GM Re-Confirms Chevrolet Bolt EV To Ship To Dealers In Q4 2016


Chevrolet Bolt EV

Chevrolet Bolt EV

2017 Chevy Bolt Arrives In Q4, GM Says It Will Have More Than 200 Miles Of Range

2017 Chevy Bolt Arrives In Q4, GM Says It Will Have More Than 200 Miles Of Range

GM has re-confirmed this week that only a few months are left before the first deliveries of the company’s Chevrolet Bolt EV get underway to dealerships in the 4th quarter.

With an estimated range of over 200 miles (320 km) under EPA tests, the Bolt EV will be priced at around $30,000 after $7,500 federal tax credit. (GM is expected to announce official pricing and specs shortly)

General Motors Co. North America President Alan Batey re-confiremed the car and GM’s intentions on Wednesday, saying:

“We’re pioneering here with a product that the world’s never seen,”

Indeed, and for once this isn’t your typical automaker hyperbole, an affordable 200-mile electric car is truly a product not yet available anywhere in the global market yet, should lead the next generation of plug-ins sales to the next level.

The Chevrolet Bolt EV will be produced in Orion Assembly Plant in Orion Township and to be available in all 50 states (although not initially). It’s not know how many Bolts EV GM intends to sell annually – the consensus from analysts and GM’s own suppliers seems to indicate a level of about 25,000 once production is optimized.

“This is on the leading edge of technology. This is preparing ourselves for tomorrow and the future. This isn’t going to be the best-selling vehicle. It was never designed to be our best selling. This was designed for us to be able to get out, to be able to real world, to continue our leadership.”

source: The Detroit News

Category: Chevrolet

Tags: , , ,

81 responses to "GM Re-Confirms Chevrolet Bolt EV To Ship To Dealers In Q4 2016"
  1. jmac says:

    The Gm spokesman makes statements to the effect that GM plans to make 25,000 Bolt, maybe, and that there will be another agonizing state by state roll-out and the fact that the GM spokesman just flat out says that the car is not expected to be a best seller.

    These are all, not so subtle, clues that Chevy is not really serious about the car.

    Nevertheless, Bring It On….Welcome aboard you half-hearted slackers at GM.

    1. Ordinary Guy says:

      Or maybe they’re trying to be realistic? You have to remember that this is a sub-compact selling at nearly $40K base price (prior to incentives). A comparable ICE would run nearly 1/2 the price.

      I personally think that a 25K yearly estimate is very smart. If it sells better, awesome.

      1. Rob Stark says:

        Very smart would be making a compelling enough $37,500 vehicle that it sells 400k global units per year.

        If the Bolt EV is not that then price it so that does attract 400k buyers per year.

        General Motors is a mass market automaker is it not?

        1. sven says:

          You want GM to price the Bolt so that it sells each one at a huge loss? GM is a for-profit company is it not?

          1. Bacardi says:

            Not what he’s saying at all…Either keep the price the same and use a more “compelling” platform and feature set or utilize those awesome GM engineers to get the MSRP to $29,995…Keep the original $37,500 in LT trim and make a ECO version (like the Cruze) by cutting features…While a stripped $29K Bolt sounds even less compelling, you can at least advertise “Bolt EV, starting at $29,995″…

          2. mx9000 says:

            Everyone knows the prices is padded by the federal tax credit of $7500. If they really wanted to sell a lot, they’d start dropping that padding.

            1. Rich says:

              +1 I couldn’t have said it better.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Rob Stark said:

          “Very smart would be making a compelling enough $37,500 vehicle that it sells 400k global units per year.

          “If the Bolt EV is not that then price it so that does attract 400k buyers per year.”

          GM’s best-selling gasmobile, the Silverado pickup truck, sold 669,683 units in 2015. So I suppose it’s not impossible for GM to sell 400,000 Bolts worldwide.

          But altho I’d love to see them try, I do understand why GM is being cautious about making its first BEV in large quantities, because the Volt was over-produced in its first few model years, so GM had to idle Volt production for a few additional weeks each summer during those years.

          However, even if GM wanted to make that many, it wouldn’t be able to. There’s no source for that many batteries, and GM isn’t yet moving to secure its own battery supply by building its own battery factories.

          We’ll know if and when GM becomes serious about making and selling large numbers of long-range plug-in EVs; we’ll know because they’ll move to build their own battery factories, as BYD and Nissan have done, and as Tesla is now doing.

          And until GM does that, we’ll know they are not serious about producing long-range PEVs in large numbers.

      2. jmac says:

        When Musk said that the M3 was probably going to be the cheapest car Tesla ever made, I realized what I always knew in the back of my head, that Tesla is basically a luxury car maker and that they will never build the “people’s car”. (along the lines of the Bolt)

        I am quite all right with that. After all, Mercedes and BMW are basically luxury car makers. When the smoke clears two years from now, the Model-3 will likely end up as an entry level luxury car.

        The fact that Tesla is a luxury car maker doesn’t bother me. However, building luxury automobiles for the wealthy is not going to accomplish Musk’s stated goal of converting America’s car fleet to electric.

        With the vast majority of car buyers unable to afford a Tesla luxury car, the transportation sector will never turn over and electric cars will never prevail over the less expensive ICE.

        Tesla has made the case for the advantages of an electric drive-train. That said, Tesla Motors will likely never produce a car that everybody can afford. Tesla may have kicked off this revolution, but they will not be the ones to complete it.

        So, bring on the Bolt…. because in all likelihood Tesla will never produce an affordable EV for the masses.

        1. a-kindred-soul says:

          Well, here in Europe the smaller BMWs and Audis sell very well and although they are entry lever “luxury cars”, they have created a huge second hand market for the people who are not so well off.

          Model 3 can do that too. They will be very desirable second hand cars. And people buying second hand EVs are electrifying transport as much as people buying new EVs.

          1. sven says:

            Unfortunately, owning a Tesla out of warranty is not for the faint of heart and not for those with shallow pockets.

            1. TeV says:

              Any proof to support that statement (which absolutely reeks of utter BS since most, if not all, Teslas are probably still under warranty at this point)?

              And no, anecdotal tales of in-warranty repairs do not count, the same way they wouldn’t count with any other car-maker you conveniently fail to judge as harshly as Tesla.

              1. Bacardi says:

                Look no further than consumer reports…OEM warranty is 4/50K, while I’d imagine the majority are within warranty there are plenty that are out of it especially the 2013 which have higher odds of having problems…The original door handles had a high rate of failure, they’re now upgraded to a second generation, it’s been reported as high as $1500 to replace and as low as $900…Drive units are $15K along with the center screen dying are the most common issues with the S…Then there are constant articles about poor reliability of the model X…

                I am a fan of Tesla and reserved a TM3 as soon as online orders opened up for the record…

              2. wavelet says:

                Proof? Well, hopefully things will change with the Model 3, but I suspect they won’t:
                — Tesla will not sell most spare parts direct to owners

                — Tesla will not service itself or sell any parts whatsoever for “salvage”-title car (basically, one which was deemed total loss by insurance after an accident), unless it undergoes a $$$ Tesla safety inspection and the owner signs a very wide waiver. This is true even if the owner has no intention of driving in public streets or registering it for on-road use.

                — Service manuals for the cars are not available anywhere for people who might want to work on their own cars… With one exception: Massachussetts, because they a state law that mandates the availability of such manuals. One niggling detail: It costs $3000/year (IIRC, you can also rent it by the hour for $200 or so).
                Oh, and that doesn’t include the SW or HW that’s actually necessary to do repairs on the SW-controlled car.
                — Parts are $$$ ($1200 for a door handle). Might be OK on a near-new car, but what about 10 years down the road?

                Anyone concerned about the environment shoudl be concerned about throwaway cars, which is what Tesla is currently building. Now, the other high-end carmakers are no better, but they have a lot less pretensions about saving the planet.

          2. mx9000 says:

            Exactly. That’s what the lease market is doing, too, in the USA.
            You can lease for three years, have the Federal Tax Credit deducted from the lease payments, and then, if you like the car, you can buy it.

            Or, better yet, lease a new one, because the tech will have advanced.

            But, this builds a great used car market.

          3. carcus says:

            If you’re holding onto hope of a used Tesla being the everyman’s EV solution, … there is a primary indicator which we have not seen yet.

            The battery pack replacement cost. With an 8 year warranty, we won’t see that number until at least 2020 or 2021.

            Beyond that, Tesla will essentially have total control of the “refurbed Tesla” market because of all the software. They can “decontent” the car (autopilot features, supercharging, etc…) at anytime they choose. So owning a used older Tesla means that you have total faith that the company will support you, and not disable or require repetitive expensive inspections/updates.

            And utilizing an aftermarket battery pack (if one was even available) would be a huge risk, because Tesla will likely not work on a car with a non-Tesla pack. I would not want to own a car as technical as the Tesla (or any car these days, really) without the security of knowing that I could go to the dealer for service if I had to.

            1. carcus says:

              IOW, there are still independent shops and aftermarket parts for your used BMW or Audi, and the Audi/Bmw dealerships will not (usually) turn you away if you’ve utilized them.

              With Tesla, we don’t know yet but I HIGHLY suspect they will not touch the car if they think anyone but their reps have been into the software, the wiring harness, the computers, or the batteries. AND they can lock you out of supercharging, software updates, use of certain features, etc…. at any time they choose.

              I suspect Tesla will have near total control of the aftermarket on their used cars.

              1. Rightofthepeople says:

                It will be interesting to see beyond 2020 how Tesla handles pack replacements, or even how many pack replacements are necessary. So far the data seems to show Tesla’s packs are very hearty, with little degradation so far (especially when compared to the well known Leaf issues).
                But some of your other comments lead me to believe you perceive Tesla as being very uncaring about its customers and its long term reputation. I don’t own a Tesla (yet) but my impression based on everything I have read (including feedback from their current customers) is that Tesla does care very much about its customers and wants to protect its reputation to build loyalty and trust. Time will tell.

        2. Marshal Giggleman says:

          “So, bring on the Bolt…. because in all likelihood Tesla will never produce an affordable EV for the masses.”

          You do realize the Bolt starts at $37,500 and the Tesla M3 starts at $35,000 right?

          1. Bacardi says:

            The only catch is Tesla will have a destination charge, currently $1200 for a S/X…Yet the Tesla’s price will be fixed, expect zero discounts, but probably some sort referral credit of other Tesla products…GM on the other-hand will continue to offer discounts (MY16 Premiers were 20% off earlier last month and some were able to get another 20% off the sale price along with $1000 private offer)…In summary, you will be able to get a Bolt cheaper than the Tesla…

          2. JIMIJON says:

            Gee what’s up doc ?

        3. Jelloslug says:

          Did you completely miss the fact that the bolt costs more than the Model 3?

          1. Texas FFE says:

            The Bolt will be eligible for $7,500 federal tax credit and when that credit runs out GM will probably lower the price of the Bolt dramatically like the auto manufacturers did when the hybrid credits ran out. By the time the Model 3 goes into production Tesla will have exhausted it’s federal tax credits and is not likely to lower the price after the credits run out. No, the real price of the Model 3 will never be lower than the real price of the Bolt.

            1. JakeY says:

              This is not true. See the recent analysis here:

              GM’s phase out of the credit will be at roughly the same time as Tesla’s (off by 1 quarter). Keep in mind that the Volt uses up their tax credit quota, so GM had already used a considerable amount.

              1. Texas FFE says:

                A few Model 3s may get the tax credit and those will probably be the expense ones. But it is true that the price of the Bolt will probably drop after the tax credits run out whereas the price of the Model 3 probably won’t.

          2. ClarksonCote says:

            The difference is that GM offers discounts off MSRP and Tesla does not. So the Bolt WILL be cheaper than the Model 3, easily.

            Also, I don’t understand those complaining about the state-by-state rollout. Tesla very openly said they would be doing the same thing on the Model 3.

        4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          jmac said:

          “When Musk said that the M3 was probably going to be the cheapest car Tesla ever made, I realized… that Tesla is basically a luxury car maker and that they will never build the ‘people’s car’.”

          Well, apparently Tesla won’t so long as Elon is in charge. But he’s talking about leaving the company once the ramp up of Model ≡ production is finished, in perhaps 4-5 years.

          I’m bitterly disappointed to see Elon abandoning the original mission of Tesla Motors: to continue developing more and more affordable BEVs until they reach that true “everyman” car. The Model ≡ is still too expensive for that, altho it’s certainly a big leap in that direction.

          Elon has done a great job of keeping Tesla Motors growing and keeping it in the media spotlight. But I won’t be sorry to see him go in just a few years, if he sticks to this idea that the Model ≡ will be the cheapest car Tesla ever makes.

          I certainly do agree with Elon that Tesla’s next focus should be on expanding the line. Making a $25k, or cheaper (in 2016 dollars), car will have to wait until batteries are a lot cheaper than they are now. But to say Tesla will never make a cheaper car… Let’s just say I hope to live to see that proven wrong.

      3. zzzzzzzzzz says:

        It may give subcompact impression from outside but it is far from it. It is CUV with passenger interior volume the same as Model S, only trunk space is smaller.
        Yes, GM is realistic on sales prognosis. Gas is still $2/gal and new oil price bubble is unlikely any time soon.

      4. JIMIJON says:

        I agree ,Priced even higher than the Model 3, But, that Bolt is N0 Model 3 Competitor , Not even Close…To be sure!

      5. JIMIJON says:

        Bolt…, A Glorified Spark???

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          That seems rather unfair to the Bolt. Firstly, the Bolt isn’t a mere “compliance car” as the Spark EV is, and also unlike the Spark EV, will be priced to make GM a profit, albeit probably a thin one.

          Secondly, the Spark EV has an EPA range of only 82 miles; well under half the Bolt’s purported range.

      6. filip bjurling says:

        Don’t agree. I’d compare the bolt to a vw golf gti which sells at a starting prkce of 25kusd. The bolt will sell for 30kusd, something easily saved in gas.

    2. Bacardi says:

      What, a Sonic based, no power seat, no sunroof, no ACC and no garage door opener won’t be a best seller? Maybe I’m just not being appreciative, thank you for not removing power windows & door locks…

      This car was made for car/ride sharing first, personal ownership second…

      1. Warren says:

        I wish it had no stupid electric door locks/windows. I absolutely hate the unnecessary added cost and complexity of current cars. My ’93 Sentra E was great…not even a light in the glove box. Worked right up until I junked it at 380K miles…replaced by my electric cargo bicycle.

      2. Larry says:

        Gee, my new Volt has no power seat, no sunroof, no ACC and no garage door opener, and I haven’t missed or even thought about a one.

  2. ronald says:

    Here’s to hoping 25K is a dot in the rear view mirror.

  3. GM might be confident they will ship, but as for Ontario, Canada, they have not yet submitted documents and had them approved for the rebate program here!

    As at July 30, 2016, the Bolt EV is not yet on the list:

    1. Once it is on Ontario’s approved Rebate List, they will be a potential reasonable seller here, as I expect they will be good for over $10,000 in rebates, maybe as much as $13,000! However, we don’t yet know how much they will soak us in Canada for MSRP for the Bolt EV!

      1. Jay Cole says:

        Hi Robert,

        I have actually spoken to GM about this (in regards to the Ontario rebate), and have some good and bad news. The good news is that it is already approved, just not listed until the official specs are released…the bad news is that it gets the full $14,000.

        Direct quote from GM to myself:

        “The MTO has said…the Spark EV only gets $9,000 because of its smaller battery, and the all-new Chevrolet Bolt EV is the first to get the full incentive – $14,000 because of its battery and 5th seat.”

        I mean that actually sounds like good news…but it is not. Because the new program is a 30% cap program and not merit/ability based on the EV. A $14,000 Bolt EV rebate basically confirms a selling price of ~$46,000+. It of course would be better if it only had a $12,000 rebate as that would have put the MSRP at $39,999.

        With a pricepoint this high, it really comes down to “lease math” for many.

        In Ontario, the rough calculation on EVs is now pretty easy with the new program, as most leases have a residual around 35-40%. So with the gov’t picking up 30% they basically picking up half… your cost to lease is ~30% of the MSRP. (It could be a touch more based off MSRP, but one assumes you can beat a thousand or two off the MSRP at point of sale)

        *note: GM was speaking of the rebate “as a good thing” in relation to the program’s recent launch -as the first to be eligible for the full amount. The Ontario rebate also allows for different rebates based on the trim level; so there “could” technically be a lower Bolt EV trim level which would get less…but y’know, wouldn’t count on it and all that.

  4. Ian says:

    I think it will be a turning point for the company. They should have taken pre orders like tesla (still can but through their infamous anti tesla dealer network) and have every car that comes off the line in 2016 sold before it leaves GM. They really need to pull their heads out of their ass and do this. What a lost opportunity to have massive publicity. I ordered my LEAF for early 2014 so it was sold before they even started building it. GM could do the same. Headlines – GM SELLS 25000 ELECTRIC CARS IN 1 DAY – that is the best headline possible.

    1. Bacardi says:

      GM has already announced the first wave (no mention of big that wave is) of deliveries are going to Lyft, not private owners so a pre-order would really tick off a lot of people…

      While allowing pre-ordering would be a good idea, what if it only got 10K-20K pre-orders? Would look bad for them…

      1. Ian says:

        200 mile EV around 30-40 thousand dollars… I have no doubt they will sell. I wasn’t surprised when the model 3 had over 350 000 pre orders. I have to suffer and wait for a while until the new LEAF comes out with a 200 miler so I can trade my old one in. People are planning their financing now so they can get a 200 mile EV and Nissan is silent. The next 8 months will be a historical turning point for EVs and the automotive industry as a whole.

      2. Skryll says:

        That’s a good point and reminds me of the EV1 history – the first batch will not end up with private owners and they probably lease them out to lyft and could pull/junk them once the lease is up if they feel it’s a strategy they like. Except this time there is an alternative we can buy and own?

    2. Larry says:

      I think that taking pr-orders through the dealer system would be doomed from the start. Most dealers probably wouldn’t even consider handling such a transaction.

  5. Terawatt says:

    They say they aren’t production constrained and that it’s as profitable as other vehicles.

    Why, then, plan to make fewer cars than they could easily sell in tiny Norway ALONE? The e-Golf and LEAF combined sell about 25 000 a year in our tiny nation of five million people – less than at least five metropolitan areas in Germany…

    25 000 per year globally is a BAD JOKE, however GM and others want to spin it.

    I for one don’t understand why GM is doing this. It’s as if they delight in pissing us off. 25k for sure does nothing to contain the Tesla threat, so that can’t be the reason.

    We better see some serious ramp up to a much higher production level, and fast.

    1. Bacardi says:

      Seems like GM is admitting it’s not compelling enough…With that being said, I believe if the demand is there (I don’t think it will be unless gas prices triple) I believe GM would have no problem increasing production to meet demand…

      1. Ian says:

        Was there any data on LG Chems capacity for GM? That would be the number that would really determine max production capability per year.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          The contract for delivery of battery cells — or actually, of the battery packs and EV drivetrains from LG Chem and LG Electronics which GM will be putting into the Bolt — is surely proprietary info held as confidential by both LG Chem and GM. Remember how ticked off LG Chem was when GM spilled the beans on LG’s low, low price of $145/kWh for battery cells?

          But this we know: LG Chem makes contracts for delivery of industrial quantities of batteries two years in advance. However much GM has contracted for, they won’t be able to go back to LG and simply tell them to deliver more this year, or next year either.

          LG Chem has a growing list of customers for its new, lower-priced li-ion batteries; customers who will have to compete with the finite number LG can make. Sure, LG is ramping up its production… but there’s a limit to how fast any company can ramp up.

          Bottom line: If GM wants to get serious about being to set its own limits on how many Bolts it makes per year, rather than being dependent on how many batteries LG chem can supply and how many EV powertrains LG Electronics can supply, then it needs to build its own battery factories, and GM needs to either bring making critical components for the EV powertrain in-house, or else develop a second source for those EV powertrains, so such critical components aren’t single-sourced.

          1. Robert Middleswarth says:

            Contracts are interesting things. GM could easy have put in a min / max clause in the contract that allows for much greater number production if need be.

  6. Bill Howland says:

    GM reconfirms exactly the same info every few weeks. Seems like they want to dip their toes in free advertising….Hey it works for Tesla.

    As far as numbers go, GM is probably taking a wait and see attitude as to sales. As to not being serious, thats silly. This is a serious offering – NO OTHER MANUFACTURER PERIOD will have made a volume vehicle with this pricing, and features, at this relatively early date.

    But GM’s constant restating of the obvious is also getting annoying. The shortly ‘to be released’ detailed specs, will be greatly welcomed, as it will be true news. Unfortunately, most of these ‘releases’ are far from detailed.

    1. Ian says:

      Pre-orders would solve that. Such a simple solution.

    2. wavelet says:

      “As far as numbers go, GM is probably taking a wait and see attitude as to sales.”
      Exactly! And I don’t get why so many people are coplaining and don’t seem to get this (why not 200K sales the first year, why not a right-hand version right off the bat etc.).

      GM isn’t an EV company (yet (-; ), and they don’t want to bet the farm on EVs and get burned. The Bolt is serious engineering-wise, and if it sells well and is well received in terms of driving & ownership experience, I’m sure they can scale.

    3. Bacardi says:

      GM hates Tesla; GM “reconfirmed” the info on the Bolt on the same day Tesla revealed the Gigafactory…Coincidence?

      The Bolt does make a great fleet vehicle, you’d imagine there’s probably 100 companies wanting to buy at least a dozen or so Bolt EV to promote a green image…

  7. Four Electrics says:

    The Bolt–the car that inspired the Model 3 to not be quite as ridiculously late. Kudos!

    1. Rich says:

      Tesla is learning. If you haven’t already, the video on is worth watching.
      The level of competence and maturity is evident. Hopefully, this will translate to high quality decent quantity Model 3 deliveries occurring in 2017/2018.

  8. SparkEV-Fiat500-Owner - M3 Reserved says:

    People keep asking, so they continue to reconfirm the well known delivery date that HASN’T slipped.

    At 25K pegged production, there will be little left for non-CARB states IMHO.

    We’re looking forward to seeing it and hopefully will be sufficient to replace our CR-V for hauling purposes.

  9. jmac says:

    25,000 isn’t going to get the job done when there were 68 million plus ICE passenger cars manufactured worldwide in 2015.

    Trust me on this one: GM is not interested in overthrowing the reigning oil & internal combustion engine paradigm.

    1. realdb2 says:

      Even as a current Volt owner, I agree with your last sentence. IMO GM wants to be “ready for the future” but they also want the transition to electric to take as long as possible.

      Right now ICE vehicles are way more profitable, why would GM want to move to a less profitable product in a hurry?

      1. mx9000 says:

        Exactly. The hybrid concept is now 19 years old. And still no hybrid, or plugin-hybrid in the SUV, Van and Pickup segments.

        Sure smells of collusion with Exxon.

        1. jmac says:

          The Bolt at a 25K per year production max. is just a compliance car, nothing more, to satisfy ZEV requirements and appear “green”,

          In the meantime, just out of sight, GM continues to rake in millions from pick-ups, SUV and passenger vans. (Just as mx9000 correctly surmised).

        2. Rich says:

          I agree. There may be a little hope coming in 2017.

          On 4/21/2016 an article drove me to look at the Chevy Cruz specs(mpg) on the Chevy website and I found an interesting mechanical option included in some of the trim levels.
          The LS, LT, premium automatic trim levels came standard with “engine stop start”.
          You could see this when comparing trim levels and clicking on the mechanical tab. I couldn’t believe what I was seeing so I opened a different browser and verified. I then emailed Jay about it.
          A couple days later, the option was removed from the website. UGH! I wish I had taken a screenshot of it.
          Based on that experience, I’m fully expecting GM to release Stop/Start light hybrid tech in some of their 2017 line-up.
          While this doesn’t create a major push into full electric vehicles, it will expose a larger portion of the population with the technology.

          1. jmac says:

            To Rich

            Stop-start technology is sometimes referred to as mild hybrid or micro-hybrid tech. Standard ICE vehicles equipped with Stop-Start are considered to be mild hybrids even though they cannot run on battery power alone as pure gas-electric hybrids can. It’s has been around in Europe for a while and is coming to the U.S. There’s an interesting article in the NYT about it in the link below if you are interested.


            1. Rich says:

              Thanks for the article. I didn’t know Ford had added light hybrid to their 2017 line-up. It’s interesting how the 2016 Ford Escape with a 1.6L engine got better mpg without light hybrid than their 2017 Ford Escape with a 1.5L engine including light hybrid. Talk about shady. Sounds like a great article to investigate why this is happening.

              1. jmac says:

                To Rich,

                I think the Chinese instituted light hybrid technology several years ago. If I remember they were claiming gas savings of 5-15%. I think the battery in mild hybrids needs to be slightly larger than a standard battery because the car has to start, stop and restart so many times.

                1. Rich says:

                  The EU has had stop/start tech for years. Bosch has been working on a 48V light hybrid system.
                  I believe this is based off of glass mat lead acid, but could be mistaken.

                  I have no idea how Ford’s light hybrid is implemented, but to have the city MPG not increase with the light hybrid system is crazy. Let me put it another way, WTF!

                  1. Rich says:

                    Correction, the Bosch system is Lithium based on that article. I cannot remember where I read the 48v system would use lead acid. I’ll try to find it.

                    1. jmac says:

                      I think that even before the current electric car revival started, engineers were suggesting 48v battery system for automobiles because of the increasing electrification of car functions such as electric power steering, various dashboard electronics, car stereo, power windows as standard equipment, etc.

                      The electrification of the automobile has been going on from the very beginning when electric headlamps replaced kerosene, the electric starter replaced the old hand crank. Electric windshield wipers replaced vacuum wipers. Blinking electric turn signals and emergency flashers. Brake lights. Engine warning lights and other electronic sensors. The electric fuel pump and let’s not forget electronic ignition.

                      Modern dashboard read-outs are almost all digital and on some cars just about everything is controlled through a computer touchscreen. Even the piston engine itself is slowly succumbing to the electric motor.

  10. Someone out there says:

    There is a good reason why GM is being modest with that 25k number and that is the model 3. If GM were talking about a number in the several 100k’s like Tesla and then didn’t manage to sell that they would be standing there with egg on their face. The comparison with Tesla in inevitable and if GM didn’t sell it would look like Tesla is eating them up and the GM stock would probably take a significant dive.
    However if they are only announcing 25k cars they could easily sell that and even if they didn’t Lyft could probably take a large part of that number to cover for them. They could then say that the Bolt project is of course just a trial run or something. At the same time if they do sell more and they have to increase production well that looks good too.

  11. Bloggin says:

    25k seems about right. The body-style(a smaller Ford C-Max), ICE or EV has a low desirability. GM knows this very well, and planned limited production is obvious. I think this has something to do with GM not having their own battery production plant, but depending on a third party.

    Model 3 on the other hand, has a body style targeting high volume premium performance sedans like BMW 3-Series, which has a much higher desirability. Planned high volume production obvious here, with the GigaFactory to back it up.

    If GM wanted to sell more Bolt units, they would have put the EV drivetrain under a higher volume body, like the new Volt’s body. Volt PHE and Volt EV would have done very well.

    1. theflew says:

      You do know the Bolt is larger than the Volt in every dimension except length and it has a larger interior? People keep painting the Bolt like some little clown car. It is sized pretty close to a Chevy Trax/Buick Encore, except not as tall, but 2 more inches in wheelbase. It’s much larger than the Spark and larger than the Sonic.

      1. Rich says:

        “Chevy Trax/Buick Encore, except not as tall”
        Exactly right. The Bolt is basically a ~2″ shorter in height version of the Chevy Trax/Buick Encore.
        Having driven a Buick Encore for a year, I would love to see / compare the cargo and interior space to an Encore. While the Encore is a nice city vehicle, it’s not to be confused with a medium sized vehicle.
        One thing to note, the Encore never drove well on the highway with just myself in the vehicle. The car would drift constantly. However, with 4 people in the car, it drove quite nice. The Bolt’s battery weight should provide it with a nicer ride on the highway.

  12. Richie says:

    If you do the math GM is losing money on every one they sell. That is why they are limiting sales to 25K

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Then please show your math.

      In my opinion, GM plans to make a narrow profit on the Bolt, for domestic (North American) sales. So I’d be quite interested to see evidence to the contrary.

      1. Rich says:

        Add me to the list as well. I don’t believe GM will lose money on the Bolt, even without the $7500 tax incentive. Richie, please share the calculations to help us understand where the loss of a $37K base price sub-compact Chevy is coming from.

        1. SparkEV-Fiat500-Owner - M3 Reserved says:

          GM doesn’t see a dime of any government discount. That’s completely on the buyer’s side of the equation. There’s a reason for pegging at $38,000 vs Tesla money losing unless you upgrade and need high volume+gigafactory betting on investor money $35,000 vehicle.

          Tesla doesn’t have to play by regular economic rules at the moment. It will in the near future. If GM isn’t solely doing the Bolt for CARB compliance and R+D (like the SparkEV was), it has to turn a profit on the platform.

          1. Rich says:

            “GM doesn’t see a dime of any government discount. That’s completely on the buyer’s side of the equation.”
            This is semantics. By GM artificially raising the price $7500, GM effectively takes the federal tax credit from the customer and pockets the money. Of course, this requires the customer agree to the higher price. I’ll wait for competition to force GM into a more reasonable price and then maybe I’ll consider one of their BEV products.
            BTW, the price was set by GM according to what they feel the market will bare not in order for them to barely make a profit. You can hear it directly from the horse’s mouth (Steve Majoros, Chevrolet Marketing Director).

    2. Someone out there says:

      Not this BS again! GM says they will get cells for as little as $145/kWh so let’s say $200/kWh pack level. That makes $12000 for the battery leaving $25000 for everything else including profit. Do you seriously mean to say that GM can’t make a profit on a $25000 car? Clearly that is not the case!

  13. Brian D Anderson says:

    All the comments here are based on the premise of privately owned and driven vehicles. There won’t be a less expensive Tesla because this is the last generation of autos that will be privately owned for basic transport. (Professional and hobby ownership will continue indefinitely, just like horse ownership.) The economics of an autonomous, shared vehicle that is utilized >50% of the time support a vehicle cost that is multiples of 35k. Every automaker serious about being solvent in 10 years has an autonomous fleet plan and partnerships.

    1. SparkEV-Fiat500-Owner - M3 Reserved says:

      Nice pie in the sky thought. GM is thinking that with Lyft — anyone else?

      V2H and V2G (at work if one wishes) would be a good reason for ownership of EV that will increase the utilization greatly.

  14. HVACman says:

    GM builds for-retail-sale cars based on dealer orders and usually have a 4 to 6-week cycle between order and production. They won’t start start retail production without dealer orders in-hand, which means that they will have to be releasing the dealer ordering information, with option RPO’s, invoice and MSRP information, EPA data, etc. very, very soon. Keep your ear to the ground for that vital information. That will be the next real Bolt news scoop.