2019 Chevy Bolt Gets Minor Updates – No Range Improvement

Chevrolet Bolt EV


Soon, the 2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV will arrive, and we have some valuable information to share.

The upcoming model year marks Chevy’s third rendition of its long-range all-electric vehicle. As expected, this is still a first-generation model and not due for any redesign or notable refresh. However, going into another model year, with the second-generation far off, GM is compelled to offer up a few minor updates.

Related: Next-Gen Chevy Bolt Coming In 2025

Read Also: Within 18 Months, GM To Launch 2 New Electric Cars Based Off Bolt Tech

We figure that if it’s going to be another seven model years before the next-gen Bolt arrives, Chevy should provide a few major refreshes, perhaps a range improvement, and some type of powertrain update. But, that’s not happening now and may not be the case before 2025. We’ll have to wait and see.

For this model year update, new paint colors are the most obvious change. These include Green Mist Metallic, Shock, and Slate Gray Metallic. The names of two give us some idea what the color may look like, and GM uses those colors on some other vehicles, but who knows what Shock is?

If you follow the GM link at the bottom of the page there are more details, but sadly, there is no image provided when you click on the new colors. Of course, there are images of the other colors, though we’ve already seen those.

Other changes include a new smartphone interface that has features for vehicle entry, start, operation, and car sharing. At least that’s what the GM page provides. It’s not very clear exactly what any of this is, but it all has to do with increased connectivity and app reliance. Additionally, the Driver Confidence II Package is now available on the LT trim.

As Electrek reported, some of these features are already available through GM’s Maven car-sharing network and may allow Bolt owners to engage in car-sharing through the service.

Check This Out: GM Teams With EVgo For Maven-Only Bolt Fast-Charge Network

The 2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV should hit dealers prior to the end of 2018. When more information and clarification becomes available, we will keep you apprised.

Follow the GM Fleet link below for more information.

Hat tip to Brian R!

Sources: GMElectrek

Categories: Chevrolet

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

118 Comments on "2019 Chevy Bolt Gets Minor Updates – No Range Improvement"

newest oldest most voted

Isn’t the most common complaint about this car the seats? Why wouldn’t they fix the one thing that is the most common complaint? I don’t think there is any need for a range increase for at least a few years, keep the cost down.

I don’t think they would add a “new seat” option that would show on the leaked dealer option list. Seems like that would just be a quiet update.

Besides, it seems seatgate is an overblown issue, as many people report being fine with the seats.

Yes, that would be admitting something was wrong with the original seats, which GM probably doesn’t want to do. If/when the seats are changed, it’ll almost certainly be a quiet update with no fanfare. Similar to the ’18 Bolt’s addition of adjustable sun visors, which the ’17s lacked.

I won’t happen because it costs too much, so GM will continue to put its customers in the “Cheap Seats.”

I’d rather be in the Bolt “cheap seats” than in the rear seats of a Model 3 with my knees hitting my chin!

It’s a decent car. I hope sell they a bunch of them, though I don’t think they will.
Even with a 8 month head start the Model 3 should zoom by them fairly soon, in overall production..
I hope your get all your wishes, for an improved Bolt, but I don’t think that will happen either.

You’re seeing this thru Tesla’s glasses. For the large automakers one model is not a make or break scenario. When GM, VW, etc… are ready it’s not going to be one model that will beat Tesla it’s going to be models in several segments across multiple brands. So a Bolt like car may never beat the Model 3, but a Buick, Chevy, Cadillac, GMC, etc. combo might. Ford outsells Chevy, but they don’t outsell Chevy and GMC combined in trucks. So Ford can say they are the best selling brand of truck. They can’t say the sell the most trucks of any automaker.

You drive while sitting in the rear seats that often?

“I’d rather be in the Bolt ‘cheap seats’ than in the rear seats of a Model 3…”

Once again, MadBro demonstrates his Pavlovian response. Any valid criticism of a GM car, or any positive comment about a Tesla car, immediately causes him to generate an exaggerated Tesla bashing post.

Odd how some comment as if THEY could run the company, NOT even close.

The seats stopped me from getting a Bolt. Let’s hope that when GM brings out a Buick version they fix the seats.

Not sure about overblown, this is its biggest issue. Its not like the other features they are adding, which are nice to have, but not essential. If the seats are uncomfortable, buyers walk away.

Seatgate is real. The lease is up on our 2015 Soul EV and I want to buy/lease another EV. My wife and I are normal sized people and in just a short test drive independently complained that the uncomfortable seats were deal breakers for us. After a second drive 6 months later, its just as annoying. I found this post searching for how to replace them, or if there is a way to fix them in hopes of finding a way to purchase the car any way.

My wife and I were all set to get a Bolt. Seats were uncomfortable to both of us. Ended up with our third (yes third) Volt.

Still no adaptive cruise control. 🙁

So what?

Have you ever driven with adaptive cruise control?

Honestly, I wouldn’t own another vehicle without adaptive cruise. It needs to be standard.

Of the modern safety features I think it is the most useful.


We have adaptive cruise on a ’17 Accord hybrid. It is useless, constantly confused by cars in adjoining lanes. I won’t use it again.

Drive a Tesla, and then you’ll find out what the buzz is all about.

The one in my Clarity PHEV is great. Yes, it gets confused in some situations, but overall is excellent.

My 2015 Subaru has it. It’s great! My wife’s 2016 Honda Pilot has it, it’s not useful. I won’t buy a Honda until it works at least as well as the subaru

So it’s going to cost them sales.

Only meaningful change I was hoping for.

I’d expect Shock to be a new orange or gold color, considering it’s replacing Orange Burst.

I’m betting either a color similar to the concept orange Bolt, or the yellow/gold color that was used in a lot of the Ampera-e promos. I’d put my money on the gold/yellow, but that orange is sharp!
comment image

Wow. So the color of the concept cars didn’t make it to the production cars?
How stupid. I think visually that was the most appealing feature of the Bolt.

Here’s the yellow/gold color.
comment image

They should go with that gold color. I think it is much better than the orange.

Mustard? Lemon?

Mustard? Taxicab? Lemon

“2019 Model S and X get minor interior updates – no range improvements”

Could be a similar headline for Tesla.

Considering the features the Model S and X already come with that separate it light years from the Bolt, that’s comparing apples to anvils..

Like Android Auto/Apple Carplay? It’s flabbergasting how Tesla does not offer either, while Chevy provides it standard in all their cars. Even the dinky $13k Spark.

What exactly can carplay do in your car that Tesla software can’t? I do have it in one of my cars but can’t see any advantage over what Tesla offers.

You mean like driving on the wrong side of the road when using Betapilot? Seriously though, are you surprised that cars that cost over twice the Bolt have more features than the Bolt? You seem to be the one comparing apples and oranges.

Betapilot…good one!
Or maybe “Suicide Assist” 😉

The Model 3 doesn’t cost over twice as much as the Bolt (cheaper than the Bolt in Rocklin, in fact), and it has most of the features of the Model S/X.

Bolt EV usually sells for around 10% off MSRP so fully loaded around $40k, Model 3 starts at $50k on up currently.

So not double…that’s what you are trying to say?

Bolt EV: $37,500 starting MSRP
Model S: $62,200 starting MSRP
Model X: $67,300 starting MSRP

He was comparing features of the Bolt EV to the Model S and X. He only changed to Model 3 when price was brought up. So yes, about double the starting MSRP.

John, nice try on the pivot. You were comparing features of the Model S and X above to the Bolt EV, now you’re trying to equate the price of the Model 3 to the Bolt EV. Which is it?

Model S and X have more features than the Bolt EV and their starting MSRP is about twice as high. Model 3 does not have more features than the Bolt EV, most would agree it’s a “different” set of features and many would argue the Bolt EV has more features than the Model 3. It’s a subjective opinion at best.

For NY’ers, after the state and federal gov’t rebates (I believe the ‘s’ and ‘x’ don’t get that much due to being too expensive therefore you only get the FULL $2000 NYS instant state credit on the BOLT ev) the final cost to the owner (what else matters?) is much LESS THAN HALF.

Actually, if you follow the original comment all the way to the top I didn’t make the original comment comparing the features of the S/X to a Bolt. I actually pointed out that it would be expected that the S/X would have WAY more options than a car that’s half the price. The price comparison thing happened a little bit after that. The reason I brought up the Model 3 is the 3 has most of the same features as the S/X without costing double the Bolt, in fact, priced in the neighborhood of the Bolt. That’s all, nothing nefarious.

Mentioning the S/X in comparison with the Bolt (the original comment) was ridiculous to begin with. And now we’re ridiculously in the weeds over a ridiculous comment to begin with.

Congrats to both of us for completely wasting our time..

It’s interesting how Tesla’s Autopilot gets such bad press. Prevention of accidents and successful road navigation is next to impossible to quantify, but mistakes and misuse sure are. It’s unfortunate that regarding Autopilot, some folks choose to focus on the exception and not the norm. Under the advised and recommended conditions, which includes being engaged with the driving experience, Autopilot (driver’s ASSIST) works beautifully and dramatically decreases the stress of driving, although it is far from perfect. Ask me how I know. Unfortunately, there’s folks out there that prefer forming their opinions off snapshots and headlines without taking the time to use the tool as it’s been provided. I should add that even Tesla’s ACC is ahead of everyone else because it auto-brakes in corners, reducing the vehicle to the appropriate speed without any braking inputs required by the driver. Yet another SAFETY feature that helps drivers who may become complacent while driving in normal cruise control (which can happen to anyone driving any of the millions of cars equipped with basic cruise control).

Perfect is the enemy of good/progress, and one need look no further than Autopilot..

Thank you!

Yes, all the attacks on Autopilot/AutoSteer are definitely a case of the perfect driving out the good. They are also a case of the perfectly normal human reaction of fearing change.

Even in its “Beta” state, AutoSteer is already considerably safer than a human driver; Tesla cars equipped with Autopilot+AutoSteer have a ~40% lower accident rate than those without, not even trying to count which ones had AutoSteer turned on!

Check my related comment over on the Insurance Article. 2 Teens got cremated in a 3 year old “S”, and the thing that is NOTEWORTHY about this crash is that – since they tell you to ALWAYS WEAR YOUR SEAT BELT SINCE EJECTION FROM THE CAR IS FATAL, the other guy in the back seat, not wearing his belt – was thrown from the car and lived. Presumably he landed in a much cooler spot.

Not all “S”‘s and “X”‘s catch fire (at least not at first) – they just drive on the wrong side of the road, or drive into Pylons.

Seriously, a picture is worth many words. Why do, in “S” and “X” crashes, the car simply disintegrates to nothingness?

As an aside, this is an example where I feel like seat belt use should possibly be left up to the individual. I get that statistically it saves far more lives than it takes, but there are cases where a seatbelt can mean a person’s demise. There’s not anything else (that I can think of) where a law can cause a person to die by following the law.

Seat belt laws save lives. Period. That is a fact, not merely an opinion.

The fact that in some extremely rare instances, not wearing a seat belt might save someone’s life, doesn’t mean anyone shouldn’t wear their seat belt! It just means very rare happenstances do occasionally occur.

If there are instances when something can kill someone, shouldn’t it be left up to the individual to decide whether or not they would like to take that risk? I would certainly still wear my seatbelt, but why not have a right to choose?

As I said, I realize that it statistically saves far more lives than it takes. But the Tesla story recently, and a story from a friend, and a story from another friend, are 3 examples I’m aware of where not wearing a seatbelt saved a life. That doesn’t necessarily sound “very rare” to me.

Hypothetically, what if seatbelts saved 51% and killed 49% of people involved in accidents. In that scenario should seatbelts still be law? Where does the line get drawn to an acceptable amount of casualties from a law designed to protect people?

“They” don’t do any such damned thing. The driver, you know the individual doing the driving, is responsible for the operation of the vehicle. Until such time as “they” are able to wrest control away from the driver, then the driver shall remain the overriding authority responsible for the vehicle’s operation on the motorways.

It’s probably because their body’s are made of aluminum and aluminum has a much lower melting point than steel. Not much left after a fire. Here’s what fire does to the aluminum F150:


Agreed… That explains it. Aluminum normally has a burning point of 2525 deg C, however alloys (which are used in all aluminum assemblies, burn at lower temperatures.

Glad to see them add the driver confidence package as an option to the LT trim.

They won’t be spending money on it, since they don’t make any on it, but they will increase efficiency with regard to production: like LG Chem increasing the size of their plant near Holland MI, so shipping costs are reduced, but the car is as it will be for now and into the foreseeable future. The die is cast.

Sonic production is ending so retooling the libe for more bolts

No reason the range needs an increase (unlike a lot of models). If GM is looking to improve the Bolt, they could try investing in fast charging infrastructure outside of major cities. That would help more than anything they might add to the car itself.

It does not make sense for manufacturers to do this right now. First, they should see what is still needed after VW serves their end of their court ordered duties. Secondly, car manufacturers should be worried about investing in infastucture that could be technologically obsolete in coming years. Too many standards, each of which seems like they could be leapfrigged at some point. I like EVs as much as anyone but lean toward leasing them more than traditional cars for similar reasons – and so do many other drivers stats show. 10-15 years from now how will the tech available compare?

Equally important would be to invest in improving the fast charging characteristics to make it more useful. It tapers way too early.

I was test driving a loaded Bolt about a year ago in Rocklin, CA, and the salesman there attempted to start out their position at a $49k price. Obviously it was WAY laughably high, to the point that I was offended and it killed any deal from the start. At the same time, the salesman acknowledged that he had 30+ Bolts on the lot that the dealership was having issues moving. But they doubled down on stupid and tried to play me and I walked and they were all but begging me to stay when they knew I wasn’t having any of it. Point being, dealerships still haven’t figure it out yet. Tesla comes along, and the price is the price. No shenanigans, no bush league bartering, “wait here while I go talk to my manager for 30 minutes..” games. The Big 3 are still stuck in business as usual, unable to evolve with the changing times. Chevy will ride the basic Bolt WAY past it’s life, while others like Tesla continue to offer WAY more car. Kinda like not even offering adaptive cruise control for a vehicle priced within $10k of a car that has Autopilot…

If you wanted to pay MSRP like you do with Tesla, you would have had no issue buying a Bolt. That dealership you went to must have been smoking crack, but any other dealer in the area would have likely fallen head over heels to sell you a MSRP Bolt.

The point is the GAME. The tired GAME. Combing different dealerships to finally find and settle on a fair MSRP is what I’m talking about. There’s a better way, which currently exists. Chevy lost a potential customer, because I was looking for a replacement for my Leaf, thank GOD Chevy salesmen unknowingly steered me away because I ended up finding a gently used AWD Model S for $3k more than their starting Bolt price. Until Chevy figures it out, they will continue to lose potential customers.

And for the record, the Bolt was supposed to kill the Model 3 sales because they released their long range EV before Tesla. Problem is, no one (except for a few like yourself) left the Model 3 line to buy a lesser car. As evidenced by the 30+ Bolts Rocklin Chevy couldn’t move off their lot..

Dealership networks are an albatross around the necks of the legacy automakers. Especially with the advent of the internet plus modern EVs, dealerships don’t really add value, and their culture will impede EV adoption and sales.

WRT the bargaining game, it helps hard bargainers and hurts the rest. Overall, it’s wasted effort, but it continues because it rewards a minority of customers and gives commissioned sales staff something to do as they work to get sales. It’s also no small part of why many car sales staff are so dishonest – they need to be to make quota.

Well said, sir!

I think it’s laughable that some people are still claiming that Tesla is going to have to break down and start using traditional stealerships dealerships to sell their cars. I think it’s far more likely that traditional auto makers will abandon the outdated dealership model, and follow Tesla’s lead in doing direct sales.

Cut out the middleman!

Amen, sir. You’ve summed up my original point. Thanks for bringing the Round-Up to the conversation!

“The point is the GAME.”

Agreed, sales shenanigans are horrible in the dealership model but if you think all Tesla owners will always pay the same price, you’re mistaken. There are several ways Tesla can make a “better deal” for different buyers: trade-in allowances, finance rates, “demo” pricing, private email campaigns, free service, discount parts, etc.

You don’t have to play the game. You can walk into a Chevy dealer and pay MSRP, and they will sell it to you. If you have the extra money, buy the Model 3. It’s a great car. If $50,000 was an acceptable price to me, I’d buy one. It’s beyond what my budget can afford. Obviously, there are huge numbers of people that it is acceptable to, because there are hundreds of thousands of people waiting in line for them.

You’re right, I didn’t have to play the game, and I didn’t. MSRP has built in margin for dealers. Which means MSRP has “GAME” built into it, unlike the list price for a Tesla on their website. There’s no middle man at Tesla, no salesman that has to carve off their variable commission with every sale. MSRP aint’ some magical number unaffected by The Game.

But some of the hundreds of thousands waiting in line for a Model 3 are waiting until lower-priced trim levels are available!

GM’s Saturn experiment was its foray into “no-haggle” fixed pricing and in other “radical” automotive ideas – in many ways a lot like Tesla regarding technical innovation, focus on the customer-experience, production, and new labor-management relations. SUVs, internal management/union wars, and bankruptcy killed it.


Personal related anecdote: I bought a ’95 Saturn SL and loved it for the design and the purchasing experience (read: not having to haggle). I worked abroad for several years in the 2000s, and when I came back to the US in ’09 I figured it was time to get a new Saturn, only to find it had folded less than a year earlier. I was pissed at GM for killing them off (but at the same time delighted that they’d killed Hummer). But then as time went on I read up on it and discovered that GM had slowly leached away Saturn’s “Different Kind of Car; Different Kind of Company” soul over the years and long before they shuttered the plants, it was just another indistinguishable division of GM, with 75% interchangeable parts.

Tesla doesn’t have “MSRP;” they just have The Price. It’s the same reason I went with a Saturn over a Dodge Neon back in ’95. I loved the fact that there were three huge boards on the wall when you walked in to a Saturn showroom, listing the exact (base) price for each model and trim; there were just seven at the time. The Dodge dealership went straight into financing talk. It felt smarmy.

Of course, this is more a rant against the dealership model, not the manufacturers. Although GM did help support the dealerships’ anti-Tesla lawsuits, I think it’s mainly because they’re trapped in the BS dealership model themselves and misery loves company. I wonder which car makers would switch to fully-owned if Tesla sets the precedent.

Do you think the “no haggle” pricing is part of why GM killed the Saturn line?

My understanding is that the Saturn died because GM had invested in fully automated assembly lines which could not be modified to produce other models — that is, they were inflexible and so soon became obsolete — and that the Saturn’s styling made it unpopular with buyers.

I think it’s too bad that GM did not try the “no haggle” pricing at other dealerships. I think most customers far prefer that!

Funny. The guy I talked to told me, an owner drove all day, came home, and still had over 200 miles of range.
So he drove to work and back I said.
Oh No, said the salesman, he drove it all day for his work.
Which was B.S. so I know what you mean.
Tough to break the cheating car salesman mold, it’s integrated into their make-up.

In regards to your other point. It’s correct that they really can’t afford to improve the Bolt, but they still want to sell you one.

Realistic updates (aside from minor UI/color/option package tweaks) that may actually come to the current gen Bolt in the future:
– Redesigned front seats
– incremental range bump
– ACC (yes plz)
– facelift/interior updates

Longshot, but I still hold out hope: AWD + SS version!

Looks like Chevy is satisfied with mediocre when it comes to Bolt development and sales. A slight bump in pack capacity after nearly 2 years of sales wouldn’t be a huge plus but it would show that work is continuing. An easier improvement would have been to improve the max charge rate. GM is babying the Bolt pack which is good in some ways but they seem to be over doing it. Increasing the max charge rate to 65-75 kW and delaying the taper until you get to 60% would make a large difference in how long it takes to go from 10% to 80% at one of the new DCFC’ers. They have the thermal management to allow for cooling the pack while it charges so it would work pretty well. I hope they added a bit of padding to the front seats on the sly, that would take just a dollar or two and would yield noticeable improvement in drivers first impression of a Bolt. They didn’t even bother to add ACC which is really popular with a large subset of car buyers so I am not that hopeful that GM really did much of anything to improve the… Read more »

Just another compliance car….

Yeah, they have sold as many EVs in the USA as Tesla has, and more than any other major automaker. “Compliance” Okay, keep those ears covered and keep shouting “la la la!” at the top of your lungs!

They have sold as many plug in hybrids as Tesla has sold EVs. Don’t confuse the two.

Last I looked, the “EV” in “PHEV” meant “electric vehicle”, which is the same meaning as in “EV”. Perhaps it means something different to you? 😉

It may not truly be a compliance car, but what are they doing to enhance the appeal of the vehicle? Nothing, clearly, as the 2019 non-refresh shows us.

It is much more than a compliance car, but it isn’t GM’s best effort either. 20,349 Bolts sold last year which is a solid, albeit unremarkable, C+ on the effort level for GM. 3 years ago it would have been an A-.
More than 23k Volts sold in 2012 and 2013 and just over 24,000 in 2016. So the Bolt numbers are a step back while the competition is stepping up.
Times are moving on, Tesla sales are rocketing and GM is puttering along. It isn’t a compliance car but it isn’t in the lead or close to it either.

At those times, the Volt was their only serious EV, the Spark EV and Cadillac ELR where minimal sales. When the Bolt went on sale, they kept the Volt going and still have. The numbers you need to compare are Volt in 2016 at 24,739 and Volt+Bolt in 2017 at 43,646. That is an impressive sales gain. GM just needs more customers to realize the have two very capable options.

Jelloslug, you are getting an economy electric car built down to a price which is perfectly serviceable for the vast majority of people. I have the cost-reduced (by $4000) cheapie model with the so called ‘crappy’ seats, but every passenger I’ve had in the car says they are comfortable after a multi-hour trip. Other than the finicky touch-screen, the car seems to be very reliable, and I just keep thinking of that VERY CONSERVATIVELY DESIGNED beefy gearbox that is dead silent at 80 mph (no murmuring here). The car will not satisfy you or someone like you, but you’re in the extreme minority. Its built for the vast majority of the rest of us who don’t care so much about flash or gimmicks, yet want a HIGH-Value low-priced car that will last YEARS and survive our harsh winter weather unblemished. You guys always find something to laugh at, or disparage, in a low-priced car. Yet you don’t throw the same stones at the “S”, which, until recently, has had ALL its door handles replaced (even those in moderate climates), and is to this day being produced with cheap white-metal worm actuators. This when a GERMAN in his basement designed a… Read more »

The Bolt is hardly even available outside of CARB states and GMs efforts at fast charging are invisible. GM is not serious about EVs yet. If your biggest complain about the Model S is a door handle issue that was resolved years ago, they must be doing something right.

The availability issue is kind of a silly charge. The Volt is available in decent, albeit not great, numbers in at least 49 states and has been for some time. GM isn’t the one to look for fast charging, only Tesla has shouldered that albatross. There are a lot of things wrong with the Bolt but it is available all over the US and in decent numbers.
Now on charging you have a point. The Bolt peaks at right around 54 kW charge rate, which is kind of lame this year, and by year after next it will look pretty pathetic. Most people that buy BEV’s will have them for 3 to 6 years, so future proofing your car for fast charging is something all knowledgeable BEV buyers will consider. GM needs to up its game and get the Bolt up to at least 65 kW and push the taper point back beyond 60%, at least.

Reading comprehension dude: IT HASN’T BEEN RESOLVED. If you live in a moderate “San Diego-esque” climate, it will work just fine. But if you have sleet (that silly test Tesla did where the handles broke through a paper-thick piece of ice was a joke) 1/4-1/2″ thick as we do all the time in the winter, the presenting handles would immediately destroy themselves FOUR AT A TIME.

Well, it’s an even sadder state of affairs than I imagined… Getting it in Europe or Asia is a pipe-dream at this point…

“…the so called ‘crappy’ seats, but every passenger I’ve had in the car says they are comfortable after a multi-hour trip.”

Some reports say that an individual can sit in one Bolt EV and find the seats perfectly comfortable, then move to another Bolt EV and find them uncomfortable. I have no idea why; perhaps different densities of foam rubber used in the padding? In fact, there are videos showing how to stuff more padding into the seats to make the uncomfortable ones more comfortable.

Perhaps you got one of the Bolt EVs with the comfortable seats?

If you spend $4000 less you get the more comfortable Cloth seats. I didn’t care for the pricier Leather seats at all.

Next year for major refresh probably

I hope so. The competition is getting better all the time.

Given only a handful of DCFC available in the US to the public can even max out a Bolt now. Increasing the max charge rate seems a little premature. If anything managing the taper would have more meaning right now.

I would agree with you, theflew, if you were buying a Bolt for this year and then disposing of it. But the Bolts purchased this year will be using fast chargers for the next 12 to 15 years. And they will curse, mildly, the day GM decided that 55 kW max charge rate was good enough and that the taper could start as early as it does.
People don’t buy a car just for what it does today, they look at what it will be capable of doing for the entire time they own it.

Well said.

Those EV makers who do not make any attempt to design their cars for the tech which will be available 7+ years from now, are going to lose out in competition with more forward-thinking auto makers. As I recall, on average, Americans keep their cars for 7 years before selling them. With EVs, potentially that may be even longer, since the motors don’t degrade over time as gasoline engines do.

They may have contractual obligations that might make minor battery changes prohibitively expensive. Cheaper to build 100K cars with the same pack before updating it to keep costs down. Then do a major upgrade just in time for people who leased 3 years earlier to return and lease the upgraded model.

They are still so far ahead of 90% of other EV’s that a minor battery upgrade really isn’t needed.

100k cars is an entire generation of BEVs with GM selling just 20k a year. Being second to Tesla in appearance, quality and cachet is not a good place to be. When the Leaf 60 kWh pack shows up there will be other BEV’s arriving with 200 miles of AER as well. GM is going to have to lead, follow or get out of the way. They definitely aren’t leading.

They currently have the only 200+ mile range EV for under $40K MSRP for sale today. And that’s been true for a year and a half. No matter what else is said about the Bolt, I don’t think failing to lead is the most credible knock against the Bolt.

To be fair, GM did spend some serious advertising money on the Volt when it was new, including at least one Superbowl ad. But sales were still a lot lower than they had estimated. It might be argued that GM also over-built the Volt 1.0, given its exemplary record of reliability.

Given that history, I don’t think it’s really surprising that GM was far more cautious about the roll-out of the Bolt EV, aiming for lower production and spending almost no money to advertise the car.

However, it’s more than ridiculous to try to paste the “compliance car” label onto an EV with a production of ~30,000 per year. In my opinion, it’s not just wrong; it’s mean-spirited and deliberately insulting.

The range is fine, they don’t need a range improvement. Really the biggest improvement would be way more 80 kW chargers being available to charge at.

I would agree with you that the range is fine, if the temps are over 40 degrees. There are huge parts of the US and large portions of its population where the weather spends a lot of time under 32 degrees though. And under 32 degrees, the Bolt AER is more like 170 miles, which isn’t fine. An additional 15 miles of AER would help a lot, as would faster charging.

More chargers with Faster charging would solve that problem without the extra AER.

The reality is that 170 miles range will get you to work and home each day just fine for the vast majority of car owners. So then it is just down to road trips. And for a long road trip, the total time spent charging matters more than 15 miles more AER, if there are sufficient fast chargers available on the route.

I came very close to buying a Bolt in recent weeks. The seats in my experience were OK — not great, and not a major issue.

The biggest single issue I had was all the hard, light gray plastic on the dash that I’d have to look at every time I drove the car. The dash and instruments had a distinct “look at me!”/”desgined by a 14-year-old boy” feel that both my wife and I would have hated after the first couple of weeks. Had GM offered the car with the same plastic bits but in black or dark gray, I likely would have cringed and bought a Bolt, and then hoped we could live with the interior design.

Adding minor things like ACC and infotainment upgrades, together with the usual facelift and interior refresh stuff is likely all we’ll get in this first generation Bolt. Any range bump will be very small, although I’m sure the marketing people at GM would love to be able to claim 250 EPA miles/charge.

We have a Bolt (and love it) but that light-colored dash is my one big complaint. I’m tall and sit in the figure four leg crossed position in the passenger seat, meaning my shoe inevitably rubs that dash, leaving it constantly dirty. It would be an easy fix for Chevy to just make the whole dash dark. In fact, I’m going to write them now! You’ve inspired me, Lou!
(But still, you should get a Bolt. Incredibly fun to drive).

We have a 2017 Bolt. It’s a very good car by almost any measure. I’d like it if they improved the seats and made a few more safety features and the fast charge port standard, but it’s not a deal breaker. We may buy a second Bolt later this year as we have a lease ending, but it will be interesting to see what Kia and Hyundai come out with.

The Bolt really doesn’t need a range increase. It will do about 200 miles under almost any conditions, and more if you drive gently. That’s enough for city-to-city travel, and even some road trips where there is infrastructure. We routinely drive it 150 miles over a 4000 foot mountain pass at freeway speeds and have no issues. It takes about 65% of battery charge to do that.

Yes, the coming hyundai/kia offerings look attractive (depending on price) but they don’t yet bring more than a small number of cars. Makes one wonder if they are for real—or how long it will be until they are.

But remember they are so so serious about EV’s.

I hope they add a few things in the near future:

Coasting in D (at least optionally)
No creep in D (at least optionally)
Direct heating windshield defroster
Heat pump heater
More powerful seat heaters
Rear seat heater optional on LT
Light in charging port
All LED lighting

As long as they are all optional. I like the base pricing being LOW.

Bolt EV suits us just fine. I like the seats and I dont weigh 200 lbs plus either! Love Bolt EV’s hatchback. Love the cargo net for groceries too! I like Bolt EV more then Model 3 because it’s more practical along with lower ops / mx and insurance costs. I saw my first Model 3 last weekend. Looks sleek on the outside. Hate that center screen and the ergonomics of the controls and indicators. Not my cup of tea. 60K for what? A POS! Bad deal—higher ops and mx costs and very poor logistics. Reliability? Questionable with Tesla’s!

Any improvement to fast-charging speed?

The big holdup on fast-charging speed is the chargers. The Bolt can charge at 80 kW, but there just isn’t a network of chargers available to charge at that rate. Making the car charge faster won’t fix that problem.

Electrify America says they’re coming. They built one in Massachusetts. GM should anticipate EA’s plans, give them a call, and future-proof their car.

Why won’t these fools sell these cars globally? North-Americans are 99% on the Model 3 bandwagon, yet it’s hardly marketed elsewhere.
The Ampera-e is barely present in Europe and is massively overpriced. Of course the car is missing in all left-hand drive countries. Way to make maybe the best car of it’s generation fail…
It has many good properties. Nearly as efficient as the more streamlined Model 3 long-range with a heavier battery pack but it’s a lot more practical. It also has a longer range than the normal model 3 will have, compared to which it’s only slightly more expensive, which is within proportion to range. (Probably the price will even be cut when the short range 3 comes out)

Is Nissan the only large manufacturer that can pull it’s crap together for EVs?

The biggest improvement for 2019 is that people who don’t like/want leather seats can now have most of the same safety features as those who do, especially AEB. Ir remains a scandal that companies continue to bundle safety options with high profit comfort and convenience options like ‘upgraded’ interiors. It was obvious that GM would do this eventually, but there’s no excuse other than excess profit-taking not to offer all safety options across all trim lines from the start.

Improvements needed were:

1. Power driver seat.
2. Dynamic cruise.

No improvements from one year to the next and no new model year until 2025?

Unless GM has the Buick version of the Bolt as an AWD with power driver seat and dynamic cruise and available in 2019, GM will show a lack of commitment to EV’s.

I have test driven a bolt twice now. I admit I have a Tesla 3 on order since 2016. Out of sheer frustration I tried to say to hell with it I’ll just buy a bolt. Both test drives were high end premier versions of the bolt. It drives great. Sports car torque and handling. The deal breaker is a C grade interior full of hard plastic, thin seats and flimsy side panels. I just couldn’t put down 40 K for a car whose interior was much less than a Kia. No electric seat adjuster for the driver despite a steering wheel warmer was truly a dumb design move. If GM made the interior first rate they would sell twice as many. Finally, lack of high range 4WD version another dumb strategy.