Chevy Offers Loaner Bolt To Couple Who Lost Tesla Model S To Fire


Chevrolet has graciously stepped forward to offer the owners of that Tesla Model S that recently caught fire while in motion a loaner Chevy Bolt until they secure a new car.

Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. And it’s easy publicity too. Though the automaker notes it’s not intended as burn towards Tesla…hmm.

First, let’s recap the chain of events.

Back on June 15, actress Mary McCormack posted this on Twitter:

Soon after, another video captured by an onlooker surfaced. Here it is:

We later learned that Tesla was investigating the incident. We’ve yet to receive an update on the progress and/or findings of the investigation though. Tesla stated at the time:

 “We offer our support to local authorities and are glad our customer is safe. This is an extraordinarily unusual occurrence, and we are investigating the incident to find out what happened.”

Then, just the other day, General Motors reached out to Mary McCormack via its head storyteller Ray Wert. The exchange took place on Twitter. It’s all embedded below:

The narrative seems to have ended there, with no word as to whether or not Mary McCormack accepted the loaner Bolt.

Source: Jalopnik

Categories: Chevrolet, Tesla

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

212 Comments on "Chevy Offers Loaner Bolt To Couple Who Lost Tesla Model S To Fire"

newest oldest most voted

GM What cut-ups. I think maybe they should have made a similar offer on ignition switches, in their own vehicles..

Talk about being stuck in the past.
While we’re at it, let’s blast Germany again for the whole WWII thing. And the guys that crucified Jesus too. Can’t let them off the hook so easily.

Tell that to the people who are still living with the consequences of GM ignition switch failures, like lost limbs and lost love-ones.

Leave it to the TSLA cultists to troll the comments section and bring up topics not related to the article in question in any way, as usual. Basically doing exactly what they always “claim” I do. Lol, what a bunch of hypocrites. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Way to deflect the simple fact that GM is responsible for more deaths in automobile history due to intentional desire to save a few cents on production.

And what does that have to do with this article again? Speaking of deflecting.

It has to do with the very comment you replied to. Duh. Try to follow the string.

It’s just one big TSLA circle jerk in the comments section these days.

Other than you being the GM/Bolt representative who engages in the exact same behavior under the banner you fly under. I do, however, admire your complete inability to see your own hypocrisy.

John. You are totally ignoring the valid points that bro 1999 has stated. Take a very deep breath and read what he is stating. I think that he is spot-on. And I like Telsa. But you need to turn off your auto-flame setting for anything that is less than a full-on kissing of the Highness’ toes response. Your anaphylactic reaction to any minor point of difference of opinion discredits any rationale you may have for loyalty to the brand.

Yelp ✊🍆💦

That’s because there’s more Tesla owners than Bolt. By the way, thanks for standing in the middle of the circle. You’re a true champ!

At least toss him a towel after he’s been such a good sport.

Guess why there is no big GM circle.


124 deaths and 275 injuries from the ignition switch -friggen idiot – nice that you can joke about it and don’t give a crap. The point is that GM acting all righteous and altruistic is ridiculous given their record of over one hundred deaths and hundreds of injuries from a manufacturing defect.

You speak of GM like one single entity. There are thousands of engineers and only a few were charged with that ignition scandal. The rest did their jobs fine. Also, your point is invalid because the Bolt was almost entirely designed in South Korea.

And how many executives were involved in the decision not to issue a recall? Don’t try to downplay corporate greed.

So Most of them Got away with it .

YEA and Don’t Mention The CORVAIR .! Dubbed , “Unsafe at Any Speed”

In 1971, the U.S. Department of Transportation tested the original Corvair alongside competitive cars and determined that it was not especially dangerous. By then the Corvair had been out of production for two years and the affair was mostly over. And it had not been pretty. In addition to the rash of product liability lawsuits, Nader successfully sued GM for invasion of privacy in 1966, after the company had him followed. This had the effect of further publicizing Unsafe at Any Speed. …The curious thing is that by the time Nader’s book came out, Chevrolet had already evolved the Corvair with a second-generation that featured a redesigned rear suspension. By then, however, the writing about the car’s fate was already on the wall, independent of Nader’s book. There was also the Mustang, which probably had more to do with the Corvair’s demise. The stylish and sporty sales monster was cheap to produce, especially when compared to the Corvair and its costly aluminum engine. The irony of the Corvair, says Musser, is that GM kept the Corvair around for longer than it otherwise would have, just to avoid the appearance of being influenced by a young lawyer. As for my experience… Read more »

Well I stated in a previous comment that the 1960-1962 Corvair was in fact quite dangerous to drive – compared to the ‘current state of the art’ of other domestic manufacturers, or even in comparison with its main competition, namely the VW Beetle. The later Corvairs (especially 1965 and on) were beautiful cars, replacing that old-fashioned homely look – and THOSE vehicles were safe.

But the earlier complaint was legitimate since the earlier cars did have a tendency to flip and kill people.

Other manufacturers also had ignition switch problems. One which I will not name would shift from park to reverse by itself and recalled the cars to install a sticker on the dash warning of this issue. GM could have just referred people to the owners manual stating not to hang other keys or anything heavy from ignition key. Instead they paid for it and moved on to safer newer ways.


It was GM who inserted themselves into a topic that had nothing to do with them. If they didn’t expect that THEIR OWN long history of problems with fires and safety issues wouldn’t follow them into the issue they intentionally stuck their own nose into, they certainly aren’t very savvy.

That would be their own short-sighted mistake in failing to predict the natural consequences of their decision to insert themselves into this issue. They choose to insert themselves either despite this.

This is a story about GM inserting themselves into this issue. Don’t pretend that I’m the one dragging them in.

“Lol, what a bunch of hypocrites.”

Trolls not only fail to recognize irony and unintentional humor in their own posts, they also fail to recognize when it’s their own hypocrisy which they project onto others.

I think InsideEVS would be much better off without being carpet-bombed by MadBro’s trollish FUD every day. Or even any day.

Technically to be totally unrelated the dig would be at Toyota for unintended accelerations… but in this case it is about GM and their story teller. So, it is snidely related, so you comment isn’t as valid as theirs as you don’t know they are cultists so much as bringing some humor in.

Yeah -its too bad people here are not smart enough to drop the ‘old GM’ ignition switch issue. This was a LEGAL problem of GM’s own making. EVEN their worst ignition switch was made safe by the ’emergency fix’ of putting a plastic ball around the ignition switch key such that not many other keys could be on the same ring. This simply shows that Sergio Marchione (Fiat Chrysler), anyone at FORD, or even Elon Musk himself would have paid out a big fat $0 of liability, since they’d all say that any foreign keys or key rings not supplied by the corporation, nor having anything to do with proper vehicle operation will make the warranty null and void. Tesla does the same thing by saying that any Model 3 operation “Including, but not limited to, driving on uneven pavement, or driving on broken pavement” will make the warranty null and void. Since I often drive on such roads my warranty wouldn’t therefore last long with them. If you want to pick on GM, I can think of LEGITIMATE problems their cars have had in the past, as for instance the Swing Axle on the 1960-1962 CORVAIR which tended to… Read more »

It’s old news and they got paid

You sound like a GM bean counter, making safety calls on the cold heartless decision on how much they will have to pay out.

Which is exactly what was so damning about the whole ignition switch scandal. They actually were told by their own internal testing dept. that the switch was faulty before they installed the first one in the first car. They knew the whole time, even hiding stealth updates to the part that also failed. But they decided not to issue a public recall and actually stop the deaths because bean counters decided it was all about how much they had to pay, with the same callous attitude as yours.

Thanks for reminding us how it wasn’t simply a case of a simple mistake, but a long term coverup that resulted in criminal charges.

Of course, GM never has car fires, right?

“GM said 1,345 of the cars caught fire after they were previously fixed by dealers. So even car owners who had their vehicles repaired will need to bring them back for another fix. There is no charge to owners for the repairs.”

Or is 2015 too recent for your memory?

I guess the difference is that Tesla didn’t take the time to offer those folks a loaner…

Elon is probably convinced they are TSLA shorters and caused the fire on purpose as part of the huge conspiracy against TSLA, so he refused to lend them a loaner.

You’re too emotionally attached to what the Tesla fans think, largely driven by your constant trolling of the Tesla articles. Do yourself a favor, and us a favor by not being so.

I wouldn’t Put anything Past The GREEDY Shorters !

Btw how is the Worl Cup? I’m sure you are a Russian troll.


Of course you never owned a Tesla, I a,
M in my third Model S since 2012, the best company, support service and yes loaners, for the most part other Tsla, coming from Jaguar and Mercedes I don’t think GM offers loaners. It was a good publicity move from GM to offer a loaner, however they put themselves in a controversy because their greedy negligence has been paid with lifes.

Lol. Best company is Apple then Disney

Doesn’t look like they are the kind of people who need a handout loaner, never mind the fact that either Tesla or their insurance would have provided one anyway.

But if GM is in just alturistic mood, my friend just lost his BMW in an accident just a couple of days ago. Who should he tweet for his loaner?

That’s actually not a bad idea. They should offer loaners whenever they can. Butts in seats = sales. I think anyone that drives an EV for awhile will find it hard to go back to a gasser.

Heck, you don’t even have to go back that far. Just last month GM had yet another recall for Chevy Cruze car fires. One of a very very long list of GM car fire recalls.

Heck, it isn’t even GM’s only fire related recall in May alone. They also recalled a couple hundred thousand vans last month too.

You don’t even need to go back to last month. Just TODAY was yet another GM fire-related recall.

IEV staff, frankly, this GM carpet bombing by Nix and co is exactly the kind of stuff that gets deleted these days in other articles, isn’t it? What’s up with the double standard letting them do what they always cry about in Tesla articles?
Hell, at least when I leave my tweaks in Tesla articles, it is at least on topic.

The way the press magnifies Tesla problems vs. the quiet back-page coverage of repeated, multiple similar problems with ICE manufactures is very much a real issue worthy of noting in this forum.

GM inserted themselves into this. Not me. If GM did not want to draw attention to their OWN long, massive list of problems with car fires, they should have thought twice before intentionally inserting themselves into this.

Really. You jump on every article about Tesla with your negative crap, and you call out someone trying to support Tesla against GM’s cheap shot? Try to support EVs, rather than dumping on every car that isn’t GM. How about every time you go after Tesla, I quote this:

By Steven Loveday in response to Bro1999:

“Perhaps calm down the blatant negativity and support EV advocacy and adoption? I mean, we understand that there are pro- and anti-Tesla people. But your continual negative, fighting, and moderation-causing comments are making me a crap ton of extra time here. Calm it down and report on your GM positivity and stop all the ridiculous hate, please. You’ve been warned.”

And you TSLA cultists are doing the exact same thing. But it’s OK when you do it? HA!

I don’t have a problem with the Bolt. I don’t speak negatively about the Bolt. There also is a difference between constructive criticism and your constant drumbeat of negativity about all things Tesla.

So you aspire to get away with what you claim to hate about Tesla owners? Really set a low bar for yourself, haven’t you?

I do understand why GM did this. With so many bolts either sitting on the dealers lots or the factory just idle. They can’t seem to sell many so they have to give them away.

Has Tesla ever offered one of their cars after a GM has had a car fire?

Tesla doesn’t play cheap little games against other EV models. They don’t need to.

You mean they don’t need the publicity?

Another worthy contribution from whichever TSLA cultist’s alt account this is.

And Cain caught Able cheating at cards I bet

Ford should also offer loaners on those who crashed their Pintos…

Have you been cryogenically frozen since the 1970s and just been thawed and awakened recently?

They love bringing GM’s past troubles up so I don’t see why they wouldn’t want the Ford issues brought up as well (since there’s no time limit). Tesla cultists never use double standards… oh, no. They’re morally superior.

I would bring up Ford’s problems if it were Ford who did the tweeting. GM did the tweeting. They inserted themselves into this story all by themselves. Not Ford. But then again, the news world is equally guilty of ignoring Ford’s problems with ICE car fires as they ignoring all other ICE car maker’s ICE car fires. So just for you, last week’s Ford recall for fires:

Ford burst into flames just today due to a suspected technical defect:

The reality is that only Tesla gets massive coverage when there is a fire, and that is a bogus double standard. If you can’t see that, the only question is whether your blindness is intentional or by ignorance. Moral superiority has nothing to do with it.

Please stay on topic. This website is about EVs. This article is about Tesla’s catching on fire again. ICE car fires are about as off topic as you can get. It is obvious it hurts your feelings to see your Tesla’s struggling to keep all these fires out and auto-crashes from occurring but trying to deflect this reality by posting links of ICE car news is really just pathetic.

Perhaps you didn’t read the article? The article isn’t focused on Tesla, it’s focused on GM providing a loaner to a celebrity for a Tesla fire. Read.

Two things to think about. First , your line of thinking leads me to think that Tesla should be jumping at the opportunity to loan a Model S to the misfortunate Cruze owners that have been burned by Chevy. Second, this whole marketing opportunity for Chevy, and that is what it is, would not have reared its ugly head if the marketing types at Tesla had been on their toes. For the average Joe, these are expensive cars. Doesn’t matter which one. Bottom line: the handling of this situation was flubbed by Tesla and to any outsider looking in, it is pretty darn funny how the Chevy folks saw an opportunity to give their competitor a little twist of the knife. Then I listen to all of the noise made about the early Corvair and the more recent Cruze and it all sounds like smoke and mirrors. First off, why were the early Corvairs prone to tipping over? It had the same problem as the early Beetles. The geometry of the wheel was changed in relationship to the ground, as the car body rose and fell over undulating road surface. This was because the wheel was fixed, perpendicular to the… Read more »

Every car manufacturer has had major incidents…

“Why? Because it’s the right thing to do.”

Sure, all auto makers, especially the largest ones, are totally altruistic and always do “the right thing” just because it is the right thing.

Oh, wait…

“And it’s easy publicity too.”

There you go.

“Though the automaker notes it’s not intended as burn towards Tesla…”

Like fun, it’s not!

“Sure, all auto makers, especially the largest ones, are totally altruistic…”

I don’t know why you felt a need to mention the “largest ones”. All for-profit organizations are motivated by profit. This is what the shareholders demand. It would be strange to expect anything else. But it certainly benefits corporations to appear altruistic, and GM’s loaner is an example of this.

Having said this, there are some genuinely nice people on the board of many corporations. But their job security depends on whether investors are happy, and investors demand profit (or a promise of future profit).

“I don’t know why you felt a need to mention the ‘largest ones’.”

Because small companies are far more likely to do the right thing just for its own sake than large ones. Once a company becomes large enough that it has a legal department and the bean-counters are making policy, it’s extremely unlikely to ever again do anything that’s actually altruistic. Much more likely, as we see here, they’ll do something which merely pretends to be altruistic, for the publicity value.

Just wondering, if Mary Barra, taking a cheap shot at the aspect that you can’t get a Tesla serviced in Michigan (Because GM and their Dealers Lobbied the State to stop Tesla), equalls another altrustic face, when promoting the Bolt EV?

Or, how she and her team thinks offerung a “Reliable Safe, Electric Car”, that can’t easily be used to replace the use cases of the Tesla, will “Help GM be more profitable?”

When Tesla opened up the SW limited 60s to 75s, they got tons of good publicity for something that cost nothing. And they knew they would get good publicity, Elon even proudly tweeted about it.

Was that bad, because it wasn’t totally altruistic?

Sometimes doing a nice thing generates wealth for a company. Isn’t that a good thing for a change?

Better than what usually generates profits, like randomly firing people, lying about emissions, dangerous working conditions, exploiting workforce in cheap labor countries, gambling with other people’s money…

Here is the difference: Tesla actually DID SOMETHING altruistic, and then their good deed came out.

As far as we know, GM hasn’t yet actually provided any Volt to anyone, nor to we have any confirmation that marycmccormack accepted the offer. Frankly, GM should have actually asked marycmccormack if she wanted to get in the middle of this BEFORE going public. There is nothing “altruistic” about dragging a poor third party into your publicity stunt. Especially if marycmccormack as a Tesla owner DOES NOT want her name used in a dig against her own choice of car maker she had already made.

Are you saying GM should already get credit for altruism, by just publicizing the offer, without yet actually doing anything altruistic yet? Even if their use of marycmccormack’s name in their dig ends up being totally against the will of marycmccormack, and as a dig against a company she might still back 100%? Essentially re-victimizing her against her will?

Bolt, Nix, Bolt. I know mixing up the Volt and Bolt can be easy for the uninformed.

My mistake. Indeed I should have typed “Bolt” instead of “Volt”. Same applies to multiple other posts I made. My apologies, I got that detail wrong.

Meanwhile, the actual content of all of my posts still remain the same, by simply reading “Bolt” each time I mistakenly put in “Volt”.

Do you actually support GM abusing somebody who lost their car to fire by using them for a publicity stunt potentially against that person’s will? Yes or No.

Simple answer, YES or NO.

“Do you actually support GM abusing somebody who lost their car to fire”

How is it abuse to reach out to someone an offer them a loaner car? This seems like something that only an ultra-sensitive snowflake would think was abusive.

GM’s offer was in good faith.
We don’t even know whether the Bolt EV loaner was accepted or not.

You have never considered that as a Tesla owner, she may be a fan and supporter of Tesla? Perhaps she might even dislike GM?

You don’t see how using her loss WITHOUT HER PERMISSION to make a left-handed attack against the same company she may support would go against her desires?

Sorry if you incapable of putting yourself into the position of the actual person who suffered the loss, and considering that they should have been consulted BEFORE this publicity stunt.

This was not an act of good faith, this was a publicity stunt. If you believe otherwise, please provide proof that GM has offered their cars as free loaners to any of the tens of thousands of other people who have lost their cars to car fires.

Or, even to other Tesla owners whose cars have burned, at least, for consistency! Then we can be clear it’s a thing, or a dig, at Tesla, and not just wanting to ride her, or her husband’s “Coat Tails of Fame!”

How many Tesla owners that simply Crashed their Tesla, has GM offered ANY car, as a gift, or even a Loaner, while they wait for a New Tesla to arrive?

It was a publicity stunt with no good intentions – but it is hardly abusive. If Ms. McCormack dislikes GM and perceives being exploited, I am certain she can respond effectively for herself.

It wasn’t in the slightest “in good faith”; it was entirely butter-couldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth hypocritical of GM to make the offer.

Mary is an actress, and her husband is a director. They are multi-millionaires.

Are you really dumb enough to think GM did this out of charity for famous multi-millionaires?

If you believe that you are WAY too gullible to continue posting.

GM offering charity to famous multi-millionaires, doing nothing for any of their own customers who have had their own cars burn up in fire, and you can’t see this is a bad stunt???


You are a very complicated and confused individual.

I can just see through the BS. I’m sorry if you can’t.

Cars have been burning to the ground for decades upon decades. Probably in the millions all totaled up globally by now. GM hasn’t been handing out free loaners to all those other poor people. Heck they don’t even hand out free loaners when their own customers cars are burned to the ground. If you can’t see that GM is using marycmccormack’s loss as a bash on Tesla, you are willfully blind.

If you want to prove me wrong, just post a pattern of GM handing out free loaners when other people’s cars burn down.

You are 100% right, it’s so obvious gm is trying to advertise their econobox, but unfortunately as you pointed out, they have very poor judgement. Dependable?! gm? they sure have zero shame or memory… probably shame.

Like the one that burned in my old home town, 180 miles from Vancouver, on a new car, about a week old?

Perhaps GM customers that have had their cars go up in flames over the years should respond to Mr. Wert and ask for THEIR free loaners.

If they were under warranty, I’m sure they got free loaners from the dealership. :p

Or “alternatively informed” 🙂

The Volt would offer more versatility, as to range, if it were bigger, too! I thought ut also had less complaints against its front seats, than the Bolt EV, too?

Also what Tesla did was really helping people in need. A Hollywood couple with a totaled car hardly need a handout loaner. This is clearly not to help, but to take a cheap shot

Here here!

“Was that bad, because it wasn’t totally altruistic?”

Of course it wasn’t bad. It was definitely a good thing, both for the MS60 owners and for Tesla’s public relations.

But neither was it Tesla merely pretending to be altruistic while taking a slam at another auto maker, as is the case described in this article.

“a more dependable electric vehicle to drive.”

Yeah, no burn at all.

“no burn at all”
Or fire. 😀

Taking a GM product hoping there isn’t a fire doesn’t seem like a good plan. GM doesn’t have such a great history on car fires, which they consider acceptable if the open flames hopefully burn out before burning the car down:

“GM knew about an oil leak that would cause a small “pilot flame.” Instead of fixing the leak, GM decided to try and contain the open fire; in the words of their spokesman “trying to remove anything that would allow the flame to spread.”

MadBro, you need to turn down the gain on your Tesla Hater Reality Distortion goggles. Turn it down a lot!

GM cars are about 10x more likely than Tesla cars to catch fire.

And about 100x less likely to hit the news!

He’s just pushing back against all the GM hate spewing from the Tesla fans.

GM Scum Bags!

In the world of twitter etc. that we live in with CEOs dissing each other, this is a fun way to dig the ‘competition’. Am sure Musk will be happy to reciprocate should a GM, Jag, Nissan have an issue.

I am sure of it too.

Veiled digs are so much more elegant than the fire and fury Twitter attacks Elon has been unloading on the media…and pretty much any critical of Tesla lately. 🙂

Agreed. The first thing I thought of when reading this was, “Wow, that sounds like something Musk would do.”

GM is running a risk, though — anyone who owns an S can easily trade it in for a Bolt, yet didn’t. There’s a good chance the owner very strongly prefers the S and might not be shy in saying so after giving back the loaner.

“There’s a good chance the owner very strongly prefers the S and might not be shy in saying so after giving back the loaner.”

I think GM has that Maven short-term car rental (where they mainly (or only) rent Bolts EVs. So I don’t think there is much of a risk. It would just be renting a rental car out for free.

I wonder if that owner still has a strong preference for Tesla after almost being seriously burned in one despite not even being in an accident. I mean it is one thing if it had been due to an accident, but the owner was just driving along and the Model S caught on fire. Nearby drivers/passengers caught his attention and kept him from getting burnt.

It actually hasn’t been determined whether the car may have struck something in the road that may have penetrated the battery case. That is still under investigation.

There are limits on what even the very best skid plates can protect against. ICE cars are subject to the same limitations, where road debris has been known to cause blown engines when oil pans are pierced by debris and cause the engine to seize. Not every failure is preventable.

You’re jumping to a conclusion before the facts are in.

This sounds very much like the three fires in Tesla Model S’s a few years back, when road debris penetrated the battery pack and caused short circuits inside, creating fires. In at least one of those cases, the driver didn’t even notice when road debris had hit the underside of the car.

After those three incidents, Tesla installed a “titanium shield” to protect the front of the battery pack. But of course that doesn’t provide 100% protection against the same thing happening again. Occam’s Razor suggests that is the cause here; calling it a “spontaneous” fire is not only ridiculous and scientifically impossible, it suggests the writer doesn’t know what the word “spontaneous” actually means.

“Just driving along”… Not yet proven if they ran over something, either immediately before the fire, or some time earlier, and this was a long delayed result!

There’s a joke in the bicycling world that pretty much every warranty claim begins with the statement that the rider was “just riding along” when all of a sudden…. Bike companies hear this all the time, and often, they determine that the damage was due to a crash…….

Or, GM could have offered her full retail price for the car, as a chance to Study what makes it go off, and provide her the Bolt for a whole Year!!!

If she took the loaner, she may end up liking it more. Who knows. Didn’t WOZ prefer the Bolt over a Tesla?

Only in the world of GM is the Bolt in competition with anything Tesla.

And In Their Dreams…..

That would be a great new game… Counting the opportunities to offer your product to a person who had a loss, using a competitor’s product! Kind of like “Snakes & Ladders!”

“Never waste a good crisis…”

Or even not so much of a crisis. I wonder if this guy got a free Chevy loaner. A little bit more embarrassing:

Very well played by GM! It’s about time they take pride in their evs.

Taking “pride” by taking a cheap shot against another EV maker? That smacks of desperation, not pride.

So you would echo the same words if Elon did a similar thing?

I haven’t noticed Elon lowering himself to take a cheap shot like this. Have you?

Tesla solved the Puerto RIco power crisis. Brought power to millions of people! I saw it on CNBC and every news channel you can name.

Oh wait, it was just a PR stunt by powering a tiny hospital with a tiny loaner solar. 🙁

Ooh feel that burn!!

A good shot of penicillin will clear up the burn he is suffering from.

Yelp the island is still without electricity and it’s getting worse. See the Vice video on HBOin demand

Let me get this straight. Tesla gives out for free 662 different solar and battery pack installs (and growing) to places like hospitals, retirement centers, sewer treatment plants (clean water) and fresh water pumping stations where they are needed most, and you are going to bitch about it?

Who ever said one company could solve the entire power crisis? Nice strawman, punk. Sadly you are too ignorant to even know the facts when they are easily available right on the very webpage you are posting on:

“I saw it on CNBC and every news channel you can name.”

Amazing how someone can grow to (presumably) be an adult without realizing that news reports often exaggerate far beyond the facts to make the “story” more interesting. (If it’s real news, which would be just the facts, then why do they call it a “story”? Did you ever ask yourself that?)

Is it Tesla’s fault that these days, news shows* are more interested in “infotainment” than they are in hard news?

*And why is it a “show” when it should be a “report”? Same answer!

Fake news 🙄. If it was Tesla positive news you would have been doing handstands

Just 1 of 1,000’s of sites they are helping!

@ Eric Loveday

This is not the first time that a Tesla Model S has caught and acted like a blow torch or flame thrower. A little over a year ago as reported on InsideEVs, a Model S parked at a SuperCharger in Shanghai, China caught fire and apparently shot flames out like a flame thrower from under one of its front doors. There was minor fire damage to the rocker panel under the door of the flame-thrown Tesla. However another Model S parked 4-feet away adjacent to the burning Tesla had a big honking 3-foot wide hole melted out of its rear door. Apparently the burning Tesla acted like a blow torch to make that big hole in the Tesla parked next to it.

There is no video of this flame thrower fire, only pics of the aftermath. However, commenter Sven provided a good analysis of what happened based on the damage shown in the pics. Of course, Tesla apologists Pushy Troll and James from Seattle personally attacked him without refuting any of his analysis.

Tesla said it would invrstigate the fire. What were the results of Tesla’s investigation? If you don’t know can you please make an inquiry with Tesla?

Teslas catch fire so often these days it’s almost a non-event now, like the sun rising in the east.

Transport Evolved, about the most level-headed and unbiased pro-EV YT news channel, just did a piece on EV fires today. ICE fires: 1 in 1,100-1,500 (depending on whether you factor in arson); Tesla fires: 1 in 20,000.

Fun fact: if you google Chevy Bolt fatal crash, you won’t find a single headline. The operative word here is “headline.” I found several articles of Bolts involved in fatal crashes, but the model of car was buried in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph, just like any old boring ICE fatality. But google Tesla Fire, and you’ll find about six headlines; one for each Tesla fire there’s been.

(Also, if you google Chevy Bolt High Speed Crash, you won’t find any hits because “Chevy Bolt” and “High Speed” don’t belong in the same sentence).

Please post the links to these articles you claim you found about Bolt (not Volt) fatal crashes. Only one I know of is a Bolt driver that was drunk and drove the wrong way on the highway and hit a car head-on….and survived. The occupants of the other car died however. Otherwise nothing but FUD.

“nothing but FUD,” …sez the guy who claims Tesla fires are common, “like the sun rising in the East.”

Waiting for those links, FUDster Chris.

Find your own links. Try GOOGLE.

I googled and didn’t find anything about Bolt owners dying in crashes. Figured, as FUDster Chris was just making sh!t up.

That was a fatal accident? #PublicEducationFail

No that was Charter Schools education

Another make/model accused of unintended acceleration?

There were a number of news reports of Teslas crashing into buildings or structures where the driver was adamant that they were pressing on the brake. There is even a small number of these Tesla cases on NHTSA safercar gov site.

With the Bolt EV, they claim the key was not even close to the car (it has to be in order to operate).

Tesla fans on telsamotorsclub called all of these Tesla “unintended acceleration” cases user error (which seems likely).

So do you believe that both the Bolt case and Tesla cases were real problems with the car? Or do you believe that both were likely user error? Or, are you inconsistent and believe that the Bolt case was a real problem while the Tesla cases were just user errors?

It doesn’t matter. Tesla incidents make the news when it is likely an autopilot crash. Or when flames start shooting out from Teslas.

GM’s ADAS (SuperCruise) isn’t offered on the Bolt … yet. And I don’t even think adaptive cruise is offered on the Bolt yet.

So what difference does it make if a Bolt is involved in a fatal crash? I don’t get that poster point at all.

In case you were wondering about car fires troll- 1.5 million GM cars were recalled to fix perenial fire problems – yeah:

Lol recalled 3 years ago😭😭😭

RE last sentence — you are clueless.

The Chevy Bolt EV beats the Golf GTI on both the track and drag strip. The Golf GTI was previously considered “the” hot hatch to buy if one is serious about hot hatches. The Bolt is an even hotter hot hatch.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

No they don’t.

Very nice gesture, GM! The Bolt is probably a safer car (since it doesn’t catch fire randomly for no apparent reason).

No, it just dies in the middle of the highway because ONE cell went bad.

^^^ this!

I’m so surprised Ray took the chance with his “dependable” tweet! Running the risk of someone pointing out how the bolt died in the middle of the highway within seconds! Heck Tesla drivers got more warning and time to pull over and leave their vehicles during a fire than the bolt gave its drivers!

Looking at the Volt and Bolt reliability history, then compare it to a Tesla. It’s no contest. (hint: Tesla doesn’t win)

Many more Tesla’s than Bolts. Feel free to click on the monthly scorecard above.

If Tesla wasn’t winning, then you wouldn’t be so terrified of its success that you’re desperately carpet-bombing InsideEVs comments with Tesla Hater FUD.

This is what I call a win:

Tesla’s global automobile sales totals:
2012: 2650
2013: 22,300
2014: 31,655 (+41.95%)
2015: 50,580 (+59.8%)
2016: 76,230 (+50.7%)
2017: 101,312 (+32.9%)

It seems people here are carpet bombing this article with GM hater FUD.

GM 4million cars and trucks and SUVs


They fixed that already. Move on.

Well, they certainly have enough of them just sitting around…

They had the car available then offered it.

And yet there are still more 2017 Bolts (than 2018s) on lots that GM can’t get rid off. Might as well loan them out. Just hope they have the dealer installed software update to calculate range as they can’t get over the OTA hump. Lol

That’s a very cocky move on GM’s behalf:

“Sorry your Lear Jet had to make an emergency landing; here’s a Cessna to use until you get a new one.”

“Sorry to hear your yacht sprung a leak; here’s a Cabin Cruiser until you get a new one.”

Maybe the caught-on-fire S owner will pull a Woz, ditch the S, and convert to a Bolt. 😀

I do understand this as they can’t sell the bolts because no one wants them so they have to give them away.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

Say what you will, but that’s some serious shots fired in the marketing wars for EVs.

It’s definitely a burn towards Tesla, but it’s a worthy burn, and beneficial to the growth of EVs. Everyone knows Tesla. Not a lot of people know GM makes a 238 mile Bolt EV (with a less volatile battery chemistry too).

This story is hitting all the main news sites now. GM usually screws up advertising its EVs, but this time they hit a home run. While landing a light jab to Elon’s enlarged head. 🙂

Right. Automakers taking cheap shots at other EV manufacturers is always, “beneficial to the growth of EVs.”

It’s called competition. If you don’t like it live in Cuba or North Korea

It looks as though Team Mary Bara is reaching out, with a friendly gesture of generosity, to Team Mary McCormack.

Forget about GM and Tesla, and their petty Corporate posturing agendas, Mary n’ Mary, are quite contrary, to watch all EV adoption Grow!

No. a friendly reach-out would be contacting marycmccormack PRIVATELY, and confirming whether or not she is interested in a loaner Volt. Then if marycmccormack accepts the offer, confirming with marycmccormack that it is OK to use her name publicly in a press release about the offer.

Otherwise GM is just abusing marycmccormack as a hapless victim in their publicity stunt without ever giving her a chance to decide for herself whether she wants to get drug into the middle or not.

I see it as sincere offer out of concern for Mary and her family. Plus free publicity never hurts. Elon/Tesla live on that. 😉

What does this have to do with me personally? I’m not in this story and I’m not the one making the tweets. GM is. The topic is what GM did

Do you actually support GM potentially abusing somebody who lost their car to fire by using them for a publicity stunt potentially against that person’s will? Yes or No.

Simple answer, YES or NO

Mary is an actress, and her husband is a director. They are multi-millionaires.

Are you really dumb enough to think GM did this out of charity for famous multi-millionaires?

If you believe that you are WAY too gullible to continue posting. GM offering charity to famous multi-millionaires, doing nothing for any of their own customers who have had their own cars burn up in fire, and you can’t see this is a bad stunt???

You really are intentionally blind.


You left a major portion of this story out: From GMI…

As reported by Jalopnik, GM saw an opportunity to make hay. In a subsequent tweet, Ray Wert, GM’s “head storyteller” and former Jalopnik Editor-in-Chief, said the automaker was offering a Bolt loaner to McCormack “so she has a more dependable electric vehicle to drive.”

This is the kind of PR automakers dream of. However, GM maintains the offer a one-time occurrence, as Wert is apparently friends with McCormack’s sister.

It’s publicity if the media gives it coverage!!!

If GM really cared about @marycmccormack , and GM had made her offer, and the offer was accepted, that would be one thing.

If @marycmccormack has not accept the Volt, then she is just being used as a helpless pawn in a GM publicity stunt. If that is the case, I’m not so sure they really care at all about @marycmccormack. So posting that they are doing it all out of care would just be a complete sleaze-bag move.

It will be interesting to see if @marycmccormack ends up behind the wheel of a Volt or not.

Where can I sign up to be a helpless pawn and get a free Bolt loaner?

As I said above, she may end up Bolting like The Woz did. 🙂

Seems to me the Woz likely flies for trips over 200-300 miles, as a long road trip in the Bolt was not his pitch! He said no EV beats the Tesla for that.

What a kind gesture by GM. Also good PR so hopefully it will bring a tiny boost in Bolt EV sales, which would be well deserved. Happy day!

Yep, thumbs up GM!

The problem with these types of cheap shots is that they might just come back to haunt you. GM better hope that no Volt or Bolt ever have a car fire. Given GM’s history, the odds of Bolt fire are pretty high. (But at least they use LG batteries, so GM’s historic poor quality shouldn’t be an issue.)

Chevy is cleverly copying what Tesla already does, getting cheap publicity. from loaners. Since Bolts are slow sellers, the dealer probably won’t even notice the car missing from the showroom. With E.V.s, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”

I would have believed Chevy if they had worded their offer without the snide comment “more dependable”.

Bolt’s don’t burn, they just stop without warning /S

Maybe Tesla should launch a raffle for owners of GM cars that catch fire. Ask owners of cars that catch fire to submit their details, then at the end of each month draw a name out of a hat for a free Tesla loan.

Of course they could not loan a Tesla to everyone who’s GM car caught fire as the numbers would be too large, but a raffle would work.

Would emphasize just how common ICE car fires are.

So long as they included the number of Contestants (# of GM car fires … Admitted to!)

Nice to know Chevy has surplus Bolts to give away. Maybe now Canadians will not have to wait a year for deliveries.

Another Euro point of view
I read the other day a Electrek (aka the Pravda) article about this fire and the commenters were all about saying that there was so many ICE cars that went up in smoke every day, that the day before they saw a car ablaze on the highway, that their mother’s car burned etc…etc…Now in my 35 years of driving I never saw one car on fire neither did I hear of someone seeing one. As I could not find European statistics about far fires I asked a bit around me and was confirmed that no one around me ever saw a car on fire except on TV. So what’s happening in the US with car fires anyway ? I could only think of three possibilities 1/ their might be no yearly technical control in the US thus some cars are being driven that should be scrapped 2/ the larger US engines being more sturdy than the usual smaller euro engine has as a side effect that people keep those cars much longer (15+ years etc) thus possibly increasing the chance of fire 3/ it is quite difficult to put a diesel car ablaze and in Europe almost one out of… Read more »

Maybe because diesel is much less flammable than gasoline?

Talked with a retired automotive engineer, his claim was that it’s not gasoline that starts the fire, but glycol i. The coolant.

It happens so many damn times with ICE we have a name for it……. “CarBQue”.

Then you should get out a bit more, because I have just 10 more years of driving and I can’t remember how many I saw burning or already burn, because it’s too many.
Might be an eyewear prescription problem thought.

“As I could not find European statistics about [car] fires…”

And so you conclude that car fires must be less common in Europe than they are in the USA?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. — Carl Sagan

Try visiting a police vehicle impound lot sometime, and take note of the percentage of cars that are burned out. Given your comments above, I think it’s safe to say you’ll be surprised.

In the USA, car fires are more common than apartment fires. I seriously doubt the statistics are that much different in Europe, altho the greater use of diesel cars there may lessen the percentage somewhat. Diesel cars are less likely to catch fire after an accident than gasoline-powered cars, but it still can happen.

Hey Another Euro…imho, I believe there’s some exaggeration in those comments that you read. From my anecdotal data (I live in Orange County, California), I do not see a car fire everyday, in the 30+ years of owning ICE cars not one has suddenly caught fire, and of the car fires I’ve seen, were either as a result of a high speed accident or human error.

Here’s a link to FEMA, they track all US Highway vehicle fires (and for some reason, the only report I found with meaningful data was for 2008 – 2010 which gave sample scenarios, the 2015 report had very little detail):

Another Euro point of view

Now if GM could make an EV that does not look like a toaster it would be even a better marketing trick. I am sure the Bolt is a good car but why, please why not make it a little more sexy.

If the Bolt is toaster, how come the Model S burns through your bread 3 times faster?

Very few cars on the road qualify for the very subjective “sexy” moniker. The Bolt is a very capable, good looking hatchback. I would argue a better than average looking car. I mean, next time you are out take a good look around at the cars on the road. Lots of typical, boring, below average designs. That’s what most people buy.

Everything was fine until, “so she has a more dependable electric vehicle to drive.”

Low blow and childish…..

Nice PR by GM.

Hey GM, a Tesla Model 3 drove over my foot.

Where’s my Bolt?

I love that Tesla is testing those new rocket engines, gives good hope for the Roadster II boosters. I’m surprised that Tesla has actually fitted the flame thrower into their car, seems like a brave move. I wonder if AP detected the Bolt driving past and this was it’s response to “take down” that more reliable EV competition. Seriously, it is great that nobody was injured. Those flames were really shooting out and could have easily caused a lot more damage. While Tesla fires are very small as a % overall, these seemingly random incidents are a concern. Given the very small population of EV’s in relative terms, I think GM was very foolish to post this in the vein they have. As more EV’s are sold, the incidence of fire will become higher, and no doubt a Bolt will catch fire at some point in time, when this post will be dug up and work against GM. The fact they have not publically made any offer to anyone else will also go against them. Have they set a precedent? I’m sure plenty of people who get into trouble with their EV might now pone GM and ask for their… Read more »

A “more dependable electric vehicle to drive.”. Wait, so what was that about Bolt owners being left stranded by faulty battery cells or BMS? So much for dependable.

Also I doubt that someone that wants to drive a Model S is particularly interested in trading it in for a Sonic with a battery.

Hardly a Sonic. The Bolt is much more car than. Sonic.

I wonder to myself, what kind of a person would give thumbs-down for a post that states a fairly obvious and a neutral fact that car A is objectively better (as in much roomier, more pleasant to drive, cleaner etc.) than car B.

What a cheap tactic used by a large company like a GM. Why not GM sell the Bolts to anxious customers in Canada & Korea. They will not sell because they are under the clutches of OPEC.

GM’s sales will go down by 1 million units this year as they sold Opel/Vauxall and shut down Holden.

If not for Tesla’s electric vehicles, oil prices would have gone past $100/barrel and even GMC would have been shut down.

Not even a single vehicle of GM is in China’s Top-20 EV sales. But Tesla sold 1,500 Model-X. As their EV sales grows, GM will be left in the dump.

In January GM sold about 367,0000 vehicles in China. In one month.

They are sold ~4,000of their little Baojun e100 in May.

They might sell less cars, but they’ll be more profitable.

Today GE (General Electric) was kicked out of Dow Jones Index because they did not move into renewable energy and banked on dirty fossil fuels.

How long before GM (General Motors) is going to be kicked out for depending on dirty oil.

Ummm, never? They are planning g to have 20 or More EVs by 2023.

YEA ! To the People GM didn’t Kill !

When Tesla wants to help they do things like fixing Puerto Rico’s battered grid. When GM wants to help they send a loaner to a Hollywood couple to take a cheap shot at Tesla. Guess they both have their style

And people say GM doesn’t do any marketing for the Bolt.

I don’t understand GM’s point here. My BOLT ev was just in a bad collision, and in this case the OTHER INSURANCE company had to pay for a rental car for the duration (at least I hope – I won’t get the car back for several weeks) .

So, instead of a loaner, isn’t the insurance company responsible for providing a rental vehicle? Surely they will go after TESLA for making repairs and restitution.

Here is a loaner car with a Korean pack, tech , drive systems, instruments, etc. We make the shell and the bad uncomfortable seats. Way to go GM, nice follow up to the EV1.

I wish I could get a Bolt! I’m in Canada and I’m on a waiting list to order one. I was told that I will have to wait at least 12 months to take delivery. I haven’t been able to even place the order yet! I paid my deposit around 2 months ago and I’m still waiting to place the actual order for the vehicle.

Typical cheesy, sleazy Chevy sales creep

People from GM are really desperate!!!

Don’t know if it was coincidence or planned, but local news here, having covered the Tesla fire in the broadcast had a story of a standard postal van that inexplicably caught fire while on its route. Couldn’t help laughing. At least the postal worker escaped unscathed, not so his remaining load.

The Tesla is the new & improved Pinto – it doesn’t even need to be hit to catch on fire.