GM CEO Mary Barra: We’re Really Excited About the New Bolt EV (Video)

JUN 8 2016 BY MARK KANE 205

There is just half a year left to the Chevrolet Bolt EV’s introduction to the U.S.

GM CEO Mary Berra With Chevy Bolt On Stage In Las Vegas

GM CEO Mary Berra With Chevy Bolt On Stage In Las Vegas

On the occasion, Bloomberg recently had chance to talk with GM’s CEO Mary Barra about the first affordable 200-mile all-electric car to hit the market.

According to Barra, the range and affordability will meet the needs of a broad group of consumers, and thus makes Bolt EV special.

“It will be the first affordable fully electric car with a range of more than 200 miles. GM launches the Bolt EV later this year. In an exclusive interview with Bloomberg TV’s David Westin, CEO Mary Barra spoke about tackling drivers’ “range anxiety” and taking on Tesla.”

Categories: Chevrolet, Videos

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

205 Comments on "GM CEO Mary Barra: We’re Really Excited About the New Bolt EV (Video)"

newest oldest most voted

They cannot claim to “take on Tesla” until they roll out a nationwide fast charging infrastructure.

C’mon GM…put your money where your mouth is.

Bingo! Well said John.

That goes for all other 200 mile range BEVs as well – build a reliable Fast Charging infrastructure – not single chargers scattered about with 1/2 located in dealer lots – otherwise you really don’t have that great of a BEV.

Ford didn’t build a gas station chain when they built the Model T. Tesla has built a thousand Super Charger stations in the US. Great. It doesn’t mean that CCS stations built by independents are less useful.
GM is building a BEV for less than $40k and will be selling it for a year or more before Tesla arrives with the III. Whinging and whining won’t change the fact that Tesla is late, again.
The III will be a great car, when it actually arrives.

Yesterday it does say something, you can actually fast charge a Tesla.
If she was really proud she should make more than 30-50k of them the first yr.
If they would build them they could easily sell 150K OF THEM the first yr.
Because when the 3 comes out she’ll have to deeply discount it to compete.

jerry, if Tesla and GM both built the same BEV, for the same price, the GM BEV would sell less than half as many in the first year or two because children think WKTEC is anything other than propaganda.
GM is being lazy, but they aren’t evil. They just don’t get it like Tesla does. Look at Ford and Nissan. They don’t get it either, but they don’t get the hatred GM gets.

In theory if they get enough orders they can produce that kind of volume although personally I they could get that level of packs but then again from what I have read the LG Chem Plant isn’t exactly pushing it to get out production so maybe they could add another shift and get out that level of production.

To get batteries now you have to order them 2 yrs in advance in order to build new mining, refining, other materials like seperators, etc to produce them.
Tesla warned them but they wouldn’t listen. Now Tesla got his at a much lower price, 50% less than present prices.

Actually ziv Ford built his cars to run on ethanol, other biofuels so they wouldn’t be screwed by big oil.

MOre than that, its about understanding where the technology is going. GM will be dragged into higher kW charging as other cars introduce it (like Tesla). Why not be ahead of the curve now instead of later?

Because none of the established car maker embraced the rEVolution yet. On the contrary, they are actively trying to kill it… again…

The Bolt is overpriced, “large compliance” only and without real fast charging capacity and support. Designed to fail on the wide acceptance level.

Here comes RexxSee bashing anything that is potentially competing to Tesla.

LOL. You are just a Tesla fan boy instead of EV supporter as you have been falsely claiming. If you truly care about global warming, you would have trashed your Prius and bought an EV long term ago while waiting for your Model 3.

Somehow the 200 miles+ Bolt won’t work for you but the Tesla Model 3 will but there are no SC near you. LOL.

Irregardless for a lack of infrastructure, 200 mile range will be acceptable to the vast majority of users. We were able to live on 1 ICE and 1 80 mile Leaf (w/o Chademo) for > 3 years, in the suburbs of Chicago IL. Give that Leaf 200 mile range and we can eliminate any special planning to get around the range anxiety for 100% of metro travel. We purchased the Leaf ,reserved a 3, but may instead turn in the Leaf for a 2 or 3 year Bolt lease until the Y’s out w Level 4 auto pilot.

I suspect the Bolt will be a hit!

It is fine to charge in the garage on a L2 charger over night at 20 miles an hour, and use in the city, just not to go beyond its range on longer roadtrips, for that you need a tesla with the supercharger network that puts in 300 miles of range per hour so you end up stopping just two times for 10 or 20 minutes when going on a 400 mile trip.

The real problem is that it doesn’t have automated cruise control for stop and go commute traffic, because that is a very useful feature for convenience and safety and going to be considered crucial for the non-roadtrip inner city use case.

So the only potential advantage is earlier time to market, and a more conventional look if you are not into sexy cars.

“It is fine to charge in the garage on a L2 charger over night at 20 miles an hour, and use in the city, just not to go beyond its range on longer roadtrips, for that you need a tesla with the supercharger network that puts in 300 miles of range per hour so you end up stopping just two times for 10 or 20 minutes when going on a 400 mile trip.” Assuming there is SC coverage for the routes you are going. In general, this concern is blown out of proportion as many people don’t drive more than 200 miles at a time. When you do, even Tesla SC would make you detour for hours to use ONLY the routes that has the chargers. For the so called few times per year you actually do make those long drives, rent a car like what every early adopters have been preaching for the last 5 years.. “The real problem is that it doesn’t have automated cruise control for stop and go commute traffic, because that is a very useful feature for convenience and safety and going to be considered crucial for the non-roadtrip inner city use case.” How do… Read more »

GM had already said many times that the Bolt will NOT have adaptive cruise control.

You are sure that the next model year won’t either?

Adaptive Cruise Control is a minor issue that is important to a minority of BEV buyers. It is similar to the fifth seat issue for the early Volts. Most buyers didn’t care but for some it was a deal killer.
AER, MSRP and the cool factor are all more important than ACC. Heck, even max charge rate is more important than ACC and fast charging will only be used a couple times a year by most BEV owners.

“The real problem is that it doesn’t have automated cruise control for stop and go commute traffic, because that is a very useful feature for convenience and safety and going to be considered crucial for the non-roadtrip inner city use case.”

Or, at least you don’t have to worry about whether you should brake or let the system determine that as in the case of Tesla…

I guess ACC is good enough to allow you to run into a parked vehicle on the road..

You can drive a Bolt in the city for all your metro driving. And you can RENT A CAR for a long trip. People driving electrically seem to become “allergic” to ICE cars somehow. Be realistic – not a zeolot. Rent a car for a long trip the few times a year you may need it. You can rent a CUV for a week for $200. Or buy a Tesla for $70,000. Which is “smarter”?

I have at least 1 week long car rental every month for work travel. I select the lowest grade car possible from Avis and it is between $290 to $350 per week. Sometimes more if there is some shortage or event. I always book travel 3+ weeks out, so this isn’t last minute prices.

For example this week I have a base model Nissan Versa. Cloth seats, no backup camera, no bluetooth, and doesn’t even have headlights that turn off automatically when the car is powered off.

An SUV would be $500 – $700 per week. A luxury SUV would be much closer to $1000 per week.

Depends on the number of weeks

Building a fast charging network is not a viable business model unless you are selling ultra-luxury cars to pay for it.

We’ll see how “important” a fast charging network is when Tesla announces the price/kWh for Model 3 users to Supercharge. Not many people are going to sign up for paying the equivalent of $8/gal gas on a long trip; they’ll just drive an ICE car instead.

I can think of a way of making a profitable fast charging network. When I look at EVGo’s rate plans – if you are a monthly subscriber the rates are completely reasonable at $0.10 per minute for fast charging. However – the monthly subscription of $15 a month for something I only need a few times a year is what throws me off and makes the costs unreasonable. Now – combine all the charging networks so you don’t need 4+ memeberships, and build the membership fee into the purchase of each car for $1500 to $2000 per car – then that money can be used to build out the infrastructure. The $0.10 per minute DCFC can cover the utility portion. Every 25 EVs sold should be able to EASILY cover the costs of equipment and install for another DCFC unit. This kind of relationship NEEDS to be established between car makers and EV Network operators, otherwise the only successful network will be Tesla’s Supercharger network. If something like his had been established when Nissan started selling the Leaf – then we should reasonably easily be at about 3600 DCFC units in the US alone. Instead – we’ve only got maybe… Read more »

You can split and rearrange the fees whatever way you want – everything included into car purchase price like for Model S, or everything paid at per-use basis per kWh or per time, or part paid as monthly fee, or shift part of it to the future by creating financial pyramid. The end result is exactly the same when everything is accounted, capital and maintenance costs and/or utility peak power charges (that are capital costs again for utility to be ready to provide the power), or $500/kWh grid balancing battery costs will make really fast charging much more expensive than gasoline.

It is not a big deal if you only rarely travel some 300-400 miles and only need to extend your trip paying on per-use basis, and can charge at home most of the time. But it doesn’t really work for frequent long distance road trips.

Tesla has an advantage in being a rapidly growing start-up. They can use the supercharger network as a loss leader, set prices that are 50% more than home charging (to discourage everyday use), and the loss on infrastructure cost evaporates by means of the companies rapid growth. Amazon spent billions of building out warehouses to allow for 1 day shipping. Amazon didn’t re-coup those costs directly. My Amazon Prime didn’t change except that items can be shipped 1 day faster now… Amazon paid BILLIONS to make that happen… To go from 2-day shipping to 1-day shipping. It pays itself off by guaranteeing I use Amazon even more, and others join. Tesla will gain by using the supercharger network at a net loss because it disrupts the car industry just as Amazon Prime and 1-day shipping disrupted retail. GM does not have a supercharger network. For this very reason I would never, ever buy a Bolt. Who cares if I can go 200 miles? I cannot travel anywhere because they have no network, and I can do local travel on 80 miles cause I leave home with a full charge every day. The Bolt is essentially useless without a supercharger network… Read more »

So basically, you concede that fast-charging networks are a loss-leader that should never(?) be expected to produce a profit. Must be nice to be a startup with no accountability!

It is as I said: when you are not selling high-margin ultra-luxury cars, a fast-charging network is a boondoggle. Ford and GM didn’t need to get into the oil business, so why should they be in the electricity business?

” Amazon has 1-day shipping.”

Amazon’s 1 day shipping still got nothing on my 10 minutes pickup from my local store…

Is that why Amazon is also building brick/mortar store?

Brian, everything Tesla does is a loss leader. I really wonder if that will ever change…

“They can use the supercharger network as a loss leader, set prices that are 50% more than home charging (to discourage everyday use), and the loss on infrastructure cost evaporates by means of the companies rapid growth.”

Yes, this is the case that I called “financial pyramid”. We all know that financial pyramids can’t go forever and it is very risky path. At a time of regular financial downturn that happens every few years, or just random stumbling block, access to cheap financing evaporates and everything collapses. Theoretically you may finance car production this way assuming you will reach mass market soon and then get out of red. But mass quick charging network will not become profitable just because of scale – it will still stay a loss leader until you will start charging real cost rates for it. In case of Tesla there is no profit elsewhere to cover this loss leader.

This kind of relationship NEEDS to be established between car makers and EV Network operators, otherwise the only successful network will be Tesla’s Supercharger network. — Tim E

You mean like Nissan and BMW deal with evgo. their customers get free charging they get a cash infusion to grow their network.

Monday morning quarterbacks… as far as i’m concerned all of these EV choices are great for the consumer. I’m on my second leaf myself but if the BOLT checks of all my list I may have to upgrade. The goal is to reduce oil consumption from hostile nations and greedy corporations.

that supercharger network will be almost pointless once the model 3 hits volume, some places already have long lines to supercharge, with 200 mile range 98% of the time overnight charging is adequate…..100% ev are still not a good option for long distance trips…..

I think 100% ev’s are great for long trips. The only places that really have long lines at supercharging stations are in big city’s where people are using them as their only charger. I have taken many trips (LA to Reno, LA to Vegas and LA to Mammoth) and the remote Superchargers are always pretty empty.

“I have taken many trips (LA to Reno, LA to Vegas and LA to Mammoth) and the remote Superchargers are always pretty empty.”

On those routes, CCS already got you covered. With 200 miles and 50kW charger, the difference in 1 stop time is only 10 minutes to 15 minutes per stop which you only need about 1 stop per trip.

“They cannot claim to “take on Tesla””
Neither GM nor Mary Barra in this interview, ever claimed to be “taking on Tesla”. That is Bloomberg’s words.

When “Bloomy” (the Bloomberg guy who I didn’t catch his name) asks Mary as to “why investors like Tesla” – they don’t really get into the whole wall street stock market games that stock trading houses do to pump TSLA stock for their own gains. It’s a pop-culture stock play with bubble trimmings. Much like GPRO, GMCR, FIT and others. Eventually it will catch up with all those involved keeping the stock price propped up.

Did you guys know that Musk owes Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley nearly $500 Million for personal loans he took out for various stock purchases for his own trust fund? They need to keep his stock afloat because much of it is used for collateral for Solar City and Tesla. It’s a general house of cards but talked up “to the public” like they are taking over GM.

Bolt, A “Forced built” Carbon Credit Car* …Nothing More..

Tesla would not existed either without carbon credits, income tax credits, DOE loans, Norvegian government incentives and so on. So what exactly your point? Should we just shift all subsidies to fracking industry and outlaw electric cars?

GM does it simply to meet standards, and to take advantage of tax benefits. There is no larger goal or vision than “do it as cheaply and ineffectively as possible to maximize returns on the federal benefit and regulatory requirements”. Tesla is doing it to create a future of sustainable transport, and those federal credits allow that goal to progress more rapidly by reducing barriers and accelerating growth. Tesla would be trying to achieve its goals regardless of the credits, but the credits make their goals easier. GM is merely doing it because they perceive a tax and regulation advantage and have no desire or care for the future of greenhouse gas emissions or its impact on the future of every human on Earth. Just because both are using the same credits does not mean that their goals are the same. This is coming from someone who owns a 2013 Volt, and absolutely loves it. Best vehicle I have ever owned, and I know the level of engineering that went into it. GM was betting on PHEVs like my Volt being the future. They have their place, radically reduced MY emissions, and were a risk GM took that no other… Read more »

And I suppose the reason why Musk bashes other companies’ EVs at every opportunity is because… he cares about the planet so much?

GM didn’t have to build the first 200 miles BEV that is affordable just to meet compliance.

There are many other ways…

Then why does GM have other EV products in development right now? As if it is only a compliance car. It will do great in Europe where the Bolt’s size and utility will be wanted badly.

It sounds like some cult propaganda. Do you really believe in tooth fairy stories? Like Musk saying they returned DOE loan “because it was good thing to do”? And not because DOE loan contract would kicked in expensive option clause the next day if it wasn’t returned?
Motives can be mixed, some are “for greater good”, some just brainwashing to pump share price and sell it. Reasonable people judge by actions, not by brainwashing tales. Actions show it is for profit corporation just like any other, not some new supreme religion working for greater good only regardless of money.

I’m always curious as to the reasoning of why this is a requirement of a company to build a car.

How many gas stations does GM own?
(I can go on if you’d like)

So if these companies are not expected to build gas pumps for their gas cars, why are you expecting them to build L3 charging for their electric cars?

There are many companies out there capable of building their own.
Why is it a requirement for vehicle manufacturer branded charging infrastructure?

(Not even touching on the fact that 99%+ of driving will not ever need an L3 charger)

Lewl hit the nail on the head. Also there will be plenty of L3 charging stations nationwide for nonTesla owners to use. Also eventually Tesla will make an adapter/inverter/condenser unit that will allow other brands to use their chargers.

The problem is that the non-Superchargers are super unreliable. Tesla’s system just works.

And it only costs $70,000 to join.

> (Not even touching on the fact that 99%+ of driving will not ever need an L3 charger)

The answer to question is in this fact.

Still with that irrelevant argument? There are way more CCS chargers than Tesla Superchargers already and there will be a lot more by the time Tesla model 3 is widely available.

Actually in the U.S. there are about 3 times as many Supercharger stalls than CCS chargers.

The problem is that service station owners aren’t going to invest in CCS 150kW charging until there are tens of thousands of capable vehicles on the road. And people aren’t going to buy that many 200+ mile EVs if they cant charge them up quickly for long distance (or even “oops” I’m almost out of energy charges).

Nailed it!

You can’t take on Tesla with a 4 passenger car, with a torture-beam suspension either.

You can take on the Leaf, but not the Tesla.

“They cannot claim to “take on Tesla” until they roll out a nationwide fast charging infrastructure.”

What is next?

GM has to sell battery backup like Power Wall too?

Maybe there are people who only drives about 200 miles and fly airplane or ride trains with distance longer than that…

I mean, first it was it needs 200 miles and then it needs charging stations, then it needs faster charging station.

I am just happy that it is 200 miles and affordable and don’t drive as slow as LEAF or Prius..

Excellent first comment. The Bolt EV is crippled without a dependable nationwide DC fast charging network.

If GM is going to stick with their plan to wait until someone else does it they will be waiting a long time. Decades maybe.


Even if they were to roll out a nationwide network the Tesla fan boys would claim it isn’t wasn’t because it won’t be fast enough on paper at least. Fast charging networks are growing and in a few years I expect it to be large enough for trips at least trips like you can do with current Tesla’s.

Only Tesla has the technology to charge faster than any other EV. 480v DC isn’t the answer. That’s why I reserved the Model 3 sight unseen. Quicker charging means traditional ICE drivers will convert more easily from gas.

Still clueless…

I hope Bolt is a success. In videos lately I have seen of her she always refers to the stock, I think they’ve got her under pressure.

The Volt is one of the most advanced vehicles on the market. And it’s selling well, for a 33-40+ Thousand Dollar car.

The stock, though, is bought by old people. These newfangled hybrids and EV’s are totally off their radar.

They rolled out the EV-1 how long ago? Now they are singing a new siren song. Won’t get fooled again! All in with Elon and, his path to a full EV support network. Nice try GM, but you can’t change history.

we don’t have time to wait for elon to build 85 milll car/trucks. we have to encourage other auto makers to produce the vast majority or else our earth is fried.

You’re blinded by your biases and a sensationalized movie.

The EV-1 is ancient history. GM’s EV claim to fame are the gen1 and gen2 Volts. The Bolt should also be very good.

Sad they can get so much right, yet not understand the importance of the charging network.

Ford had Standard Oil, he did not have to build the gas stations.

“Sad they can get so much right, yet not understand the importance of the charging network.”

So you are agreeing with all the gas head who criticize BEVs then.

Their points are that regardless of how much range you got, you can’t match the density and speed of gasoline stations so NO sales for them.

Geez, keep moving that goal post…

Wow, so much anti-GM / anti-Bolt rhetoric. The Bolt stands to be a great EV. I will measure GM’s excitement for the car by the amount of advertising they do for it, and not by the lack of chargers. They are a car company, not a charging company.

If they are really into pushing EVs, they will maybe partner with a nationwide charging company. But I don’t expect them to build any chargers.

GM is trying to build a great car, and it looks like they have succeeded. Tesla is trying to change the world. Poo-pooing GM for not building a supercharging network doesn’t change the fact that they are making EV history here.

Agreed, the Bolt will likely be my next car.

As far as mentioning the stock, the interview was a ‘business one’ – I could have hardly expected her to duck that question.

I also like the space efficiency of the vehicle, by some people’s measurements it is larger than the “S”. I also like that she said it will be MORE THAN 200 miles. So, driven conservatively, I wonder exactly how much more? Whatever the final figure, I’ll take it. Absolutely love the 60 kwh battery, 7 kwh larger than even my old roadster.

People don’t seem to realize there is a difference between the big-old-bad almost omnipotent GM, and the new downsized humbled one. Agree that it is wise to stick to your core strengths and give others the opportunity to make electric filling stations.

@Bill said: “As far as mentioning the stock, the interview was a ‘business one’ – I could have hardly expected her to duck that question.”

Why? She ducked every question about Tesla.
Clearly you are not in loop when it comes to questions about GM stock. She has been, is, and will continue to be, harangued with regularity concerning the stock price recently. I actually think she is correct though that it is undervalued, but it would not buy it.

“Clearly”? heheh = apparently all you closet bullies are having a slow news week.

Of COURSE she ducks Tesla questions precisely because of people just like you. She is not there to critique Tesla, she is there to mention GM’s strengths.

I now see why some people say they’d buy an EV, but they don’t like the personalities of the vocal EVers who are apparently against everyone who doesn’t march in lock-step with them.

Elon Musk also dodges questions about other car companies.

It’s CEO 101.


I think Mary Barre did very well with answering the questions put to her. She led the conversation and essentially suggested that because the model 3 is a sports car it will be less practical than the Bolt and that the bolt is a big sensible affordable vehicle. This is a CEO doing their day job.

My personal feeling is that the interview was edited by GM media people or that the interview questions were supplied in advance as everything was very rehearsed and any controversial topics were avoided.

I can’t wait to get to the stage when we have a few more long range EV’s available globally there is plenty of room for a 200 mile Leaf, Bolt and Model 3.

My praise would be higher if they weren’t openly seeking to disrupt Tesla’s direct sales. GM deserves credit for making the most palatable BEV/PHEVs, IMO.

They listened when people complained about haptic, with Volt controls. Rather than gimp a car, they just won’t deliver or sell it.

GM is stuck with the dealership model. I don’t really blame them for supporting their dealers. I’m sure the dealers expect support from their manufacture on this issue.

Exactly. Your opinion is a rational and thoguht-out one that doesn’t require donning a tin-foil hat while screaming conspiracy. 😉

GM has no legal obligation to step into a hearing and challenge Tesla, for dealers or any one else. They argue for a level playing field, but want to dictate the pace at which we get to drive what we want.
GM: Minute 36:30

GM has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Hence they will fight to ensure another company doesn’t have an unfair competitive advantage.

They can’t argue the same model because it would alienate the only people that are legally allowed to sell its products. So they fight it instead.

No conspiracy here Just business 101

Glad to see you’re not blinded by your biases .

America has something called lawyers that have passed dracionian laws restricting the free market as to what manufactures can do…

Tesla is able to get around some of this since they are a new company and not one that has had ties to franchises for a hundred years that cant get out of even if they want too…

One thing, GM – I know you want to foster growth of the independent 3rd party EV charging industry and stick to building cars and EVs. BUT…at least make CCS charging hardware/software STANDARD in the Bolt, so they ALL can take advantage of that growing industry.

To make it an option allows 1st-time EV buyers and Chevy dealers’ ubiquitous say-anything-to-make-the-sale reps to make the wrong decision and pass-up on CCS to save a few bucks, thereby rendering their Bolt instantly obsolete and non-marketable on the re-sale market. Which means buyer’s remorse sob-stories that will play right into the anti-EV crowd’s mantras.

Don’t shoot yourself in the foot (again and again). Make CCS STANDARD!

Agreed, but have you seen anything that indicates it WON’t be standard?

I agree, making it standard would be the best approach.

If there is a large price difference between CCS and level 2 only models, I’ll take the L2 only.

No ccs chargers near me anyway. I plan no trips in the vehicle over 350 miles, since for those I’ll always have a phev.

I think this is why they should make it standard. You’re completely right to not want one because there’s no infrastructure you could utilize easily.

GM would be encouraging adoption by making it a standard option with the hope that the stations will follow. That would hopefully increase retail value, minimize any chance of surprise for less-informed owners, and enable unrestricted (err, less restricted) travel. It makes Bolt synonymous with no range anxiety. An optional port does not.

But if it is an option, like you I would be hard pressed to take it given the lack of infrastructure around here.

If it was $750 for the CCS combo over the plain level 2, I’d leave this option off.

I can hear it now:

Those who bought a 3.3 kw Leaf, or 3.3 kw barebones VW EV ARE AGAINST CHARGING!

Those who at this point in time do not buy CCS when available ARE AGAINST INFRASTRUCTURE!!!

I didn’t buy the $5000 Navigation package with the Roadster. THEREFORE, I must be against Navigation!

Side note:

I generally purchase a new car with ZERO options. The Roadster and ELR are recent examples. The Volt was loaded but I didn’t have the luxury of a choice in early 2011.

Seeing as I already drive essentially pretty much completely electrically, I am not forced into manufacturer’s ‘Take it or Leave it’ program.

If they fill it up with too much Glop that I don’t want, I’ll simply vote with my feet and I’ll see whats next.

Perhaps GM will eventually take the same path VW took with their EV and brought out a cost-reduced, feature-reduced model (eg. 3.3 kw charger) to increase sales.

In that case, I’ll wait for the lower price.

Why are you so anti-navigation? Haha! 🙂

I don’t really understand why they charge so much. Is it really that expensive of an add-on, or do they mark it up for dealer profit? My hope would be it wouldn’t add more than $200 to actual MSRP cost if it was “standard” but $750 is a bit much.

On the Spark EV it is a $750 option. I would expect similar pricing on the Bolt.
I wish they would bump it to 100 kW (like the IONIQ) instead of 50 Kw as planned. That would make it eminently more useful long term.

Past interviews have stated that they are considering higher than 50kW for Bolt. Has that changed?

Aside from some larger gauge wiring to the battery, there’s not much added cost for them. The real question is whether or not these models would end up benefiting from that capability. “Shoe me the 100kW chargers!” 😉

“what is different about the bolt from a Prius”…

I don’t know if the interviewer was playing stupid or really was stupid. That was a vapid interview. Better to get Mary to just give a talk, or perhaps substitute a sock puppet for the interviewer.

Most people don’t even know enough to ASK that question. I still talk to lots of people who think a Volt will leave them stranded when the battery runs out in 30 miles.

Thank Fox News for that one. Such patriots they are…


They were afraid Obama would get some credit for the GM bailout due to the Volt, so they decided to discredit it.

Bummer. 🙁

after the EV1 story,GM is dead for me my life long,no matter what they produce

Hope you don’t own any other major automaker’s cars either. They all built expensive impractical EVs for the premature CA mandate too, and they were also all crushed.

Tesla didn’t 😉

Hence my caveat of “major” automakers. In Tesla’s case, I guess the caveat could’ve also been “automakers in existence at the time” 😉

Pfff! Details!

Many were not crushed.

The only North American EV1 left in working order is parked in the basement of the Smithsonian Museum.

Others have been Stripped of Motor Controller and batteries. 2 or 3 stripped ones given to Universities have been brought back to life, but have beed advised by GM there were not to be driven on public or private roads!

I am surprised none of the Universities with an EV1 that works, have not set abought doing a full reverse engineering 3D scan of the whole car and each of its parts, with a plan to make a 110% scale copy of the car, so this new scale copy would be theirs, “Built from the research done on the GM EV1, but a totaly new vehicle”, that they could drive anywhere.

Robert, GM has no say in the EV1 as that company is dead.
I too was pissed as GM crushed both most EV1, E-10, AND HONDA crushed theirs.
But GM has come around with the Volt and now Bolt so I no longer hate them.

Yeah, that’s really awful that GM built an electric car in the 90s. They should never have even tried to use NiMH tech in an EV.

Worse to try and fail than to never try at all.

The EV1 didn’t fail, it was murdered.

The EV1 was TOTALLY impractical for mass consumption. EV tech simply wasn’t ready for a full EV car. I wish GM had stuck with it but to fault the Bolt for GM’s decision to axe the EV1 makes zero sense.

Per “The EV1 was TOTALLY impractical for mass consumption.”; to be closer to the truth, you should add ‘Lead Acid’ in that pitch, since the NiMH variant got more AER than the current SV or SL Leaf with the 30 kWh battery, at 120 to 140 miles range. Plus the EV1 was not a single car, they only leasd the 2 seat variant, but they had Panamara like strech versions that seat 4, were PHEV’s, and more.

If they had not got their nose out of joint at CARB, and instead carried on in a small PEV leadership mode, the NiMH could have moved smoothly over to Lithium as it came out a decade later, and Tesla would have not had a position to fill, as EV’s would have been available. GM’s crushing of the EV1 was a motivating factor in the development of Tesla Motors. So GM’s bad actually has done us all good; if you like what Tesla Motors has created, time to thank GM for helping to create them!

” NiMH could have moved smoothly over to Lithium as it came out a decade later,”

Why would it smoothly move over? Their cell voltage aren’t the same, neither are their charging and discharging characteristic. Not to mention the energy and power density.

The form and factors are also different. EV1 was very impractical as a vehicle. It also cost GM a lot of money to make at the time which has a tons of unique parts that cost a fortune. It will never get the volume where a 4 door 5 seater midsize sedan would.

It only beats LEAF in range due to its extra efficient low drag which resulting in a very questionable styling.

The EV1 failed and the EV crowd that refuse to admit it are just fooling themselves. Lead-acid wasn’t up to the task and the later NiMH were way too expensive and still too heavy. EVs were just not technically ready at the time. And combine that with the fact that gasoline prices were hitting a nadir around 1997 to 1999 when it was released.

GM should have kept working on EVs but there was no possibility of the EV1 being a commercial success or even close to profitable.

after owning a Volt I am sure the Bolt will be a nice car with good reliability. My only vripe is that its over priced. 29k is more like it.

Well, Georges, if you live in CA the Volt is selling for around $28k. Everywhere else, it is more like $32k on Truecar. Those prices do net out fairly nice after the tax credit.

He was talking about the Bolt EV.

Argh. I saw what I expected. I can’t imagine the Bolt at $29k so I thought the post was about the Volt, at a price I wish it was at right about now.
But a 200+ mile BEV for less than $30k would be a very, very nice price point.

But, but, but, it’s the first “affordable” 200 mile electric car…

Will be the first 200 mile BEV below $60k…no, $50k….wait, $40k anyways (before incentives).

It will be $29K with Federal Tax incentives and GM’s loyalty or conquest cash.

In CA, you will get another $2500 on top to push the Bolt down to only $26.5K.

My wife and I currently drive a 2015 LEAF and 2012 Volt: the LEAF is leased and the Volt is owned. We have reservations for two Model ≡’s, but will probably lease a Bolt when our LEAF lease is up at the end of next year. While our hopes are high that Tesla will be able to get the Model ≡ produced in reasonable quantities, reasonably quickly, we don’t expect to be able to take delivery prior to 2018 at the earliest. We probably could extend the lease on the LEAF to bridge that gap, but unless the terms are incredible, it just wouldn’t be worth it to us. The Bolt seems poised to do everything our LEAF does, while greatly expanding our options. We never drive more than 400 miles in one day: even that is two or three times each year; otherwise, we take trips of about 100 – 150 miles every few weeks. With a good destination charger, we’d only need one QC along the way (in worst case scenarios) with the Bolt on most of our trips. A 30 minute stop to get back even 80 miles would be acceptable for us. For now, we take… Read more »

Bolt == Leaf Killer, Model III == Bolt Killer.

Based on form factor, I’d buy a Bolt long before a Model 3. There is also that other wrinkle about how reliable the Volt has been (which I would expect to carry-over into the Bolt) vs the Model S/X. Tesla could mitigate a lot of that by putting in less automated gadgetry, but the form factor (sedan, limited utility) is a non-starter for many people.

Apparently it is not a non-starter for 400k people, though for me logically Bolt would be a better choice, but then again I am not most people and do not ascribe my tastes to others, as some are want to do.

My point is that it was simplistic to state that the Model 3 is a Bolt killer. Of course there are many different people who want different vehicles. Cheers.

I am one of those 400K Model 3 reservation holder. But that doesn’t mean that I am interested in the Bolt.

If Bolt takes $1K refundable reservation, I would have put my $1K in Bolt as well…

Bolt is actually going to be easier to get in/out and 200 miles is sufficient for me without infrastructure.

“Apparently it is not a non-starter for 400k people”

Plenty of those 400K reservation holder are looking at the Bolt at least in the US.

The rest of the world don’t know or won’t get the Bolt.

The rest of the world don’t know or won’t get the Bolt. — ModernMarvelFan

Actually Europe is getting it under another name. At least the first year

Or…Bolt is the little Brother, trying to work hard, while Model 3 is the Sexy Sister, able to get free drinks at the (Supercharger) bar!

The ONLY chance they have to “take on” Tesla is to deploy 100K Bolts for Lyft in major metro markets…Ah, I just love how delusional they are; keep on bringing out EVs without garage door openers…

What are you going to do with the garage door openers that comes with your garage door?

Throw them away? What a waste!

Buy a new garage door opener so you can open it with your phone.

Small CUV priced at $30K post subsidy with acceleration of $25K gas car, and it’s a city car due to lack of charging infrastructure? I have my doubts how well it will sell. If it sells as well as Volt, I’d be surprised.

“with acceleration of $25K gas car”
I’m guessing there’s not a production gas car, for $25k, that will beat a Bolt 0-30mph

Oh, and it will be 1 second faster to 60 than your Spark EV. Most people say the Spark EV is fun to drive.

They are fun to drive! And cheap as hell currently.

In MD, a dealer is selling a $27k MSRP Spark EV for $19k….subtract $7,500 fed credit and $2,300 MD credit, and you’re looking at well under $10k for a new Spark OTD.

I’m in the Seattle area and there are similar deals for the Spark EV south of me in Portland, OR. Tempting – I need a new commuter car.

While Bolt at $30K is uncompetitive, SparkEV even at $18K IS competitive. If (when?) Bolt comes down to $25 post subsidy, it could be “decent”. Until then, I’m saving up for Tesla 3. I may have to get another SparkEV to hold me over, but not much interest in Bolt at proposed pricing. I guess we’ll see how lease prices will go.

Spark EV production stops in August. If you want another one, keep that in mind.

Lots of off-lease used will come to market when my lease is up. I hate to buy used EV, but I won’t be taking Tesla 3 for few years after they come out for them to work out the bugs.

Speaking of out of production, Early June had autotrader listing about 500 SparkEV. Today it stands at 360, about 140 a week. It looks like about 500 will sell in June if inventory keeps up.

Spark EV will say a base ’16 Camaro beats the Bolt 0-30!

But….it’s a freaking Camaro. Lol sliiiightly different class vehicle.

Camaro, sure. But I will say GTI, WRX as two prime examples with WRX having AWD which Bolt won’t even have option for AFAIK.

GTI starts at $26K and WRX at $27K.

Neither is under $25K as you originally claimed.

It will be interesting to see where the Bolt EV ends up on this chart. If it’s faster than the Gen 2 Volt, it could be approaching Tesla’s faster numbers.

“Small CUV priced at $30K post subsidy with acceleration of $25K gas car”

I don’t know too many $25K car that does 0-60mph less than 7 seconds and also has the same interior volume as the Bolt…

I think you found a niche for Bolt! I look at the car, not the fact that it’s EV. Considering CUV performance, it’s not bad at all. However, WRX would offer more bang for the buck with AWD. It’s really too bad Bolt doesn’t have AWD option.

WRX cost at $27K starting.

Not your $25K threshold.

All this GM hate is looney. If the Bolt’s reliability is similar to the Volt’s then it will be among the most reliable cars on the road. That’s something people all to often forget when discussing affordable EVs. Sure, a stripped down base Model 3 might be about the same cost as a Bolt, but the actual ownership cost will be far higher due to repairs. Warranty repairs? Factor in the time required to drive to a Tesla service center. Of course, once the warranty runs out the owner is showered in repair bills.

My only gripe about the Bolt is that GM doesn’t understand style and passion. When I look at a Model 3 it inspires lust. When I look at a Bolt it inspires nothing. My admiration for the Bolt is entirely cerebral.

Cerebral would choose 3 over Bolt. 3 is quicker, more efficient (cheaper energy), can tow. Bolt as FWD most likely won’t tow much, if at all. Only thing better is bigger rear opening.

Not so fast…

Bolt is cheaper and readily available in six months. Reliability will likely be at the Toyota-level. Layout is likely better for cargo but that remains to be seen. I understand the rear seats don’t fully fold flat for some inane reason.

Tesla Model 3 will be a rolling junkyard. Basically all the early buyers are signing up to be beta testers. And you’re stuck with a sedan which isn’t as practical as a crossover for some people.

I’ve owned some nice cars that were unreliable. In my experience there is nothing that can make up for a car being a junker. Who cares what a car looks like or how fast it goes when you have to regularly take off work to get it repaired?

Tesla cannot even control quality on a low volume car like the X. When they ramp up production by an order of magnitude expect the worst…

I fully expect Tesla 3 to have reliability issues initially. But that will get sorted out in few years, which is why I’m in no rush for it. $30K is a lot of money, especially for a car that can’t tow. Home depot trips could be done with Tesla 3 and trailer rather than gas truck.

Then the question will be, will Chevy come out with Bolt 2.0 that can compete (aka, kick butt like SparkEV did) and even help spread 150 kW CCS? Compared to what could be (or should’ve been), current Bolt is not appealing.

“Chevy come out with Bolt 2.0 that can compete (aka, kick butt like SparkEV did)”

I find that statement very biased but not surprising considering your name here.

Bolt is already kicking butt in terms of size/performance/capacity/Charging speed compared with Spark EV.

If you are planning to wait few years, after initial beta level Model 3, you may as well plan for Bolt 3.0, Leaf 3.0, e-Golf, Honda and a dozen of different battery or fuel cell cars by that time 😉 If you are talking about first half of 2017, there is only one real 200 mile battery car below $40k – Bolt. Maybe Leaf 2/IDS will follow in 2017, but who knows really. Reliable Model 3 is some distant future and it certainly will not be $35k just like Model S is not $50k.

“When I look at a Model 3 it inspires lust”

Sorry, I disagree. Model S is sexy.

Model X is ugly. Model 3 is the child of the two… It looks good in some angles but ugly in others…

They are the nightmare of BMW i3 I don’t think the i3 will survive a 200 miles chipper car arguably better looking.

BMW i3 is quite different car. It is younger brother in BMW family, but by some aspects it is at totally different level from Bolt. The range of i3 will increase as well, GM doesn’t have some exclusive battery tech, just few months lead time in the US maybe.

The number of CCS that the Bolt can use is growing very, very quickly. There are now forty eight CCS stations in Texas alone, last November there were zero. The argument that there is no DCFC infrastructure for the Bolt is losing validity. I’ve been doing a lot of studying on how I could travel to and through the states surrounding Texas using the 200 range of the Bolt and the existing CCS stations. I have concluded that efficient travel is possible with proper planning. Additional DCFC stations are still desired but long distance travel in the Bolt should be very practical. Last time I drove my EV from East Texas to Central Colorado it took almost four days, about 90 hours of traveling time and that was pushing 24 hours a day. Utilizing the 200 mile range of the Bolt I figure it would take me less than 48 hours including two overnight stays to charge. Although some people may disagree, the east and west coasts appear to have very good CCS infrastructure. There are still some big patches without CCS going west from Texas to California, Oregon and Washington but those can be negotiated with overnight charging stays.… Read more »

That may be true, though your dream could turn into a nightmare. Still for me Bolt is a reasonable effort as a city runabout.

I have experience traveling long distances by EV. With my FFE I pretty much had to choose the next closest charging location which occasionally did turn into a nightmare. The 200 mile range of the Bolt will allow you to be much more selective about where you charge and hopefully allow you to avoid most nightmares.

It will certainly only get better. I was just knocking the cross country thing. Of course if you go anywhere in Texas it is almost going across country, and you won’t have to wait too long. Exciting times. Oh and hope all is well is down there in the Lonestar State.

Floodin’ down in Texas:

Problem is location, not the number. CA has hundreds of DCFC, yet you can’t travel east-west in most of CA with 200 miles range EV.

One thing I fear about CCS/Chademo in their current form is that 200 miles range EV will make them used much less. Then they won’t make as much money as current crop of EV that need more DCFC. Will they lose even more money? Something has to be done, or they might all become government property. And we know how competent government can be.

“Problem is location, not the number. CA has hundreds of DCFC, yet you can’t travel east-west in most of CA with 200 miles range EV.”

You can get from SF to Lake Tahoe or LA to LV.

Other than that, what other EAST-WEST thing do Californian do? They certainly don’t care much about NV or AZ as far as most of them are concerned.

You mention couple of popular places, but most of CA is not covered. Many will want to go camping at Mt. Whitney (among many others in east CA) with a small trailer of camping gear, not take the gas car.

I look at Teslasupercharger map, and while they number few, they are oh so useful!

“You mention couple of popular places, but most of CA is not covered. Many will want to go camping at Mt. Whitney (among many others in east CA) with a small trailer of camping gear, not take the gas car.

I look at Teslasupercharger map, and while they number few, they are oh so useful!”

Now you are just cherry picking.

Yes, SC at Lone Pine is nice for your Whitney trip. But Bolt will get you to Lone Pine from LA just fine. No problem at all with its 200miles+ range.

Assuming you aren’t doing day trip, you will find destination charging at lone pine and get you back home. Sure, it isn’t as good as TODAY’s SC. But that is about 6 months before BOLT launches. That lone pine station didn’t even exist in the first year after Model S launches.

So, give it until next year and see if that spot is covered and by time Model S is out, you can re-check it again.

It’s over 200 miles from Los Angeles to Lone Pine, and over some significant mountains. The high speeds will hurt quite a bit, too. I don’t think you’ll make it in a Bolt without charging.

“It’s over 200 miles from Los Angeles to Lone Pine”

201 miles according to Google map. If you stop at Victorville to “top off” your Bolt, then it is only 161 miles to Lone Pine. So, it is more than doable.

Same applies to the 215 miles Model 3 that needs some top off…

Who the heck goes to lone pine for vacation? Some people are just plain tards.

Those people who want to climb Mt. Whitney (tallest peak in the lower 48) or the John Muir trails (southern tip starts/end at Mt. Whitney)?

Really wish this site had a plus 1 option.

Will never be an exciting car with those looks

The concept looked cool but of course they went conservative and ruined the production version.

She thinks too much.

Or you think too little of GM, eh? Could that be a possibility?

Nice car but the charging infrastructure just isn’t there. I’m not able to charge at home.

If you can’t charge at home, then NO EVs for you that includes TEsla since they don’t allow you to use SC for home charging.

No battery cars make sense for people who can’t charge at their parking location at cheap enough electric rate.

Get a hybrid or hydrogen car if you really want something electrified.

The thing I keep coming back to is… The Bolt is a real EV that can go 200 miles and will be available much earlier than the Tesla. Its gotta be there in order for you to buy it, GM will have the market for several months before the first Tesla rolls off the line. How many times have we read in the comments section of EV articles ‘I am going to lease a Bolt while I wait for my Tesla’. Am I the only one seeing value in that? Bolt will be a good product.Its in GM’s best interest to produce a good product. It will be available nationwide in locations familiar with current car consumers. Tesla leads the market but they do not own the market. Tesla should be worried… several customers will be leasing a Bolt before the Tesla… this gives them months and months of test driving and potentially a positive experience… Imagine if the Bolt served you well as you waited for your Tesla, you get to the end of your lease and the residual is low enough… that would mean signifcant value. A used 200mile bolt for 20k-25k vs a brand new Tesla somewhere… Read more »

Its called CAPITALISM….

There will be plent of CCS chargers in a couple or several years…
Probably a lot more than Tesla has superchargers…

If you ignortantly bash every electric car not made by Tesla you might just want to stick to a Tesla website and not one for all evs…

GM, Ford and Chrysler are united in the SAE fast charge standard CCS. But the 50kw charging limit is too slow for a 200mi car. Unfortunately, they must all agree to a new higher power standard, and anyone who builds out the infrastructure is enabling the others to skate in for free…
And any infrastructure will need Car mfg funding since there are not sufficient e-cars to justify most locations yet. Also, Most chargers are free, and I would expect that charges will eventually cost about the same as gasoline.
Why aren’t Utilities funding the infrastructure?

Utilities aren’t funding the infrastructure because it is not (currently) a profitable market. Very few people are willing to pay the equivalent of $8/gal gasoline to fuel their car.

I certainly hope that GM is successful with the Bolt. It’s always better to have more car manufacturers making and selling fully electric cars. On the other hand she has to overcome the inertia of the dealer network which makes most of their profits from the service work. Electric cars need almost no service, and so that income stream dries up. GM, like all the other car companies have outsourced almost every part of their cars. The only core engineering competencies they keep in-house are the engine and transmission. Those competencies are irrelevant for electric cars. The Bolt was developed in a partnership with a South Korean electronics company although some GM engineers were involved in the design and testing for the Bolt. The one major asset which Mary Barra and GM have is experience with manufacturing and delivering large numbers of cars. It’s clear that they can build the Bolt in large numbers. It’s less clear whether they can power through the inertia of the rest of GM which still makes a lot of money selling gasoline and diesel powered cars, and the probable luke-warm reception from their dealer network. If not, they will probably follow the pattern of… Read more »

“The only core engineering competencies they keep in-house are the engine and transmission. Those competencies are irrelevant for electric cars.”

Stupid myth that got repeated by a bunch of EV supporter who doesn’t know anything about cars.

Steering and Chassis are equally important to cars. Those are all designed in house by GM. Not to mention safety.

Engine/transmission aren’t the only thing to make cars.

Why do you think CODA failed? Certainly not because its electric motor or battery, but because its crappy chassis, ride and body.

Uh . . . no. It was not a “Stupid myth that got repeated by a bunch of EV supporter who doesn’t know anything about cars.” It was an assertion by Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat/Chrysler.

“He warned the adoption of electric technology risked continuing the process that he called “disintermediation”, under which carmakers have gradually lost control over elements of a vehicle’s contents to suppliers.

“It’s been a very steady, rigorous process of disintermediation,” said Mr Marchionne.

Having initially manufactured all their own components, carmakers currently retain primary control of making only vehicles’ powertrains — their engines and transmissions — he added.

“If we start losing any of that . . . we will not be able to hang on to any proprietary knowledge and control of that business,” said Mr Marchionne. “We won’t be manufacturing the batteries. We won’t be manufacturing the electric motors that are part of that powertrain.””

So you trust that idiot that is running FCA?

He is complaining.

Today you don’t need engine and transmission knowledge either.

How many times you hear about a pickup trucks that got Cumin diesel and Allison transmission?

Exactly! They already outsourced that key pieces. Most automakers today are already moving to high end specialized supplier model even since Ford and GM both spun off their component makers in the 90s. It is all about system integration these days..

Auto industry is moving toward Phone or personal electronic industry.

Apple is using the same off shelves parts that other major phones are using, but they aren’t iPhone!


But GMs problem is they don’t have the software engineering to make the “iPhone”.

That is the part that Tesla does have. If you look at infotainment UI design and vehicle software architecture, Tesla is in a league of their own.

GM is partnering with those who has SW or knowledge.

LG is helping with the dash and GM bought Lyft and sidecar and other self driving car company…

GM even wanted to buy battery makers if its investment actually worked (it didn’t so it sold all its stakes)…

Steering and chassis design are important but clearly Tesla figured out how to do that well. So clearly GM and the other car companies don’t have either monopolies or trade secrets around those skill sets.

The CODA is an interesting comparison because they tried to go directly to producing a low priced car akin to a Nissan Leaf. Tesla started at the top end and made cars which had longer range and far better performance. Even so Tesla went through a near-death experience. Starting a car company is a risky and not for the faint-hearted.

Getting the model 3 done and shipping won’t be easy, and I expect the Tesla folks will have to solved quite a few engineering problems and to respond to a long set of supply chain crises. However they seemed to have managed pretty well thus far.

“Steering and chassis design are important but clearly Tesla figured out how to do that well. So clearly GM and the other car companies don’t have either monopolies or trade secrets around those skill sets.”

Well the same can be said for transmission and engines. Apparently, every automaker manages to make both themselves…

Tesla’s handling is known to be “numb”. But due to its low center of gravity, so the handling is decent due to lower/flatter ride.

“The CODA is an interesting comparison because they tried to go directly to producing a low priced car akin to a Nissan Leaf.”

CODA didn’t figure out the ride/steering/chassis/body at all. Even though it blew away LEAF in terms of acceleration and range.

So, I guess it isn’t as simple as it sounds…

The entire point about building the car is about “power train” is just silly IMO.

The tesla fanboys vs everyone else …. Priceless. Every time Bolt article comes out, it’s the same predictable BS in the comments. Smarten up people.

Why do the fanboys keep saying that you need supercharging network? Baffles me every time I read it …. It was needed when range was low. It’s not needed when range is 200 miles plus. Tesla had to do it to attract the pedestrian adopters. I bet in 10 years, they will sell the supercharging network to a utility, if they around long enough making good cars. Which is really what they should focus on.

You don’t NEED it. You can live without it. I’ve been driving a sub 100 mile EV with no DC fast-charging for years now.

That said, I have had times where I had to borrow cars from others or use ZIPcar.

With a Model 3 and Supercharger access, I can have 1 car and never need to borrow/rent an ICE. And that will make things more convenient for me.

So, you are willing to pay $2500 for the access to SC instead of renting a car occasionally?

That is assuming the route that you are going doesn’t have CCS and have SC. That already limited the case to a few very narrow routes across the country and use case.

Convenience pays.

I’m cheering on the Bolt as much as someone that has a Model 3 reservation can. I really want the Bolt to be a huge success . . . but I’ll wait for the Model 3 since it suits my needs more.

That is totally fine.

I would agree with it.

If I could, I would put reservation on both. But only Tesla takes my money right now.

But the rest of “bashing/hatred” toward the Bolt is just mind boggling.


Always plenty of non-Tesla bashers.
Bolt does quite a lot and will our hope with fill in nicely for us to replace the Spark+CRV effectively.

We’ll still get the Model 3 to replace our Fiat+G37 and nearly complete the conversion to EV. (only remains our Gas loving Odyssey).

I always wonder why people love the tesla network for a sedan. I wonder how many teslas go outside their home driving range and the frequency of use of those stations.

Based on all these model S for sale, they don’t travel that much. 2 year old model S with sub 20,000 miles didn’t travel that much. I think the supercharger is just a security blanket.

Cheer the Bolt.

However, SCREAM at the dealers to not screw this up. They are the main problem in the effort of GM to actually sell a good number of EVs. Some Volt buyers bought their first GM product after some decade(s) long period of staying away. Many Volt buyers might not buy a Bolt if they see dealerships not supporting it – much like many non-CA dealers rarely offer good Volt support service (if they were event kept in the Volt program).

You can BET that some dealers will screw it up for sure!

That is what they do.

But EV buyers tend to more informed and those set their minds on the car will buy it regardless of how bad the dealers are since it will be rare that they will see them again.

You are right on here.

After trying to lease a Volt in Houston a couple yeas ago, the Bolt is basically off my list. I know it will be nearly impossible to get one to begin with. If I can find a dealer with one, it will be difficult to buy it. And servicing it will be a long shot at best.

The local Nissan dealership is much more supportive of the LEAF so far. And Tesla of course supports their vehicles (maybe more often than desired sometimes). So I am probably sitting on my Model 3 reservation unless LEAF 2.0 is awesome and available here first.

Well if the Bolt has good quality, why would you ever visit your dealer again after the paper is signed?

EVs don’t need any services at dealership unless it is recall or warranty repairs…

An article that is positive about Chevy and the Bolt. So therefor the Tesla fan boys need to break out their talking points. Let’s see how many we can find in the comments.

1) Chevy wont build a preparatory charging network.
2) It a compliance car. Despite it being released nationally.
3) It is ugly.
4) Dealerships won’t sell it.
5) Chevy has said they are only going to make 30,000 of them. Despite several source saying they could make 50,000 in the US if volume supports it and even at 30,000 EV that will make it one of the highest selling EV inside the US to date.

And no matter what it must get compared to the model 3 even though it design hasn’t been finalized and nothing but concept cars have been show yet.

They can’t help it. It’s part of Tesla’s not so secret masterplan.

I agree Robert… I love how all EV’s today and in the near future get compared to the Tesla 3 that isn’t fully released yet. Its comparing reality to prototype and ‘goals’ right now. I think most of it is accurate… but is it? It makes for weak arguments and for some reason people give Tesla a free pass and a bunch of faith… and discredit all other automakers… its just amazing how drunk people are on the Kool-Aid… as time goes on they get more and more confident and take some really weak positions.

A laugh.


People need to understand that in order for EVs to do better, we need both Model 3 and the Bolt.

They are aimed at two different segment of the market. We should push for both to sell well that it would prove to the auto makers that there are demands and we need more.

This kind of stupid bashing of one against another is just silly.

I think so too, but if you even make a slight criticism of a GM product, or GM in general, you are a hater. For my particular situation I actually favor the Bolt.

The same applies to Tesla. If you say anything “negative” against it, you are either a short seller or an ICE/oil shrill…

It is just a car, not a freaking cult religion…

Since I was criticized earlier about GM’s Profitabiltity, GM just did itself a HUGE FAVOR with its “Real People – Not Actors” Ads.

It is EXTREMELY compelling.

The latest has a group of truck owners standing around a New Silverado, and F-150.

A loader dumps landscaping bricks into both trucks: the Chevy’s Steel bed get superficial scratches. The F-150 gets holes in the bed and an actual SPLIT – which the truck owners (unscripted) discover for themselves.

Then they dump a tool box ito both beds. Again, superficial scratch for the chevy – and a hole puncture for the f-150.

One truck owner said the “BUILT FORD TOUGH” motto needs to be changed.

Silverado sales WERE down 0.1% and F150’s up 7% last month.

I dare say if anyone sees this commercial, FORD has a very big problem to address.

I know this isn’t about EV’s but GM must keep their highest markup vehicles selling well to enable their dabbling in the EV business, and coming out with game-changing cars as a result.

Mary must be very impressed with this ad firm.

Facts rarely sway people’s opinion of anything in the US.

Case in point: relative low EV sales or popularity of Trump.

MMF: Your comment could apply to the more vocal commenters here.

Of course it is more fun to like the car with the HIGHEST Tech, or fastest 0-60.

Me? I want a car that is RELIABLE, and all the mundane aspects of the car will work just fine when called upon to do so.

I want doors that work in any kind of weather, suspensions that do not have to be babied, and constantly $$$ fiddled with, and If I was buying a truck in this case, a lowly BED that worked for me day in and day out.

So my cars have old-fashioned chargers (3.3 kw), no fast charging, and old fashioned 4 cylinder engines. That just so happen to help some of the cars go 300,000 miles with no overhaul.