Jim Cramer: Chevrolet Bolt Doesn’t Move The Needle For GM, We Disagree – Videos

SEP 16 2016 BY JAY COLE 136

The newly rated, 238 mile all-electric Chevrolet Bolt EV made its first (and only) East Coast appearance on The Street this week (see their quick review below); and as a follow-up, market commentator/entertainer Jim Cramer was asked if GM’s long range EV moves the needle for GM.

Jim Cramer says the Chevy Bolt EV won't move the needle for GM (via The Street)

Jim Cramer says the Chevy Bolt EV won’t move the needle for GM (via The Street)

“No. One of the things that people need to recognize is that these are big worldwide companies that are impacted by big secular trends, people are very worried about driver-less cars, they are very worried about the fact that younger people don’t seem to be buying the cars like they used to…my problem with GM, is that its not cool, it’s not – and Tesla’s cool, and that is a very hard thing to factor in.”

Given the fact that GM cumulatively sold some 9,924,880 vehicles in 2015, Jim would be correct in saying that the 25,000+ Bolt EVs we expect to be built and sold in 2017 won’t be much more than a blip on GM’s income statement.

However, we tend to disagree that the Bolt EV won’t impact GM’s “cool” factor (it can only go up) and possibly improve the image of the entire brand overall to some degree – which may ultimately start to move the needle; especially given that something as simple as the car’s range announcement here at InsideEVs generated more than 500 comments alone – far more than any previous GM-related story, and equal to many other Tesla events of significance. So, people are taking notice of the Bolt EV.

How much, and how far the Chevrolet Bolt EV can lift GM?  That is debatable. But we would suggest it is a good first step, and probably GM’s most significant one when it comes to its electrification of the automobile to date.

Categories: Chevrolet, Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

136 Comments on "Jim Cramer: Chevrolet Bolt Doesn’t Move The Needle For GM, We Disagree – Videos"

newest oldest most voted

Regarding coolness, I agree with him.

Yup. Even today, I can hardly believe SparkEV is by Chevy. While EV enthusiasts may see Bolt as cool, general public will still see it as a Chevy.

Having said that, I hold Chevy in much higher light than before SparkEV, so it will boost Chevy’s image in significant ways for Bolt owners, too. Probably not to the degree of Tesla, but certainly above most other carmakers.

Nice car ,Small, Charges too slow, with No Charging Infrastructure. etc: I’m for sure waiting for the Tesla model 3, M3 is SO Much more Car with Way More Cool factor..And for less money??? ., YEA., It’s The M3, Hands Down! It’s a NO Brainer.

Three years?

I went to the National Drive Electric Week Event in Chattanooga. I had a chance to see several Nissan leafs and many other EV’s including the Tesla Model S the only major EV not there was the BME i3. I had a change to attempt to sit in each one. As of right now, I can’t fit in any I tried including the Model S. The one that I could actually sit in was the Leaf although the leg room was just too small for me to drive it. The Leaf was the closest one for me being able to use. If the model 3 is any smaller than the Model S for sitting in very few people over the age of 40 will be able to get in. I am looking forward to testing out the Bolt to see if they will actually allow me to drive an EV.

Robert, Which bodily dimension gave you trouble in ‘every EV available except the i3’? I’m 50, and my Volt works just fine for me and my basket ball playing buddy… who drives a Tesla S.

I’m waiting for an M3 as well. I love the styling and the performance. Plus, I do think it’s going to have a much higher cool factor.

Having said that, I think the Bolt is a great EV and I hope GM sells a lot of them. I also think the small hatch / crossover is smart, since they are very popular. I’m so happy GM exceeded with the Bolt in range and efficiency. I was worried they were going to come up short and disappoint buyers. Instead, they killed it.

The bar for EV range is now firmly set at 215+ miles EPA. Everyone else will have to get there in order to compete. Excuses are no longer acceptable.

Tesla makes amazing cars in terms of styling, design, and functionality.

That said, good luck with reliability…

About Two Years from now, I would love to hear a report, from 10 Families, that each own BOTH the BOLT EV, and a Tesla Model 3! They would be the best all around comparisons, from folks who buy the Bolt now, but still buy the Model 3 when it gets here, and have driven each over 6 months to a year! (There are already families with 3-4 Tesla’s – so – I don’t think THIS is such a high bar to request!)

If I had the money myself to get both – I likely would! What better way to have an honest experience between the two types, and driving each on a Trip from Toronto, Ontario to Oshkosh, Wisconsin, would be a great starting comparison! Same for a Trip from Toronto, to Nova Scotia; Toronto to Winnipeg; Toronto to Key West; etc.

Of Course – there is one trip I usually do on a Saturday, but have done after work, to go up to Bracebridge, and back, about a 4 hour drive all in. That would be the basic test for this ~220 mile highway range EV!

I hope to be one Robert and I will be more then happy to report back in a fair and balanced way!

That is something to look forward to! 🙂

I also hope to be that family. Can’t wait around for Tesla M3 though, I did put my deposit down. Going to buy Bolt first. Then when M3 actually appears will decide whether to keep Bolt or sell it (probably to one of my kids). Not holding my breath for a fast M3 release, so…. a bird in the hand.

You are a good case study. Since you have been a huge proponent of the Spark EV, I am surprised to hear you say you were not a Chevy fan before.

This is exactly what GM is going for.

SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

Neither was I. Never owned a GM. Ford family growing up and my own preference is Japanese (Sentra, Pathfinder, Infiniti)

Spark EV was a jump in pure simple PV/EV economics and Chevy impressed me.

I’m fine with ‘not cool’–saves me $$$ even further. Getting Model 3 not for ‘cool’ or its crazy overinflated infrastructure benefit –but its reported specs/price — when/if it comes out and maintains that same competitiveness.

But Chevy impressed with the Pocket Econo Spark EV. Let’s see if Bolt steps up enough for turn in our CR-V as the local hauler.

Few months before I got SparkEV, I saw Chevy commercial on TV, interrupting local news. I thought that POS company should just die, making f-ed up sh*t from bailout money and wasting my TV time. That changed a bit after learning about SparkEV, and did a almost 180 degree turn after finding out how great SparkEV is.

So yeah, Bolt is going to be great in turning people to Chevy. Just the advertising factor will be well worth what little they make on the car. Just look at all the free advertising they get from me. I’m also looking at Chevy for future replacement of my Ford truck.

Why would GM build a EV car from the ground up and not include both LHD and RHD in the build factor.
35% of the world drive with RHD.
Do GM as a worldwide company want to miss out on that market.

They did. It’s called the Ampera-e.

Ampera-e/Bolt is LHD only for 1st generation. No RHD model for Vauxhall or Holden to sell.

Because they did include RHD on their last major EV release – the Ampera – and buyers in those markets were not very interested.

So GM is taking a more conservative approach to sales this time.

I wish GM would’ve used a more aero, more ‘cool’ body than the Chevy Sparks’ exterior. Why do this? I understand they wanted practical but you want those 30yo buyers who are interested in the cool form factor, not the Mom taking-out-groceries form factor.

Actually as a 29 year old I stopped caring about the cool factor around 23 when I sold my Pontiac Grand Am GT. I’ve stopped caring at all about how “cool” a car is perceived to be and that seems to be typical of co-workers and people I went to college with. We care more about the technology and utility than anything else.

~19 year olds and ~45 year olds are the ones who seem to care most about the cool factor heh. 🙂

I was NOT excited about buying a Chevy Volt 2017. I bought it for other reasons, because it made sense financially, because it was time to trade in my old car with 99,700 miles, because my work provides free plug-in electricity, and most importantly because of the environmental impact.

But after a few months, I LOVE this car. I tell everyone about it. I haven’t bragged about a car in my life, but I brag about this one.

You love the electric part of it right?

So far I am in complete agreement with you. My ’17 Volt is the first GM car I have owned in my 56 years of car ownership, encompassing everything from a 280Z to a Prius. It could be a smidgen larger, but I knew that going in. Anyhow, it has truly raised the status of Chevrolet in my eyes.

1+ 60 years of car ownership and my ’15 base Volt is the best of all. Not a rattle, perfect performance, good ride and great handling and electric quiet all the time.

Letting hedge fund manager crocked Kramer comment on Bolt it’s like asking a cheating gambler odds are against you

I have to laugh, because now we’re arguing whether the Bolt is just good or great. The real issue is, is any gas powered car now competitive with the latest EVs? You can still get some argument for the gas vehicles, mostly with regard to price, but at 238 miles range (and no reason at all to believe that this range won’t double very soon) it’s becoming evident that gas machines are obsolete. The only reason that EVs don’t now rule the market is that they need a private garage, and most of us don’t have this.

#1 important factor in all my purchasing decisions:

Will it make me look ‘cool’?


What does Jim Cramer think!?

…yes, when buying a vehicle one must always think, wwjcd.


It “The Bolt” could have. But they chose to make yet another compact form factor with polarizing looks. In other words albeit highly capable it is still (another fugly BEV) I still don’t understand why it seems that Tesla alone realizes that style sells and thus far is making the only compelling offerings out there.

I don’t want to drive a clown car in order to drive a BEV.


That car have very good hatch back looks.

Very very nice.

Are You sure that You do not dismiss it just because it ain’t SUV/Sedan?

The roofline of the Bolt looks almost exactly like that of the Prius. That fairly screams “greenie car”. Personally, I’m all for practicality over style. But let’s be honest: A lot of people are not. Those for whom style is important very clearly don’t think the “Prius” look is stylish. Many of them wouldn’t be caught dead driving something that looks like that. I have no doubt that the Bolt will sell out, if GM makes only 25k-30k per year; or even somewhat more. But I also find it very doubtful that any car which looks like the Bolt is going to sell 100k+ per year in the USA. It’s entirely possible that Tesla will sell that many of the Model ≡. And a lot of that difference will be the styling. GM may well have a larger market overseas for the Bolt; larger than the domestic market. I understand they really love hatchbacks in Europe, and don’t care so much about the “greenie car” look. In the first year of production, GM isn’t going to send many Bolts to Europe. It will be interesting to see if GM prices it competitively (the Volt/Ampera wasn’t, at all), and if in… Read more »

Cannot agree more!

The Model 3 has its polarizing interior, well suited for clowning around. We’ll see. I don’t think in this case GM is attempting to gimp sales through styling. They’ve proved that talent with other maneuvers.

Well pj, your comment isn’t backed up by the fact that the Model 3 has 400,000 reservations.

And for the record, I hope the Bolt does well and I might get one if the dealers don’t try and jack the price.

I disagree, the Bolt is a good looking hatchback which is a very popular and practical style for most of the world. The Model III is a sedan which has a small trunk that generated a lot of negative feedback. The practicality of the hatchback is very nice. I do prefer the looks of the Model III and have a reservation for it, but if its delayed too long, I will have no issue getting a Bolt.

I agree with you about the styling. All the critics seem to overlook that GM did extensive focus groups of potential customers and the CUV type vehicle was the most asked for. The Volt while a great car is kind of cramped especially in the rear. I think the Model 3 will be a little cramped too and with a glass roof may also be uncomfortable in some climates and seasons. Already one well known personality said he may trade in his Model S partly because it is so easy to get in and out of the Bolt. I am sold on the Bolt and I need a long distance commuter car now and the Bolt surpasses my expectations.

The Model 3 might have the flair and flashiness, but for those that aren’t status symbol whores, the Bolt is the practical choice.

And of course it will be in showrooms by the end of the year.

I would characterize it as there is room for both of them but the numbers are already heavily in favor of the Model 3 and there is always the question on how many GM (and its dealers) want to sell.

It doesn’t have ‘polarizing’ looks . . . it just has bland econobox looks. And that’s fine . . . it is like a Golf, Fit, and other such little hatchbacks.

Although I do think they would have been better served if they tried to make it look a bit better. It is a bit hard to drop $37,500 for something that looks like the average economy hatchback.

Tesla really does excel in this department with all their cars (so far).

Really? After avoiding Chevy for my whole driving life, this is a car that would make me buy one. I currently have a Toyota Matrix, love its utility so the Bolt matches that and adds the EV drivetrain I have wanted.
Well done Chevy!

The Bolt is an excellent car for the narrow streets of many European cities. I wouldn’t be surprised if it sells better in Europe than in the US

Volt. Vast majority of your driving will be BEV. Good looking car.

I am a European, living in the US. I look at any sedan and think of a car for my grand parents. I don’t want to be seen in any sedan, ever.
Hatcbacks are for people, that like versatility.

Cramer is a short term stock market guy. Does the Bolt affect the GM stock in short term? No.

But it does in the long term. GM is only the 2nd company to build a 200+ mile range EV. And they were the first to build a reasonably priced 200+ mile EV. But these are still relatively early days for EVs and the Bolt won’t be a huge seller. But at least GM WILL be a player as we slow transition to plug-in cars.

And Cramer thinks autonomous cars are big . . . well how can you really have an autonomous car without it being electric? A gas car cannot fill itself up with gas. But an electric car can easily go park on a wireless charging system and charge itself up. So EVs are the way to go for autonomous cars.

Oh, one more thing . . . Cramer is an annoying idiot that should be prosecuted for insider trading and front-running.

but, but…puppets!! Air horns!!!


Cramer is a phony and a fraud just like strong man Trump. It looks like strong man Trump is trying to be less racist lol

I’m pretty sure that goes for anyone making stock recommendations.

An autonomous gas car can drive itself to a full-service gas station. And believe me, if there are autonomous gas cars there _will_ be full service gas stations that’ll handle them. It’s way cheaper to pay a guy for a few minutes’ work every couple of days, than for a couple of days’ work every couple of days.

Yes, but think taxi ranks at airports, train stations etc. Much easier for those to get fitted with wireless charging pads than have the car drive off somewhere to gas up via a biological minion.

A fleet of autonomous ICE vehicles could drive to a full service station owned by the company. That would also cut out middleman fuel pricing.

Autonomous EV’s would still need minor maintenance too like cleaning windows, tire pressure checks, etc. so they will also need a place to go.

speculawyer said:

“…how can you really have an autonomous car without it being electric? A gas car cannot fill itself up with gas.”

I agree that PEV and autonomous cars go together like franks and beans, or like Bogie and Bacall, but it seems rather silly to claim that you can’t have a self-driving gasmobile just because somebody needs to fill the things with gas once in awhile. Even if you ignore the possibility of entirely robotic gas stations, there are still places — even one or more entire States — in the USA where gasoline is still “pumped” by a gas station attendant.

The Bolt lets them continue to sell the gas guzzling behemoths that makes the most profit.

Next year when the CARB requirements tighten, GM will need those ZEV credits.

They can lose money on each and every Bolt they sell and still come out ahead thanks to fat-profit models like trucks and SUVs.

Another Euro point of view

I have to admit I find the Bolt a bit boring to look at. I hope I am isolated having this opinion as its specs deserve success.

No, you’re not isolated, it’s styled to be a boring econobox. A very questionable design decision for a $37K car, but GM management loves those boring conservative generic looking styles.

I’ll buy one for the sheer engineering prowess, assuming the interior is free of any serious flaws like bad seats.

Sub 6 seconds car.

Call it econobox again…

It’s actually a sub seven second car, not six. I spoke with GM reps about this in Detroit this year. Still, pretty impressive!

I said it’s styled to look like a boring econobox. 0-60 times don’t change the styling, do they?

I’ve seen the Bolt up close in the wild, so to speak. Unlike the Volt, which looks better in person, the Bolt looks better in photos. Which is to say, it looks like an econobox.

I intend to buy one, so obviously I can deal with it. Can you?

I agree boring looking, but way better than the ugly i3, this is for Prius clients anyway they don’t care about car looks.

Most vehicles look pretty boring.

Some try particularly hard to be boring. The Bolt isn’t one of those.


i3 at least has personality. The Bolt is just blah.

Thankfully I don’t have to look at the car while driving! 😛

Compliance car unless they are serious about high production numbers.

Nobody does a ground-up design for a compliance car. That just wastes a billion dollars. You take an existing gascar (e.g. Chevy Spark, Ford Focus, Fiat 500, VW Golf, etc.), pull the ICE and put a battery pack in the trunk.

Bolt is a 50 state car with a 250-500k lifetime production goal. It’s the opposite of a compliance car.

That remains to be seen. I think it is sort of hybrid compliance car myself with both attributes of a compliance car, low volumes, limited availability, but then they are putting something behind it is terms of people and resources.
Ultimately I think it is aimed at the younger driver that eschews cars. So they are using it in the service they are backing Lyft. Here mostly the young who use that service could be introduced to the Bolt and thereby want to get one eventually. A long range plan, and not a bad one, to get people exposed to the Bolt.

Not the opposite. The opposite is an heavily marketed mainstream mass production model.

I’d call it a “developmental car”. More than compliance, but not something they’ll go all out on for production.

I think ffbj and ItsNotAboutTheMoney nailed it.

The Bolt is probably a hybrid/developmental car that will be sold in CARB States in the numbers necessary to meet the increasing ZEV mandates first and foremost with additional sales beyond those States and Europe outside of GB.

GM had a compliance car: the Spark EV.

The Bolt is no compliance car.


Well . . . lets see how big the demand is before we complain about small production numbers.

That’s ridiculous. 30,000 vehicles per year would make it one of the best selling EVs, if not the best. “Compliance cars” sell around 3000 cars per year or less.

Remember when GM didn’t meet their sales expectations for the Volt and it got all sorts of negative press? And then remember when GM said the Bolt would have 200 miles of range? Maybe GM has learned something about setting publicly stated targets that you can actually meet and exceed.

Could we please. Stop. Calling. The Bolt. A “compliance car”.

No car made in numbers above about 5000 per year can properly be called a “compliance car”. If GM sells 25,000+ next year, and if most sales are in the USA/Canada, then the Bolt is going to be among the top 3 or 4 cars on the InsideEVs Monthly Plug-in Sales Scorecard.

I doubt Cramer even knows what cool actually is…

I agree He is EXCELLENT at stocks, finical issues, economic trends & investments, but I own 2 Volts & 1 Cad. ELR and electric vehicles are the way of the future. In 20 years, most vehicles will be fully electric. Future Roadways will have electronic sensors that vehicles can communicate with for traffic, speed, accident avoidance and electronic transmission of issues ahead.

Cramer is good at convincing people that he’s “excellent” at making stock picks and financial predictions, in the same way that all successful con men are good at convincing people.

The reality is… somewhat more sordid.



I don’t think Cramer understands why the younger generation isn’t buying cars. It’s not because they’re not cool enough; it’s because they don’t see the need and don’t want the financial and property burden.

Cool may help a little, but it doesn’t address the root of the issue.

As for me. I stopped caring about cool a long time ago. The Bolt looks to be a very practical hatchback design and not at all bad looking. Throw in the higher than expected range and it looks like a pretty viable choice for at least 98% of our family’s driving needs.

Yep – since it’s the first generation since the Great Depression that is not expected to be financially better off than their parents, a vehicle is a money siphon. Combine this with the current demographic shift in the US to urban environs, then vehicle ownership becomes less and less reasonable (parking expenses, higher insurance rates, traffic congestion, availability of mass transit, etc.).


It’s not that the younger generation doesn’t want the freedom that a personal car represents. It’s that too many of the younger generation can no longer afford to own a car, both because cars (and car insurance) have become more expensive and because everybody in the USA except the one-percenters have gotten poorer.

As a Millennial I can tell everyone that even the generations in the 1970’s had double and triple the wealth in terms of high paying jobs. Another new from of poverty I’m starting to see is experience poverty were the companies don’t want to even talk to you if you don’t got five years experience in so and so or five years experience even with stupid jobs like reading meters.

I also learned in a lot of cases that a collage degree is one of the most worthless things you can get.

Another thing is I’ve noticed with cars every time something breaks on them they need $400 in repairs and at least $700 in insurance a year that keeps going up every year. And for someone making barely above minimum wage it’s hard to comprehend were does all this magical money come from?

To put it simply I think the haves along with silicon valley are hanging the economy. By making large class of us millennials regardless if we come from middle class families and have collage degrees into a type of minimum wage slave class.

To true! And I blame the governments for not spreading the wealth.

The way I feel is that I think the Government has not done enough to protect us from the parasitic haves and their acts of making the rules to benefit selfishness. A example is how these drug companies can raise prices on a life giving drug 700% with no rhyme or reason expect that their CEO makes 19 million a year. My idea would be that the government could regulate the drug companies and their prices like they do power companies. Another example is outsourcing and low wages. The Government should do a lot more to project us low wage workers from run away one sided outsourcing of jobs. Such as the government should protect us from counties were people make far less then 3/4 the US minimum wage. And in terms of low wages it has become fact that more and more jobs pay raises are more of a functions of the minimum wage going up then companies giving out money out of the joys of their heart. In terms of heath care I think the Government is going to have to step in to create some type of universal default medicaid for every US citizen. The idea of… Read more »

I think it definitely helps GM’s image. How many people, like myself, had never set foot in a GM dealership until the Volt came out?

*raises hand*

I’d never owned anything from the big three before the Volt.

In which world there are only two cars model 3 and bolt?

There are hundreds different ICE car sold at 37.5K level

And their range is “unlimited”

Which 37.5K ICE car bolt can beat?

It even cannot beat a 15K Chevy sonic

SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

Sub7 second 0-60 hatchback/CUV.

Cite a few to compare with that spec at $30k.

Here’s a few.

Subaru WRX, STI
Mini cooper S JCW
Fiesta ST
Focus ST

To see how they stack up against Bolt, see this blog post. WRX is lot better against Bolt.


A 30K mustang can beat bolt to death with much larger size and good looking

How can a sub-compact with range issue sell at 37.5K

Judging by interior space, not overall size, the Bolt is too big to be labeled a “compact”. Calling it a “sub-compact” is just wrong, even if you look only at the outside.

“Which 37.5K ICE car bolt can beat?”
It’s $30K after tax credit. Not trying to be a jerk, but please define “beat”.
Bolt will beat ICE CUVs in:
1) maintenance costs
2) fuel costs (in most States)
3) cool factor
4) refueling convenience (95% of the life of the car)
5) (insert reason here)
It’s a question of what’s important to the customer. If people drive 400 miles every weekend and only have 1 vehicle, the BOLT is not for them. They will be better off with a Tesla Model 3.
If 99% of driving is local / regional, the Bolt will be a desirable vehicle.

One of Cramer’s beefs: he says GM just has too much cash – apparently “not cool”. Tesla definitely does not have that “problem”. I guess cool is a never-ending juggling of bonds and loans and stock offerings and supplier contracts to keep that cash ball from dropping.

Unless Tesla can pull off a manufacturing Hail Mary by ramping up Model 3 sales/production/deliveries from zero to unheard-of high levels by late 2017, they may even show how bankruptcy can be “cool”.

That is definitely not necessary. Anyone paying attention, and who actually has money in Tesla (stock, vehicle ownership, etc.), knows that the cash burn is for the Model 3, not to support existing S and X manufacturing, sales and service. Therefore, anyone with sense is willing to wait until the Model 3 enters production by the end of 2017, and steadily ramps up to projected volumes by 2019.

If they are not profitable by the time Model 3 sales reach steady-state (say, 2020-2021 timeframe), then there most likely will not be enough justification to invest. By then, the sales of S, X and 3 should cover development and ramp of Model Y and the new Roadster and whatever else that comes along.

Maybe GM should buy Tesla? It would be interesting to hear what the fanboys say then 🙂

If GM were to buy TESLA, GM management would put ICE in Tesla frame and would shut down gigafactory and solar city. GM makes ICE vehicles period.

SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

And that’s why they designed from ground up the Bolt. Yep. That’s it.

I totally disagree with a lot of the posts on this article. Although the shape of the Bolt is optimized for the BEV, the shape is actually an evolution of body design. As smaller motors become more powerful there is no need for large engine compartments.

At the same time manufacturers are trying optimize interior space. A lot of manufacturers are trying to build cars that are comfortable and functional inside while as small as possible outside. The Teslas may be more sexy but practicality and functionality of the Bolt and cars like it is going to be far more appealing to many people.

Totally agree 100%! I think the Bolt EV may take a year for the average consumer to take notice, but that ultimately it will sell 2 to 3 times better than the Volt did in it’s first generation because the Bolt is more practical.

In my opinion Toyota makes some of the most boring looking vehicles (although they have improved in recent years), yet they have become one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world. The same could be said about GM and VW. Apparently boring is not necessarily a bad thing, so the Bolt should be in good shape.

As a European I have never understood the American obsession with sedans, they are just about the most impractical vehicle you can buy (maybe with the exception of a convertible, or roadster), while truly practical cars like hatchbacks, station wagons and minivans are frowned upon. In my opinion the Bolt has the perfect form factor and strikes a good balance between esthetics, practicality, and price. I am glad to hear that at least some here appreciate that.

I hope the Bolt, with its increased range, will begin to move EV acceptance into the main stream. The M3 with its cool factor and Tesla’s reputation will take it all the way. If that happens there will be enough room for both models to be wildly successful.

I think one of the biggest factors for GM is “how many non-GM owners will this car bring into the GM fold.” I’m guessing that 90% of the Bolt buyers will be people who would not have bought any other Chevrolet model. So it definitely expands their market share, and provides green cachet for the Chevy brand.

I think so too. They introduce the Bolt to a younger audience through the Lyft service.
GM is still living in the days of brand loyalty and while not the force it once was it still carries some weight.

I agree. I would have never been caught dead driving a GM product before I bought my Gen 1 Volt.


A question – a bit off topic:
Are such 238 miles measured on a standard car or are companies providing ‘optimised’ cars e.g. with a lighter chassis, special tyres, optimized battery chemistry etc.

I’m guessing they where the high end models, i.e. fully optioned out but still production/production intent cars. There were using low resistance tires, I don’t know if they come as standard, premium or extra.


Thank you!

If it’s an EPA-standard range test, which this seems to be, then it has to be done with a standard production car.

And no, the auto maker can’t use special tires. Again, testing has to be done using production standard cars.

It depends what needle you are looking at I guess. It’s not going to affect the bottom line of the balance sheet but I do believe it has changed some people’s opinion on GM. GM was a crufty old car company before the Bolt, this car shows that they can tackle the future and be competitive when the car market changes.

The Bolt is also a technology development platform. I’m sure they learnt a great deal about EVs making this car, lessons they will apply in future projects. I wouldn’t be surprised if by 2020 GM has released at least two more long range BEVs and those will be produced in much larger numbers.

In my opinion, the Volt showed a lot more originality and displayed far more engineering prowess than the Bolt. The Volt was, until very recently, by far the longest-range PHEV, and the only one which functions equally well as a BEV and a serial hybrid EV.

Contrariwise, the Bolt looks very much like a Prius which has a BEV powertrain stuck into it. BMW showed much more originality with their i3, especially with the carbon-fiber body.

Sure, it’s great that the Bolt has a much longer range than the Leaf or the i3. But that’s a mere difference in quantity of batteries, not quality of engineering. The innovation here is LG Chem’s batteries; cheaper, and with a higher DoD (Depth of Discharge).

I don’t see that GM has done much with the Bolt that’s actually innovative. It’s always been possible to stuff a lot of batteries into a small car. The German Battery maker DBM did that with a prototype, back in 2011.


“market commentator/entertainer Jim Cramer”

Probably the most accurate description ever. JC is usually conflated with “expert”.

Yet another US-centric “expert”.
In the vast majority of the world, coolness isn’t such a big factor in car ownership…

The US is a bizarre outlier, with more registered cars than licensed drivers.
Also, the average number of salaries it takes to buy an average car is lower than in most other countries, gas is cheaper, as is land for parking etc.

As a result, coolness can be significant factor in the US…
Not elsewhere. In the vast majority of the world, including the developed world, teenagers do not own cars at all, and people get by with a single car, which needs to be practical above all else — most drivers regard cars as transportation appliances.

Another Euro point of view

My Euro mind in inclined to think you are right. It always somehow puzzles me that for many commenters here there is no irony at all that the most successful American EV maker has spent so many years, resources, capital dilution in making hugely powerful, falcon winged $100K 5000 lbs EV’s. I am not saying there is not some business logic in doing this but to my Euro mind this is seems a very North American approach of how to make a greener world.

Actually, I don’t think it’s particularly American to introduce powertrain innovations into a higher-end automobile first, then, when costs are reduced, have those innovations make their way into cheaper vehicles. The buyers of expensive vehicles are not trying to save every penny, and therefore they can afford these vehicles. There are several expensive plug-in vehicles by European manufacturers – usually hybrids.

Tesla’s obsession with Falcon-winged doors – well, it’s a little silly – but that’s nothing you’d do with an inexpensive car.

Getting a profitable affordable vehicle is, of course, always a tougher proposition.

Another Euro point of view said: “…the most successful American EV maker has spent so many years, resources, capital dilution in making hugely powerful, falcon winged $100K 5000 lbs EV’s.” Hmmm, well, Tesla Motors is certainly the most popular, most high-profile maker of EVs, but I think calling Tesla the “most successful” is overstating the case quite a bit. The most successful is likely Toyota, maker of the Prius. We Tesla fans hope that Tesla will become the most successful within a few years; we hope the Model ≡ will be a smash hit and that it will put Tesla “into the black” on an ongoing basis. “I am not saying there is not some business logic in doing this but to my Euro mind this is seems a very North American approach of how to make a greener world.” It’s not that Tesla’s business model is “North American”, nor “European”, or any other region-centric. It’s that it’s the only business model that has a real chance of actually working. Entering the market from the bottom, as Japanese auto makers did when entering the American market in the 1970s and 1980s, doesn’t work because of the high price of batteries.… Read more »

In a world where there’s an obsession with German and Italian luxury cars … ah, that’s a bunch of parroting cliches about Americans.

wavelet said:

“In the vast majority of the world, including the developed world, teenagers do not own cars at all, and people get by with a single car…”

Apparently it doesn’t occur to you that your Eurocentric view is every bit as myopic, provincial, and parochial as that of “ugly Americans” who have no exposure to life outside our borders.

We Americans live in the USA, where even poor people own cars, because we live in a big, spread-out country that’s not small and crowded like yours. In small, crowded, countries, mass transit is affordable on a per-capita basis.

Here in the USA, mass transit isn’t affordable outside the high-density urban areas on the East and West coasts. Poor people own cars here because in the USA, cars are a necessity, not a luxury.

Most readers of InsideEVs are Americans. Your countries are about as big as our States. Most people — well over half — who speak English as their first language are Americans.

Get over it, or at least quit whining about it.


Got you on the defensive, huh (-; ? No idea why you felt the need for a personal attack. 1. I’m not European. I’ve talked about which country I am in enough comments here, and you & I have commented on each other’s posts enough times that you should know that by now (hint: Near East). You’re attacking for things I never said (and didn’t mean): 2. Car ownership in rural areas (which contain a small minority of the population, in the US as well as most developed countries) isn’t the issue, and not what I criticized; incidentally, in many US metro areas as well as rural ones, it’s not that efficient public transit isn’t affordable — it simply doesn’t exist.) My criticism was about owning 2-3 cars, simply because one can afford to and for coolness. No person _needs_ more more than one car just for transportation (the US average is 1.1 vehicles per _licensed driver_, not per household) 3. Australia’s population density is >10x less than the US’s… and its rural areas as remote as one can get. They still have less cars per capita (or per licensed driver). 4. I was discussing the reasons why “coolness” was… Read more »


My apologies for my over-reaction, as well as mis-identifying you as a European.

What set me off was, at least in part, your assertion “The US is a bizarre outlier”…

Perhaps you didn’t intend it as a pejorative, but it came across that way to me.

I appreciate the apology, thanks!
On re-reading what I wrote, I’m also to blame — “bizarre” was indeed uncalled for.

I do understand the history of how the current US situation came to be that way — US population was overwhelmingly rural, gasoline was locally available, inherently fairly cheap and mostly untaxed. There was enough of a large local market for a large local automotive industry to develop, and it had most of the raw material available for steel production.

Cars also fit the US culture (and political culture) that tends not to go for centralized solutions (as would be necessary for widespread passenger rail, regional rail etc.)

wavelet said:

“Australia’s population density is >10x less than the US’s… and its rural areas as remote as one can get. They still have less cars per capita (or per licensed driver).”

It’s certainly true that the American “love affair” with the automobile has made it part of our culture in a way that it’s not in other countries. Perhaps that accounts for at least part of the higher rate of ownership here.

However, that said, I think it would be interesting to compare how many Australians per household have a job outside the home, vs. Americans. Long gone are the “Leave it to Beaver” days here in the USA, when only dad worked. These days, mom usually has a job outside the home, too; so she needs her own car for commuting.

“…in many US metro areas as well as rural ones, it’s not that efficient public transit isn’t affordable — it simply doesn’t exist.)”

Glad to see you realize that. Far too many Europeans posting on the subject of personal car ownership vs. mass transportation fail to grasp that fact. And again, my apologies for lumping you in with them.

Buy a Bolt and simply turn the AC-ON . An d voila: Bolt is also cool 🙂

The reason nobody gets excited about GM on this score is their track record. GM bought a series of municipal trolley lines when cars were first becoming popular, and shut them down, including gathering them in a yard and setting fire to them. Then, GM introduced EV 1, only to placate the CARB, and only under lease. Then they recalled them all, gathered them in a yard and crushed them all, a throwback to the days of burning trolleys.

GM is a political animal. It does not breathe or sh*t except as a political reaction to some trouble it has either caused or wants to avoid. It is the Hillary Clinton of corporations.

That’s why GM is not exciting. If they said the sun was up I would check with 5 other sources.

Scott Franco said:

“GM introduced EV 1, only to placate the CARB…”

I wonder why this bad meme keeps cropping up in comments on InsideEVs. Was that part of the (false) propaganda in “Who Killed the Electric Car”?

CARB put forth its circa 1999 ZEV mandate only after GM announced it was putting the EV1 into production… not vice versa.

Let us stop with the revisionist history, please.


And GM makes profit when Tesla doesn’t.

Yes, coolness makes stock go up in a bubble. That is what happened in the last dot com bubble.

Since I don’t even trust Cramer on stocks, why would I care about his advice on cars?

You know what is really cool? That John Stewart ripping Jim Cramer apart on Comedy Central’s Daily Show…

You must have a very short memory to hold up G.M. as an example of financial success. There is more to business than this quarter’s profits.

I predict gas prices go back up and history repeats itself. SUV and truck sales are already up.

Very short term.

Exactly my argument in another thread.

Despite its superior engineering, GM has always had piss-poor managment/short-term thinking and it has cost them their former status as the biggest corporation in the world to the point they had to be bailed out.

I do think that the Mary Barra regime is VASTLY better then previous ones but the corporate inertia is still keeping GM from aggressively creating and seizing the future that will be electrified.

Instead of becoming the dominant OEM in the new electrified era its more likely that GM will only be a survivor (unlike lets say FCA) and companies with the vision and the coolness factor like Tesla will instead become the biggest seller of compelling PEVs (in the form of BEVs)

“I predict gas prices go back up and history repeats itself. SUV and truck sales are already up”

Yes, everyone swear that gas is going to $8/gallon back in 2012 when I bought my EV.

Geez… Only if I knew. /S

GM’s #1 selling sedan is the Chevy Cruze. So, I think GM is much better equipped this time than last time.

Even Toyota needed some help from Japanese government during the 2008 crisis.

“You must have a very short memory to hold up G.M. as an example of financial success. There is more to business than this quarter’s profits.”

Old GM survived almost 100 years before its bankruptcy.

New GM is making profit ever since its launch.

Tesla hasn’t made a single profitable year yet and was close to folding 2x in its short history.

Also, when was the last time that Jim Cramer knew anything about “holding for the long term”?

The guy is a freaking idiot.

Excelente car. It deserves a bit success. Only two network related flaws: 1) It lacks a supercharged network. 2) It has a dealerships network.


Blablabla of the car experts coming out of nowhere, eh?

So another words, GM might be great in many ways, but without the cool factor, they are screwed!

Long term is what will blindside many.

“cool” can be out of fashion quickly…

Cool doesn’t always last thru generation.

Toyota didn’t become #1 automaker in the world thru “coolness”.

Uh hello people. The jc is a stock manipulator. My guess is he’s at it again and holds Tesla and will short gm.