GM President Discusses Chevrolet Bolt EV, Charging Infrastructure + More (Video)


We heard it first from General Motors’ CEO Mary Barra and now we’re hearing it again from GM President North America Mark Reuss.

Mark Reuss Interview At 2017 NAIAS

Mark Reuss Interview At 2017 NAIAS

We’re referring to the idea that the Chevrolet Bolt is the platform for a “huge range of vehicles” as Barra stated, or as Mark Reuss, General Motors’ North American President, says:

“I think the [Chevy Bolt] platform that we’ve got here is really the platform of the future for us.”

“This is a great platform for us, it’s really our future.”

That’s the good news….ready for the bad news?

According to Reuss, General Motors has zero plans to put in place any public charging infrastructure. Reuss says that GM “is not working on that [charging infrastructure] right now.”

Bummer…Reuss at least says that GM will focus on increasing the range of electric vehicles, which he seems to think will reduce/eliminate the need for much of the public charging infrastructure anyways.

CNET Roadshow video description:

“We get some face time with GM president Mark Reuss about the win and what’s next for GM.”

Source: GM Authority

Categories: Chevrolet

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

85 Comments on "GM President Discusses Chevrolet Bolt EV, Charging Infrastructure + More (Video)"

newest oldest most voted

So apparently people don’t do road trips in regular cars. No one ever travels more an 100 miles from their house.

Right? Where would we be if Ford and others didn’t invest so much money in our gasoline infrastructure after the horse and carriage?

Oh wait…

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. That Ford and others didn’t invest in the gasoline fueling infrastructure?

The point being that automakers did not need to invest in gasoline infrastructure for the automobile to take off, nor should they need to invest in charging infrastructure for the electric vehicle to take off.

It would be nice, but it’s wayyy outside their swimlane to do this. If EVs are ready for primetime, they should not need this sort of huge subsidizing by the automakers.

However, for those still wanting such an investment, there will still be one from Volkswagen thanks to Dieselgate.

Back when there were few gas stations, the automobile competed against horses and bicycles. Even if you only had a few local gas stations, the automobile was still vastly more capable than the alternative.

The EV’s competition is the modern ICE automobile. Sure, many people don’t need more than home charging, but mass adoption of EVs is hopeless without a charging network.

Your analogy compares situations 100+ years apart, and is completely irrelevant.

I’ve got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that Ford and others are indeed building a nationwide network of about 400 next-generation ultra-fast charging stations. The bad news is that their nationwide network will be in the nation of Germany. [sad trombone] Wah, wah, wah, waaahhhhhh. 🙁

That was a pretty good one.

Yup, nothing new to see there… Many of the Nazi – Era vehicles in germany besides also the panzers, had FORD engines.

It was also illegal for the Allies to bomb Ford’s factories.

This WINDBAG Of a COY SPIN-DOCTOR Is talking down to everyone & avoiding answering the questions put to him. I would never Buy a car from people like that …(wonder if this one gets censored) …….L M A 0 ….

Isn’t it VW that are going to pay for this? If they install a DCFC network that gives a minimum coverage of the main roads between the large cities, EV owners will start driving between the cities and using them. As the use increases they will pay for themselves. Owners of shops, cafes and malls will see that people spend time at the fast charging stations, and will want to install DCFCs at their locations so that EV drivers can spend som time and money on their business instead of their competitors. And with more DCFCs and less distance between them more EV owners dare to take the trip. At least this is what we see now in Norway when the major roads gets acceptable coverage.

The first 2 years i used DCFC about 1 time a year, then the 200 mile road to the capitol was covered by DCFC and now i use them abour 20 times a year. And the trip requires less and less planning as more and more gas stations and food serving places offer DCFC.

VW and ARRA. Two acronyms bringing lots of charging, ultimately from public mandate. Not to offend ChargePoint, but even their existence is partially owed to the Recovery Act, of 2009.

-Auto OEMs could sneeze off these networks, but would lose more on the more profitable cars EVs cannibalize

-Private network providers now have to look over their shoulders, at VW’s ~billion, and worry about where to invest

Practical considerations, like saving money with electricity, and saving time without having to get gas, just get blurred over by long range charging convenience.

On topic to this is the other side of the candle. When will Tesla make its 100KWh battery available at a reasonable price? We’re into 2017, and the $45,000 jump to go from 90, to 100, still exists (must buy bells&whistles).

Might be smart to maintain the segmentation as an incentive for people to buy the high end model. In a year or two bump up the sizes again across the board.

On the other hand, why not make it available as a ‘stripped’ Model S 100? The model would certainly sell.

My guess is that the new 100kwh battery is only produced on one initial production line, so far. If Tesla can only make so many right now, why not use it to sell high end models only?

“And the trip requires less and less planning as more and more gas stations and food serving places offer DCFC.”

If we really want EVs to take off, having gas stations install DCFC is about the best way to make it happen. That will not be accomplished by automakers but by the convenience store owners themselves, and possibly even their big oil counterpart if they want to diversift.

This also keeps their convenience stores relevant with electrified transportation.

You’re correct that VW will also be footing the bill for a hopefully decent infrastructure boost. But let’s be clear, that’s a penalty. An automaker shouldn’t NEED to do this, and VW is being fined. It’s great the EV world will benefit, but I’ll never make the claim that automakers need to invest in EV infrastructure, or should even want to for that matter. There’s no ROI for them.

There is certainly ROI for Tesla’s Superchargers, though an exact figure is uncertain. The network and free long distance charging are two key parts of why Model S and X have been successful.

Tesla’s ROI is because 100% of their vehicles are electric. It’s still just a rounding error for the major automakers. And that’s not to say they aren’t trying, but they have a very well developed line-up of non-electrified cars that Americans also continue to crave.

For them, the ROI is low. A higher federal gas tax would go much further than having them invest in public infrastructure.

Why did she phrase the question “proprietary charging network”? That’s the last thing we need, a network where only 1 brand can charge.

I agree it was a badly worded question. I just think she asked it poorly and used an inappropriate term when trying to think on the spot. Convention show floor interviews can be kind of hectic. Lots of distractions.

Certainly GM has expressed no interest in creating any kind of proprietary charging equipment.

Here’s what they should do: make a number of prototypes where they put the Bolt driveline into several of their other lines of cars. Then have people “vote” for which of these prototypes GM should put into production by putting down a refundable $1000 reservation on a car. Once there is enough reservations on one model to make it worthwhile they go ahead with production.

Article sez:
“According to Reuss, General Motors has zero plans to put in place any public charging infrastructure.”

Unstated here is that they are counting on VW to do that under their $2 billion 10-year court settlement mandate with EPA. Why should GM get involved when a competitor will do it for them?

I expect VW to drag their feet on promises because Trump administration will be hands off.

No, it’s a thumbs on administration. If you are a foreign company or an American company producing goods overseas and importing them for sale in the U.S. then Trump wants you under his twitter thumbs.

I dismissed the idea VW should be concerned about its DOJ case heading to Trump (it didn’t), but now I’m not so sure. The competitive rhetoric with Germany, Trump’s comments about BMW, the “Nazi” thing w/US press, Merkel criticisms…have a lot of folks scratching heads.

It appears that VW was worried about the DOJ case being handled by incoming Trump administration appointees. Last week on the eve of the presidential inauguration, VW settled all criminal and civil charges with the DOJ.

I’m not sure that the timing necessarily suggests that they were afraid of Trump, but maybe that’s true. I guess we’ll never know.

I think most people would presume that Trump would find a way to backpedal any penalties and offer Volkswagen a “wink, wink” to pollute as much as they want.

Don’t look forward to finding a DCQC when I’m out of town, and having to wait 2 hrs for a BOLT to finish charging.

With 238 miles of range, I can drive to towns that are 100 miles away and back to my home town without ever thinking about a public charger.

Well, it’s probably not going to work out exactly like that. If you’re going to drive a 200 mile trip, it will still require careful planning and adherence to the plan.

If it’s significantly cold, the car is probably not going to go the rated range. There’s no guarantee that every time you do a trip the car is fully charged. Driving too fast, a headwind, a detour, battery degradation, and a host of other issues will all affect the outcome.

Since I actually have a car rated at 240 EPA miles, and I frequently make trips that are 80 to 120 miles from my house, I can tell you that I never plan to do those trips without stopping somewhere to charge.

It makes for a much more comfortable trip to stop, even if it’s for just 10 or 15 minutes.

Having to wait, while on a road trip out of town, for another Chevy Bolt to charge for two hours, is GMs answer, for you to keep your Volt as a second car. Patiently waiting 2 hrs, on the Non-Tesla to “stupid-charge”, is probably not going to help the adoption of “Road Tripping” ICE OEM EVs with 200+ mi. Range. Go Figure GM?

I assumed he was talking about waiting for HIS Bolt EV to charge. And a Volt/Bolt combo is a great one, especially if you like road-tripping and not waiting. Even with the fastest DC charging in a Tesla, you are still waiting much longer than filling up w/gas.

People using DC charging during road trips don’t normally charge to 100%. They charge from maybe 15% to 70-80% and then drive another 100-140 mile segment. The Bolt will be able to do that in 45-60 minutes, not 2 hours.

Charge times will improve as faster next-generation DC stations with greater than 125A capability are installed by VW nationwide along highway corridors as part of their court-supervised Dieselgate settlement beginning in 6-9 months and continuing for the next 10 years at a spending pace that will rival Tesla’s USA Supercharger network.

VW will do this because they have to spend the money (they get automatically fined if they don’t spend it regularly according to schedule) and because it’s in their self-interest. It amounts to $2 billion in $500 million chunks spent during 2.5 year spending periods.

VW’s new corporate strategy calls for (likely) building their own battery factory and producing 1 to 2 million plugin cars annually by 2025 (10-15% of their vehicle output).

VW Group (VW, Audi, Porsche) needs a competitive “Supercharger” network to compete on big battery BEV sales with Tesla who is hurting their premium US vehicle sales.

We have to remember that the infrastructure needed to allow EVs to go on road trips is much, much smaller than the infrastructure needed for ICE cars to run at all. 90+ percent of all charging will still occur at home. With a 200 AER and wireless charging I will literally spend no time charging my car. I have had a Nissan leaf for a little over 3 years now and I have needed to use public chargers 3 times.

The actual required size would depend on how fast charging rates are.

For on-the-road charging plugs I could see there needing to be the same number as there are gas pump nozzles. It depends a great deal on charging speed, because although you need fewer public refueling miles, each mile will require much more time.

Well said.

Fortunately, competition is driving down charging time. Hopefully that will eventually come down to an average of 10 minutes or less, altho that will likely require improvements in the battery cells themselves. With current EV batteries, attempting to fully charge in 10 minutes would create runaway overheating.

GM’s lack of vision on infrastructure is at odds with its Bolt is an “important platform” meme.

At some point GM needs to understand that the range is only half the story, the high output infrastructure that goes with those big batteries is also an important part of making EVs a mainstream proposition.

Solving the lack of high output infrastructure problem by downgrading Bolt’s charging capabilities to the sort of 50-80KW chargers that are actually available is not a solution, it’s just sticking early Bolt adopters with car that will quickly be obsolete with residual values that will reflect that.

Are you sure that Vision should not come from national transport authorities?
In Norway such a vision came from the government and the minister of transport.
Inteligent incentives made the development of a nationwide charging network to evolve quickly.

The incoming US government administration is not going to have any vision for EV infrastructure. It may actually be the opposite, working to dismantle and penalize alternate energy that competes with oil interests.

The closest thing to a vision in the US is our state of California, with its Zero Emission Vehicle mandate and now 9 other states that agree to those rules.

As to the VW dieselgate money, of the $2 billion penalty over ten years to be paid in $500 payments ever 30 months, the state of California will take $200 million every 30 months for $800 million total.

80 KW charging capacity for the Bolt is nothing to sneeze at. It is a substantial improvement over the currently available charging infrastructure that is actually out there: 20-50 KW.

We will be lucky if VW builds out something like a 100-150 KW version of CCS and ChaDeMo. Current mainstream upper end is 50 KW, so even 100KW would be a huge increase. 150 KW would be ideal, moving past the Supercharger’s 120-130 KW.

Those “150kW” nameplate chargers will be 350 amps.

Tesla is already at 365 amps, which means that the Supercharger will still charge faster with the typical 400 volt batteries in use on EVs.

Yes, it’s great news, but there’s no significant difference in charging speed.

Just because GM isn’t getting into the public charger business, doesn’t mean they don’t understand. They aren’t selling airplanes either, but they understand what flying on them is like. (they also don’t build gas stations)

I don’t think there is any way to justify demanding that every EV maker must build its own charging network. Gasmobile makers didn’t have to do that, and EV makers should not.

The lack of public charging infrastructure is a result of the lack of market penetration by EVs. When there are more EVs on the road, there will be more market demand for public chargers, and market forces will cause them to be built.

In fact, demanding that every EV maker build its own charging network would be insane. That would lead to proliferation of competing proprietary networks. Tesla already has one such network; do we really want more? There also have been a lot of complaints about charging networks each requiring its own proprietary charge card, rather than accepting ordinary credit cards like gasoline pumps do.

What we need is a truly universal EV charging standard, and for independent entrepreneurs to service the EV charging market.

The guy has a lot of moxie to bring a diesel when taking an interview about the Bolt.
GM: We are real excited about our coming diesel.
Subliminal Man: No one else is.

Regarding charging. Well we’re just gonna let it happen. That was about as lame an answer as exists in the realm of possible answers.

but it will be a *clean* diesel!

EV1 all over again if GM can swing it.

Another Crushing Blow to GM Bolt owners, Volt owners, GM staff and shareholders. Not likely, unless LG Chem has delivered Bolt battery packs with some “Samsung Inside” smart phone issues. That would be about the only scenario that could deliver a substantial crushing blow to the GM Bolt rollout.

In December, Chevy sold over 500 Bolt EVs during basically the last week of the month.

Between 1996 and 2000, GM built only about 1,100 EV1s. And only leased them.

In it’s first week on the market, GM sold 50% of the entire multi-year production of the EV1. Even if they only built 30,000 Bolt EVs, that is still about 30x the number of EV1s that ever existed.

If you still think the Bolt is going to be treated the same way as the EV1, you are mistaken.

We are going on our first bay area trip using the bolt this weekend. Its 117 miles to destination, just at the edge of the range for a round trip. But there are plenty of DCFCs along the way, so one charge this trip and don’t even need to get a full charge.

The charging network is still relevant. The Bolt makes it more so, and as one poster said above, just wait until you are the 4th bolt to show up at the same station.

Question: How long do you plan on staying at your destination? Any level 2 nearby? You might not even need DCFC!

For sure he doesn’t technically need it. If he turns the climate off and drives 55 he’ll get 234 miles wth plenty to spare.

AC (destination charging) or DCFC might be the most convenient option though.

“Just gonna let it happen”. That would be a better corporate slogan than past and current GM tidbits, such as “Like a Rock”, “Find New Roads”. A lot more appropriate as well.

Yeah, “compliance car” Bolt EV in MD! Woo!

Top Off The Tank! Or, Fill’er Up!
Join the Compliance……or else!

Is “COMPLNC CAR” too long for a personalized license plate?

Congrats! Now drive your Bolt to South Carolina so that jelloslug can see it and Kdawg can win a pizza. 😀

That would have to be one hell of a pizza for me to do that.

Road trip to Disney World later this year? hmmmmm

It’s open to debate whether the pizza would include any toppings. 😉

With all these “compliance car” claims, there’s going to be one hell of a pizza party in September.

Love it.


Maryland is a CARB-ZEV state…

Virginia is not. Can you explain why they are getting Bolts next month?

I have no obvious explanation, but clearly they are rightly targeting the CARB-ZEV states first. How Virginia works into that equation, I have no idea.

Not every business decision makes absolute analytical sense. Since General Motors has claimed that they will eventually sell the vehicle in all 50 states, I guess Virginia come sooner or later. Perhaps Virginia is the distribution center for Maryland?

CARB states – Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia.

CARB-Zero Emission Vehicle states – California’s ZEV program has now been adopted by the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine. These states, known as the “Section 177 states,” have chosen to adopt California’s air quality standards in lieu of federal requirements as authorized under Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. sec. 7507).

And don’t give me some lame “because MD residents can buy them in another state by crossing over the border” answer, because obviously that’s not it.

I don’t know if this is directed at me or not and I’m not even sure what it is you’re exactly trying to ask or state.

Yeah, that was directed at you, because you have an obvious anti-GM stance.

It may come as a shock to Inside EVs regulars, but most of my neighbors don’t do road trips. They never take their SUVs, and pickups further than they can drive in a day. They have to be back at work the next day…two days at most. The idea that Americans are constantly driving across the country is a memory from the 1950-60s. People with stock portfolios are the only ones I know of doing that now.

I’m sure there are some people who still road trip a lot. (People who are retired seem to prefer driving over flying. They have more time on their hands.)

But the only road trips I take are about 150 miles or less each way. Much further than that, I will fly and then rent a car or use public transit.

My time at my destination is more valuable to me than the money I might save by driving lol.

Agreed. Most of my neighbors would be retired, if they had a stock portfolio. Instead they are working at Home Depot.

I do have one relative and her friends who often take long road trips, but they are retired, and I certainly wouldn’t claim that is commonplace. The reality is that these days, most Americans fly if they need to travel 400+ miles. What I find disturbing is the fact that so many people write as if everyone does, or should, have the same needs in a car. Some people take long road trips multiple times a year. Contrariwise, some never do. When I was a kid, our family would drive hundreds of miles to visit Grandma and Grandpa for Christmas and July the 4th every year. Even today, lots of people drive long distances over Thanksgiving and Christmas. One size does not fit all. Many people would be well served with BEVs which will never be driven more than 150 miles one way. Others will need cars with longer range. That need could be served by renting/borrowing a gasmobile, or driving a PHEV, or by using public chargers to charge a BEV along the route. One possibility mentioned just the other day in an InsideEVs was for the BEV owner to trade cars with a friend or neighbor for the… Read more »
EV advocacy is not aided by suggesting that gasoline cars are the answer when you really need to travel. I found the same to be true when groups like Plug In America tried to convince people that they needed to drive some freakish looking three wheel thing. It did nothing to advance EVs and everything to reinforce that EV’s or an oddity with limited potential. I personally do a lot of driving, in addition to a lot of flying. I just happen to travel a lot. Over Fourth of July, I drove my Tesla Model S over 1300 miles in 26 hours for a weekend trip (I actually took a detour on the return trip which took even longer). I find when I’m out there on those rural freeways that there are plenty of cars driving around. It seems that there are actually people outside of large urban areas who live and breathe and want to drive cars. You might remember these people from the last election… the people who the Democrats didn’t feel were important enough to bother with anymore… they voted for Trump. Anyhoo, this issue of whether we need or don’t need robust public charging infrastructure is… Read more »

“You might remember these people from the last election… the people who the Democrats didn’t feel were important enough to bother with anymore… they voted for Trump.”

Umm, Dems may not have run the greatest campaign to appeal to this demographic, but they certainly never forgot them. If you were looking for concrete policies that actually help those people, Dems were the only ones offering them. I.e. building on and expanding the Affordable Care Act, which helped approximately 20 million gain health insurance over the last 6 years … a very substantial proportion of which are in that demographic.

I’m not attempting to start a partisan political diatribe. I’m merely stating the obvious.

I’ve driven across the country 1 time in my life. It was part of a military PCS that was totally optional (could have had the car shipped for free).

I think my 1 cross country road trip is 1 more than many Americans.

That’s a false narrative to suggest that you have to drive cross-country to need a car with adequate range and adequate refueling capabilities.

Obviously, few people drive coast-to-coast. But plenty of people need to be at locations that are further away than the round-trip capability of any modern electric vehicle. In order to do that successfully requires a robust public charging infrastructure.

this is a point that i have made before. if you live in a major metropolitan area, you can easily run up 150 miles in a day from driving to and from different suburbs while running errands. if you live in a cold climate area, even a tesla could be challenged. true, most people don’t drive 150+ miles *every* day, but you need your car to allow you to do so when you have to drive that much in a day, even if you don’t do it very often.

I think it really does eliminate the need for most of the infrastructure. I haven’t even reactivated my charging station cards yet since I got my Bolt. It doesn’t eliminate the need for all of it. But with the car that small and with it taking over an hour to fill it up from empty I think most buyers would use the other car in the household for trips longer than 200 miles anyway. Infrastructure is good and I’d like more. But I think GM is largely right that the whole point of this car was to rely less on infrastructure. Maybe they’ll think differently when the Model S comes out if people are buying it and paying to supercharge even though by all accounts that shouldn’t be a big part of their lifestyle. Honestly, the biggest boost EVs need now that this car is here is more EVSEs in apartment complexes, not chargers to let you drive from Salt Lake City to Phoenix. If more people can charge at home then it’ll open EV ownership (and PHEV ownership where they actually do plug in) to a lot more people. Young people are the big EV market and young people… Read more »

Re your last point, I agree completely. Getting more apartment owners to install EV charge points in their parking lots, and getting parking garage owners to do the same, will do much more for the EV revolution than getting more DCFCs installed in cities and along highways.

We need both:

1) the fastest enroute charging with logical placement

2) ubiquitous destination charging at home, work, hotels, parks, shopping, etc

One without the other other pigeonholes EV’s has limited purpose. Anybody suggesting that shortcomings should be compensated for with gasoline burning cars really isn’t an EV advocate.

People feel that GM has to provide the charging infrastructure, cause they don’t believe there is a financial incentive for other companies to be in that space.

Basically asking GM to subsidize electricity for your vehicle?

If you want that, then get a Tesla.

this video was previously cited by wade tyhon in the video about mary barra’s comments on the Bolt (but the reference probably got lost in the discussion about whether barra was doing botox):

the question was whether GM was developing a proprietary charging *system*, not a proprietary charging *network*. now, developing a proprietary charging system (a la tesla) would imply that GM was going to deploy a charging network, but GM has never hinted at supporting anything other than industry standard charging. for GM to deploy a charging *network* does not require development of a proprietary *system*.

as i stated previously, the question seems ridiculous, but reuss’ answer was also ridiculous. his answer was that GM wasn’t developing a proprietary charging system because the Bolt has enough range so as to not need a proprietary charging system.

One thing a lot of people don’t realize is it’s already been stated the Bolt EVs platform will include ICE vehicles…

That includes the Gen2 ICE Sonic…Quite possible they may “ICE” the Bolt EV into the next Gen Sonic hatchback…

I enjoyed Mr. Reuss stating, “We are doing more than any other car company”, which is ostensibly true.

Therefore, since he says GM is ‘almost there’ with the equivalent range of a gasoline vehicle, I expect an improvement soon over the 238 Mile Epa Bolt. Something in the 300 Mile range to make it exactly equivalent to a gasoline car.

And while they’re at it GM has stated over the 5000 jobs to be retained/added at relocated from Mexico to the States Axle plants amoungst other things – of which GM said, “Oh, its just GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE” – NO RELATIONSHIP TO comments from the next President.

On that topic, they should import the upcoming CT6-Phev from Detroit in lieu of Beijing. And get rid of that EV-HATER of Old DeNyschen who is pissing off his smaller Caddy dealerships with his silly Pinnacle plan which the head of the nation’s largest dealership group (AUTONATION)’s Mike Johnson said is bad for dealers and bad for customers since it sows distrust in the mind of both.

Another thing: This DeNyschen character gets the BOOBY prize for marketing:

Walking into any Caddy dealership and picking up one of the expensive fancy color brouchures – literally the first HALF of the pages are pictures of super dumpy buildings that may only impress Brooklynites.

The rest of the country doesn’t recognize those pieces of ‘flagship architecture’.

Even though the Brochures are heavy, the models in them don’t make enough money to afford the cars they are hawking, and not much is said about it anyway.

BUT IT DOES beat Lincoln, who constantly sends me Brouchures mentioning how many stiches per inch their seats are, and next to nothing else about the models.

HEY GM – even FORD is bringing out an electric SUV. How ’bout making a plug-in escalade from the 2 motor hybrid you had out years ago?

The CT6 PHEV is correctly made in China for China customers which avoids tariffs and qualifies for both Chinese and US incentives…But make no mistake, it’s made for the Chinese customer…Very few will buy this thing in the states even if it was built in the states…

I would also believe an expensive Escalade PHEV would not sell well…What would sell well is a more affordable AWD equinox, whether PHEV or BEV…

“Won’t sell well” – they said that about the Prius and “S” as well, and , I dunno, Toyota and Tesla have sold 1 or 2 of each.

1 or 2??? Quit exaggerating Bill!!! 😉 😉

The TRAX mini-suv is available in CNG-Only, if you want it.

The only trouble is the PHILL home-refueler is now only made in italy. So service is no doubt difficult.

Although originally made near Toronto, the Phill unit is much more suited to the slower 5/6 ths speed of the unit and the lower pressure requirement (3000 PSIG) vs (3600 PSIG) in the states.

Using it here at too high a speed and prssure, burns the little toy’s heart out.