ziv says:

    It looks pretty good for a CUV/5 door hatch. The beltline gets a bit high in the back but they pull it together pretty well and the new headlights don’t jump out at you like the concepts did.
    If the battery pack is under the cabin like the GM diagrams said it was, it could be surprisingly roomy. I hear it sits on the new Gamma2sc platform so it could be a bit larger than the other cars on the older Gamma platforms.

    1. Mike616 says:

      The drooping roof over the rear doors is a BLUNDER.
      That will tell the public it has no rear seat head room. That killed Honda Insight sales.

      The original design had more rear glass, and much better visibility. They should move the original designer to PRODUCTION work, and FIRE this designer.

      1. Scott says:

        Ever hear of aerodynamics? The lowered roofline (over the hatch, not the rear seats BTW) eliminates a ton of drag off of the back on a hatch.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I can’t be absolutely certain just from looking at photos, but it looks very much like the production Volt has a lower roofline over the rear seat than the prototype did. I’m surprised they changed that, because clearly that will lead to complaints about restricted rear head room. Sure, I know that efficiency and range will take a bit of a hit from a higher roofline, but that seems to be a good tradeoff from the standpoint of making a truly competitive car.

      2. Stuart22 says:

        Drooping roof over the rear doors? I see the opposite in the full side view picture – the roof gets thicker over the rear doors. There’s going to be plenty of room inside the cabin.

      3. ziv says:

        Mike, as mentioned before, form follows function. The rear end is like that because you have two competing desires, better aero and roomier backseats. The Bolt appears to do both pretty well, but we will see the validity of that in a couple months.
        Cars with this shape can be roomy and have a good Cd.
        A, not so good, but it is worth it to have the car be a little taller, even if it does increase the Area a bit. If this car is priced right it should do well. I can definitely see people falling for the look and the range will be incredible for the price point.

  4. M. St. J. says:

    Not bad. If it goes 200+ miles at 65mph we have a winner.

  5. Fishhawk says:

    The tires look smaller than what the Volt has. It seems as if the black fender lip is being used to make the wheels larger. Still, looks pretty good to me. Now if they only made a version with a range extender…

    1. jelloslug says:

      Ugg…. no more engines….

      1. Fishhawk says:

        Different strokes for different folks. Until there is a vast supercharger network for non-Tesla’s, I’m likely to stick with a Volt. To me, the Volt is the gateway drug; you get the benefit of electric drive, but you have a backup in case you need it.

        1. Brian says:

          You just answered your own question. You want the convenience and flexibility a range extender. Others don’t want to have anything to do with the noise, smell, and maintenance thereof. Different strokes for different folks. Fortunately, you have the option to choose between the Volt and Bolt.

          Now if you want a Volt in a CUV format, well I agree completely. But that’s different from asking for a range extender in an EV.

    2. David Murray says:

      I suspect it only looks that way because the vehicle is taller than the Volt.

    3. Scott Franco says:

      No “range extender”.

      NO.

      See previous answer.

    4. alain says:

      they do make one it’s called the volt !anything with a 40 kilowat battery or better does not need to carry a engine,it would be just plain nuts.

    5. Breezy says:

      The tires are actually the same tires as the 2016 Volt: 215/50R17 Michelin Energy Saver. You can read the sidewall in some of the high resolution photos that GM released of the test vehicles.

  6. GeorgeS says:

    They passed the first test. this looks good IMO

    1. Aaron says:

      Agreed. Chevy did a good job on the Bolt’s appearance.

      Side note: Why do we need a 2-minute-long YouTube video for 4 spy shots?

      1. Jim_NJ says:

        The photos are copyrighted. I thinkg that using YouTube is a way around that, until the copyrighter makes YouTube yank the video.

  7. Brian says:

    Too tall for me, thanks. But I do think this has potential to sell well. Looking around the parking lot, I see a LOT of similar shaped/sized cars. People seem to like the tall-but-short (short in length, not height) form factor. I personally miss the shorter (height) cars of yesteryear. You know, cars that actually engaged you as a driver. Now they are just appliances piloted by overly distracted drivers.

    1. GeorgeS says:

      I don’t know Brian. The Leaf fits in the “tall but short” category……granted not like the Spark but still pretty tall. That’s how they get some decent interior room.

      I’m wondering how much headroom the Bolt will have in the back seat. Looks like they started dropping the roof height sooner on the production version than on the concept.

    2. Alan says:

      True, but for us 50+’s and those with difficulties getting in and out of cars, the higher the seat position the better !

      1. Scott Franco says:

        Duffers can drive minivans. I am 50+ and I am NOT a duffer, thank you.

        1. Alan says:

          That would make all SUV drivers duffers too then would it if they prefer a higher seat position ?

          Not all of us want to sit on the floor, It’s not a go-kart !

    3. Brian says:

      Yes, both of my cars (Leaf and CMax) qualify as the tall-but-short variety. And I hate that. I miss driving a low, sporty car. I sold the sports car and bought them out of necessity (kids). But now that I have a CMax for a family car, I’m really hoping to get into a smaller, sportier EV for my “other” car. For getting the kids in and out of car seats, I do appreciate the height. And in a few decades when I’m less agile, I will appreciate it for myself as well.

      So I now have a relatively short window to hope for someone to build the car I want to drive. Ideally would be something like an electric Mustang. But I’m not holding my breath. I will probably just look for some aftermarket mods like a tighter suspension and some sticky wheels, and accept that as good enough. I’m not willing to go back to ICE to get what I want.

      1. Josh says:

        Sounds like you are asking for the Model 3. Probably going to be $50k to get a “sporty” version.

        1. Brian says:

          I hope you are right. And wrong. 😉

          I hope that the Model III fits the bill. But I also hope it doesn’t cost $50k to get something sporty. You are probably right, though.

          Honestly, Nissan’s IDS concept is acceptable to me. If they make the next Leaf look like that, without making it too tall, I would be very happy indeed.

          1. Josh says:

            I agree. The IDS (exterior) looks great.

            The original rumor was the LE would be LEAF 2.0 drivetrain with 2 LEAF motors, doubling the power. I would have bought that in a heartbeat, if it had this styling.

            Here is to hoping there will be a “sport” version with the dual motor setup. Otherwise I am planning on setting aside $50k for a 2018 delivery of a Model 3.

            Only question is if I lease something soon to hold me over, ridding myself of this terrible ICE I have been suffering with.

  8. David Murray says:

    I’m pleased with the design. Yes, it looks like an i3 had sex with a 1st gen Volt and this is their baby. But I like the look of the i3 and Volt, so that isn’t a problem.

    It’s worth mentioning that it is an attractive car without looking too polarizing (like the i3) or shouting out “Hey, look at me! I’m an electric car!” But also not going to kill anyone from terminal blandness like the C-Max Energi. So they did a good job of avoiding both situations.

    If the range is 200+ miles like they say, at the price point they say, they will have truly beat Tesla to the market with an affordable, practical, all-electric car for the masses.

    My wife is already saying she wants this as her next car (to replace her 2013 Leaf) So I’d say Nissan also has some competition to deal with.

    1. bro1999 says:

      Looks like it took the non-FUGLY design elements of the i3 and mashed it with a Volt and maybe a Buick Encore.

      I showed the wife, and she already said she wants it, and will give the Gen 1 Volt back to me when we get it. haha

  9. Michael Parker says:

    They just HAD to do it, didn’t they? The concept looked great, and then they Americanized it by adding extraneous and derivative design details. The whole rear quarter is a mess – they took the best part of the concept design (the clean wrap around glass that meets the tail light), and created a jigsaw puzzle piece. What’s with the i3 ripoff black thing that extends from the window?
    Ugh…

    1. Rick Danger says:

      I couldn’t agree more, I didn’t think it was possible for GM to mess up the looks of the Bolt to this extent. All the cohesive, clean lines are gone.
      Good luck with this one GM… looks like they really only want to sell 30,000 of them a year.

    2. Stuart22 says:

      The rear roof area on the concept is too similar to the RAV4 and C-Max. In other words, it would have looked dated from the get-go had GM kept the concept design intact.

    3. kdawg says:

      I didn’t like the bubble glass of the concept. That was one of my complaints. I did like the cleaner front end though.

  10. Alan says:

    It reminds me a lot of the Citroen C4 Picasso ?

    http://www.citroen.co.uk/new-cars-and-vans/citroen-range/citroen-c4-Picasso

    A very big seller in Europe.

  11. Definitely the love child of a Honda Fit and a BMW i3. Don’t love it or hate it. If it has a 200 mile range (I’d be happy with 175 mi EPA) and sells for under $40k, it should do pretty well IMO.

    1. Josh says:

      I am with you Tom. I am neutral on the looks, but seeing it in person could make a difference.

      I don’t think the styling will impede sales, like the LEAF arguably did.

      If they hit 200 mile EPA AER and have window stickers under $40k, 30k sales per year will be easy.

    2. sven says:

      Unfortunately, I also see a little bit of Mirai in the Bolt. Both have that 2-inch wide black strip (panel gap) between the hood and the front fender, running from the headlight to the side view mirrors. Yuk.

      http://images.thecarconnection.com/hug/2016-toyota-mirai_100521504_h.jpg

    3. DonC says:

      I think you need to see it in person. I thought the i3 was ugly but it looked OK in person.

      1. Brandon says:

        Nice design I would say. Not that different from the Leaf really, and hatchback cars are practical and arguably getting more popular. Give it some other colors and the Bolt will look even better IMO.

  12. Tony says:

    Nothing sexy about this car. Just proves once again nobody can compete with Tesla.

    1. GeorgeS says:

      Model X is sexy?

      1. bro1999 says:

        Maybe like 7 month pregnant chick sexy. :p

        1. sven says:

          Some guys think pregnant chicks are sexy. 😉

          1. ffbj says:

            Actually this has been shown to have a basis in physiology. Women are more attractive to men when certain hormones are more active.

      2. ziv says:

        I think Tony must like fat chicks if he thinks the X is sexy. Now the S, I will admit, is a damned fine looking car. But lets see, $37k vs. $75k… What could be the difference between these two cars…

        1. James says:

          Whether he’s a “chubby chaser” or not ( lol ), I would have to remind us all that CUVs and SUVs are big on the mind of car purchasers in all income levels and strata of need.

          As far as CUVs go, Besides, perhaps the Land Rover Evoque, I cannot put a finger on an “attractive” or “sexy” CUV nor SUV. Porsche designers stayed up nights trying to make Cayenne look “sexy”, and ended up with a blob on wheels! In all, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and functionality is what most are looking for.

          Trying to get efficiency, functionality and sexy good looks out of one vehicle is-one-tall-order, YOUBETCHA!

          My 2 cents: Model X succeeds in that it has “wow factor” features that yank at affluent luxe CUV buyer’s hearts ( namely the huge panoramic windshield and Falcon-Wing doors folks love to show off to their in-laws and next door neighbors ), and it has the efficiency no other vehicle in that category can even live in the same neighborhood with. Aerodynamic? Check. Sleek? Sort of – in a bloated Model S-esque way. I think we’ve got to cut Model X a lot of slack – they’ve outdone the traditional boys in aesthetics AND produced enough whiz-bang to attract affluent professionals and their spouses. Model X should fly off the shelves if the complex doors and production niggles don’t send it down the path of the “could’ve beens”…

          1. James says:

            In my haste I left out one crucial feature that could sink Model X even if all the rest of those “ducks” fall in to a row –

            – Those pesky pedestal back seats don’t fold, but slide fore and aft electronically. This will no doubt lose sales. They’ll top many a web forum discussion, no doubt. In my eyes, the functionality of folding rearward seats looms large in a CUV buying decision.

      3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        GeorgeS asked:

        “Model X is sexy?”

        As compared to other CUVs? Absolutely.

        If you want “sexy”, get a sports car. Production CUVs aren’t, no matter who designs them.

        1. James says:

          @Pushmi

          Agreed.

        2. Kaiser says:

          The only un-sexy aspect of the Model X is the falcon wing doors in cold climates. Imagine you precondition your X to be all warm and toasty after a long day on the slopes; now you open both falcon wing doors. By the time they close again, all of your warm air has been exchanged with 32-degree air from the outside. Traditional doors can at least be opened and closed very quickly, and don’t exchange much air with the outside.

        3. ModernMarvelFan says:

          Well, it is a subjective matter.

          I don’t find Model X attractive at all. It is a fat ugly supermodel’s cousin (Model S is very sexy supermodel). But since it is a Crossover/SUV, I have no problem with it being boxy if it needs to be. But Model X is neither boxy or sexy…

          I find Mercedez Benz GL class good looking and so is the new Volvo XC90 or the BMW X5.

          But again, it is a personal taste thing.

          1. Stuart22 says:

            I get what you’re thinking. Tesla designers should have given more separation between the Model S and Model X designs, especially in the roof line.

            Had the X been styled with more of a sportwagon roofline, it would have cancelled out any thoughts of it looking like a bloated Model S, which it does as it is.

  13. MTN Ranger says:

    I really like it. I never cared for the AMC Pacer look of the concept’s hatch. This looks modern and probably very good in a dark color.

    Five seats, four real doors, 200+ EV miles, no ICE, no design weirdness, that’s all I need.

    I’m ordering mine as soon as it’s available late next year.

  14. Warren says:

    Yeah. Pretty generic looking, tall, five door hatch. That is the style now, and sadly I will be dead before we see affordable, low cars again. The blacked out, Tesla style phony grill drives me crazy. These are electric cars folks. They don’t need a “face.” But people relate to faces.

    This will probably be our last car. The 200 mile Leaf will be even bigger, which we have no use for. I suspect the Tesla will be bigger as well, because bigger is “better.”

    1. Draighven says:

      This is not really true, if the power electronics are under the hood then a small functional grill would be required for ram air cooling. Wish people would stop complaining about grills on EVs, just because the motor doesn’t need to ‘breathe’ like an ICE doesn’t mean ram air cooling doesn’t have it’s place. There is obviously a large portion of the lower grill area that is functional and probably for the exact reason I mentioned. The upper grill is most likely there to keep the Chevy family resemblance though might have a small functional slit along the lower edge.

      1. Brian says:

        Good points. The other thing to consider is A/C. If you want to cool your car in Arizona, you are going to need a place to dump all of that waste heat.

      2. Warren says:

        Of course the electronics need cooling. That is accomplished with the little gill slots seen in the front. The two big black fake grills are just that.

  15. philip d says:

    EV makers need to come up with an appropriate nose design that doesn’t try to replicate the opening that ICE cars have.

    Tesla at least attempted to design the Model X without the black nosecone of the Model S. It may not be the best solution but I rather see designs that are derived honestly from function rather than some allusion to the past.

    It reminds me of some of the first horseless carriages that actually mounted a fake horse head on the front so it would look “right”.

    http://content.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1657686,00.html

  16. pjwood1 says:

    It’s not just i3 being copied. Maxima is doing the same thing:
    http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/2016_Nissan_Maxima_Profile_and_Rear_Fascia.jpg

    1. MTN Ranger says:

      And the Maxima copies the extended chrome trim to the trunk like the Kia Optima. What comes around goes around in the car industry. Lexus and Infiniti grills, etc.

      http://image.automotive.com/f/kia-optima-2013-road-test/46100901/2012-kia-optima-sxl-rear-34jpg.jpg

    2. sven says:

      The Lexus RX350 is also doing the same thing.

      1. James says:

        Did that Lexus just get into an accident, and that is crunched-hideously folded metal, or is it a new character in the latest Transformer movie? – Ugh!

        The new Nissan designs – Maxima/Murano…Double UGH!

        From the “invisible C-pillar” examples given here and elsewhere, it stands that we can call Bolt’s blacked-out C-pillar and all the rest of the examples: “Contemporary Auto Design”…. Or in slang: “The Flavor Of The Month”. This too shall pass – as in auto design, competition is fierce and everyone is copying everyone else.

        As for grilles, or “faces” on cars…it’s an odd subject – take a look at the VW New Beetle or FIAT 500, for example. On those cars, lack of grille is considered, “cute” and results in sales of those steeped in nostalgia or people who have lots of “Hello Kitty” paraphernalia around the house! 🙂

        Just think of you folks who have pugs or bulldogs at home…To you – VERY cute…To others, they think you’re on drugs. Beauty and aesthetics – such an interesting topic. One thing’s for sure… Every time a new car design is revealed the comments begin flowing like a river as to how: “It reminds me of a Civic, A Pacer, A Murano….”. Same with faces of human beings. “The guy looks like Robert Redford/Cindy Crawford…has a Jay Leno chin…” …We love to associate things with other things.

    3. sven says:

      And lets not forget the car that most everyone here loves to hate, the Toyota Mirai.

  17. mhpr262 says:

    Apart from the fascia, I like the production version better than the prototype.

  18. Lou Grinzo says:

    I like the look of this car quite a bit. Nicely done, GM.

    The problem all car companies face with EVs is how much to make them look like “regular” cars and how much to make them stand out. As others pointed out above, it’s ludicrous for EVs to have faux grills; I’m very happy that my Leaf doesn’t have one.

    The real issue with the Bolt is how well GM will manage to meet their claims of 200 miles/charge and a price of $30k post US federal tax incentive. I’m still a bit skeptical that can hit both targets, even for an early 2017 deliverable, but I hope they manage it without decontenting the car too much.

  19. bro1999 says:

    I like the rear end of the production version a lot more than the concept. Concept rear had the junk in the trunk look.

    1. Anon says:

      I agree. The production rear looks like fat rolls and saggy diaper butt all in one. The Bolt prototype was clean and refreshing. Disapointed GM execs weren’t confident in it. Over branding , fake grills and derivative design are a thing, I guess?

      At least it’s not as horrific to look at, as Leaf gen1.

  20. goodbyegascar says:

    Well, not bad looking, but I was hoping the design would stay true to the original Bolt concept.

    On the other hand, this is really about the battery-electric drivetrain. I trust GM (LG) to deliver a superior product as they did with the Chevy Volt.

  21. Scott Franco says:

    I await a jolt from a bolt (I’ll lease one when they come out). Its a little sad to see the designers capitulate and join convention with this car. No glass roof, no open feel, etc. Its too bad the bolt has to be a me too design.

  22. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

    Hey, Mark and Jay, how about posting a photo showing the front of the prototype Bolt, for comparison?

    https://gigaom.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/2015/01/chevroletboltconceptreveal02.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all

    I admit to being quite surprised that GM changed the body so much. I figured the prototype was very close to the production vehicle; looks like I was wrong. They not only changed the angle of the back of the car, it looks like they even altered the roofline slightly.

    1. Jay Cole says:

      Sure, we can add a couple more shots, (=

      /done

  23. Evdrive says:

    Looks good.

  24. Leptoquark says:

    It doesn’t look bad, but could look better. It’s rather conventional, really, but range is range and 3 cents/mile is 3 cents/mile, so people should still be happy.

    I’m convinced more than ever that the Bolt is to the Model S what Microsoft was to Apple. People like the bling, but will settle for and buy what does the job.

  25. PVH says:

    Looks OK but somehow it seems to me that GM always do their EV’s (I am including the Volt here) about 10-15% too small.

  26. Ambulator says:

    Of course GM has no copyright, but the photographer does, or whoever he sold them to does. They are the ones who might force the Youtube video down.

    Why do you think this wasn’t posted yesterday? InsideEVs couldn’t find a free source of the photos until now.

    1. Ambulator says:

      What is this comment doing down here? This was in reply to Pushmi-Pullyu.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Looks like my comment about copyright was deleted by the moderator. It would be nice to know why, so I can avoid repeating whatever was deemed unacceptable.

  27. Bone says:

    It looks just OK. Not good but not bad either. But looking OK is enough if you can offer 200 mile EV with practical indoor space and affordable price.

    It has bit too much design cues of everything that is popular right now. It has no timeless elements, and may grow old quite soon. I guess this design won’t see many model years before major facelift.

  28. bro1999 says:

    The important thing is that the Bolt doesn’t look like some freakshow science experiment like the Mirai, 16 Prius, or even the i3.

    Makes me believe that GM truly intends to sell the Bolt in volume, and not make it just a niche product for geeks.

  29. Mister G says:

    I like it and hope GM is serious about selling it…don’t crush it GM. BOB LUTZ STAY AWAY

  30. ffbj says:

    The Sunny Side of the Street. I wonder if that choice was random or planned. Nice ‘modern’ rendition. Give me a bouncy ‘C.’ Da DAh dah, dee, dee, dee.

  31. James says:

    Things get pretty intense when designers and engineers get into the same room – and the conceptual design gets handed over to the folks who have to make it work.

    Now enter the beancounters and you have a room full of folks in designer shirts mixes with people who still own Blackberries and utilize pocket protectors. Mix in guys in pinstriped suits, checking their multiple PC monitors with stock tickers — and you have one great, big, fluffy MESS on your hands.

    When a concept car like January’s Bolt goes through the arduous laundry roller, pressure cooker and strainer of THAT room — the fact such a compelling little CUV made it through that obstacle course is quite impressive. Nice job, GM! Note the extreme rake of the windshield…Phew! Yet I like how that function follows a rakish form…Not easy to make a little box slip through the wind!

    1. bro1999 says:

      The promo book that came with early Gen 1 Volt purchases shed some light on the designers vs engineers battles. Designers would go “we want it to look like this” and then the aero folks would go “NO! You CAN’T do that! It ruins the drag coefficient!!”

  32. It took 25 years but GM found a way to bring the 1990 Oldsmobile Silhouette back.

    Thought we forgot about that styling adventure ehh??

  33. James says:

    Another note since we’re all talking about production Bolt’s aesthetics today. Imagine that GM’s engineers have to make that little box slip cleanly through the wind, whilst protecting it’s priceless passengers in every sort of imaginable crash. Now realize it then has to undergo numerous tests as to how it strikes a pedestrian and what occurs. It’s miraculous modern cars look as good as they do!

  34. Ryan H says:

    I sure hope this car is bigger than it looks. It looks even more compact than the Leaf.

    1. Warren says:

      Exactly why I am interested. I am 150 pounds in my cloths. I don’t need a truck to carry me around.

    2. Ziv says:

      Ryan, it sits on the new Gamma G2sc platform and it may be bigger than you think. Plus the battery pack is below the cabin so it will be roomier than the exterior would have you think. I don’t think it will be much bigger than a Volt, but it may be the same size or slightly larger.
      Here is hoping anyways.

    3. Trollnonymous says:

      It’s a 4 seat compact.

  35. Open-Mind says:

    Looks as good as the concept IMO, perhaps better.

    I hope an available option is 300 HP via 2-motor AWD.

  36. Steve says:

    It actually looks better than the concept! Especially form the rear and rear 3/4 angle. Really nice looking vehicle here!

    1. Koenigsegg says:

      ummmm no

  37. JRMW says:

    I think I will be leasing this.
    Wish it had AWD but a Bolt lease would buy me time until we get an AWD EV in CUV or Hatchback form

  38. John says:

    Looks good, maybe even better than the concept. If it really has 200 miles of range, decent thermal management for the battery, and is priced around $37K before incentives, I’m pretty much sold. Just hope I can find one when they start rolling them out.

  39. Martin T says:

    They stuffed a good looking Australian Concept car.
    Guess LHD Americans will be buying it so it doesn’t matter does it ?

  40. M St.John says:

    Check out the Nissan Murano. Saw one tonight and thought it was the Bolt. Had to get close to see it wasn’t. If the Bolt looks that good GM will not be able to meet demand and Nissan will be the big looser.

  41. Koenigsegg says:

    Concept looks better

  42. Bill Howland says:

    I’ll side with the minority here – the production BOLT looks WAY better than that Bloated ugly looking Aussie design..

    It looks much more like the VOlts, but the point is they definitely cleaned up the lines. Its not as ‘perfectly sterile’ as an Italian Ghia design might be, but now I actually like the way the car looks, whereas before I hated it, but since its the only moderate priced practical 203 mile BEV in exisitence, I thought that would override everything. Now it doesn’t have to.

    I’m not against Toyota’s Mirai, although I think Honda’s Clarity is the looker – I just don’t see them selling very well in the US. Especially when the free fuel offer expires.

    AS far as the car being too tall, maybe that is also what makes it very practical seeing as it can get alot of cargo in there. That’s what everyone was screaming that Chevy should do right? Come out with a CUV-styled vehicle that was electrified.

    The fact that it is incidentally the very best value, and the largest carrying capacity of any moderately priced vehicle should do what I’ve been claiming for 5 years now. – They’ve FINALLY come out with something that there is NOTHING like elsewhere.

    THey should sell like hotcakes.

    1. Get Real says:

      Well Bill I agree that the Bolt should sell like hotcakes, however, GM has stated that they will only produce 30,000 and that doesn’t exactly qualify as hotcakes. Hopefully they have contingency planned for an increase beyond their lame 30,000 estimate but we have no way of knowing whether LG for instance has the capacity or will honor their $145/kwh battery pricing beyond the first contracted quantity?

      Also, I couldn’t disagree more that the production version is better styling then the concept. The concept was overall very clean and unique at the same time without being overly weird with the exception of the lips on the front fascia which would have been easy to delete.
      The production version is a seriously hot messy mishmash with its Volt Gen 1 nose gafted onto a Honda Fit looking body with the I3 (and others flavor of the month) C pillar treatment with Focus taillights. All in all, way too busy! The rear
      However, as long as it can do 200 miles at say 60-65 mph and 150 miles in the winter in the 30k range it will still be successful

      1. Larry says:

        30,000? So, only CARB states then?

        1. Nate says:

          How do you figure? The reality is the CARB only plug-ins average 3k/year while the top 3 selling models available nationwide average closer to 20k than 30k.
          http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

          http://gas2.org/2015/11/05/chevy-bolt-gm-commits-to-50-state-rollout/

  43. Suresh says:

    Looks like the front overhang is bigger than concept. I wonder how much of it is done to increase front crash rating.

    1. bro1999 says:

      I’m sure the front was also extended for aerodynamic reasons as well.

  44. Trollnonymous says:

    Another GM 4 seater?

  45. Lou Patrick says:

    Bill:

    I agree, I like the look of the car. There is no way to make one model that will equally appeal to everyone, just cannot happen. But it looks fine to me. It seats 5, has 200 mile AER, has(will)QC capability and has flexibility in its design(so I can carry my “stuff” as George Carlin would say). There will eventually be lots more, bigger, faster, smaller, better looking, cheaper, whatever else you want EV’s, but this is a solid start.

    Lou

  46. Nate says:

    I could care less about the difference in exterior styling between the initial concept and this. A year from now the Volt lease will end and I’ll be much more interested in:

    — how the price pans out (not just MSRP but how much they really go for)

    — cargo and passenger space as compared to the next gen Leaf, and perhaps the Model 3 if it looks like Tesla comes through.

    — will CCS show signs of expanding in my region? Any possibility of an adapter? I’m in CHAdeMO land. I’d don’t see these upcoming 200 mile EV’s as good option for the longer 1k-2k mile trips we take, but for some of the 3-4 day weekend trips CHADeMO would be nice.

    –how much the used gen Leaf prices drop once next gen come out. As much as I like our current Volt and gen II, the cheap used Leaf prices are of interest.