Chevrolet Bolt & Bolt EUV

Just shows competition is good for the industry. I expect both to have upgraded range options within 3 to 5 years.

Is there any release date on the Bolt yet for when it will begin production?

They are saying they will be available for sale by the end of this December.

GetOffYourGas said:

edatoakrun said:

I agree Musk's ego may require a longer range from the Tesla 3 than any competitor, so when and if it ever hits the market, it likely will carry an EPA range (base or option) of greater than 238 miles.

Click to expand...

The way I see this working out is a base range of less than 238 miles, but for the same price as a Bolt ($37,495)...

Click to expand...

I doubt many buyers will actually pay ~$37.5k for a Bolt, at least after the initial demand is satiated.

You can lease a 2017 Volt today for three years for a little over $7k, and well under $6k in CA, after the $1,500 rebate.

http://ev-vin.blogspot.com/2016/07/current-lease-offers-for-selected-evs.html

You think many lessees are going to be willing to pay very much more than that for a Bolt, as long as gas prices remain near 2$ to 3 $ a gallon?

How Tesla's all sales at full list price policy will need to be altered with the model 3, to face the brutal price competition we should expect in the upper-middle BEV price bracket, only time will tell.

Unlike Tesla, Chevy has a good excuse to sell the Bolt cheap. Starting in 2017, each EV sold counts as two EVs for CAFE compliance. Each Bolt they sell will allow them sell more trucks and SUVs without running in compliance issues. After the initial demand is consumed, I fully expect all sorts of subsidies on Bolts that will be made back with truck/suv sales.

DesertSprings said:

Unlike Tesla, Chevy has a good excuse to sell the Bolt cheap. Starting in 2017, each EV sold counts as two EVs for CAFE compliance. ...

Click to expand...

Actually, it sounds like Tesla may have the same excuse, as it will be able to make a nifty profit selling both CAFE and GHG credits it receives for selling BEVs, just as it has been for years trading CARB ZEV credits:

New Markets for Pollution and Energy Efficiency: Credit Trading under Automobile Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards

Benjamin Leard and Virginia McConnell
Abstract
Recent changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have created new opportunities for lowering the cost of meeting strict new standards through provisions for credit banking and trading. In this paper, we explore these new markets for reductions in both fuel consumption (fuel economy) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). We examine the two separate credits markets for fuel economy as regulated by NHTSA and for GHG gases under EPA...

Trading between Manufacturers

Trading between companies is now allowed under the CAFE and GHG rules, and for the first time allows a market to develop that should help to equalize marginal costs between companies and lower the overall costs of meeting both standards. Companies that have high costs or the greatest difficulties in complying can purchase credits from other companies...

Click to expand...

http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-15-16.pdf

And FCV and PHEV manufactures also get some of the gravy:

2017-2025 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards; Supplemental Notice of Intent

2. Incentives for Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and Fuel Cell Vehicles

To facilitate market penetration of the most advanced vehicle technologies as rapidly as possible, EPA intends to propose an incentive multiplier for all electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) sold in MYs 2017 through 2021. This multiplier approach means that each EV/PHEV/FCV would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's compliance calculation. EPA intends to propose that EVs and FCVs start with a multiplier value of 2.0 in MY 2017, phasing down to a value of 1.5 in MY 2021. PHEVs would start at a multiplier value of 1.6 in MY 2017 and phase down to a value of 1.3 in MY 2021. (11) These multipliers would be proposed for incorporation in EPA's GHG program...

Click to expand...

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-0594

edatoakrun said:

DesertSprings said:

Unlike Tesla, Chevy has a good excuse to sell the Bolt cheap. Starting in 2017, each EV sold counts as two EVs for CAFE compliance. ...

Click to expand...

Actually, it sounds like Tesla may have the same excuse, as it will be able to make a nifty profit selling both CAFE and GHG credits it receives for selling BEVs, just as it has been for years trading CARB ZEV credits:

New Markets for Pollution and Energy Efficiency: Credit Trading under Automobile Greenhouse Gas and Fuel Economy Standards

Benjamin Leard and Virginia McConnell
Abstract
Recent changes to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards have created new opportunities for lowering the cost of meeting strict new standards through provisions for credit banking and trading. In this paper, we explore these new markets for reductions in both fuel consumption (fuel economy) and greenhouse gases (GHGs). We examine the two separate credits markets for fuel economy as regulated by NHTSA and for GHG gases under EPA...

Trading between Manufacturers

Trading between companies is now allowed under the CAFE and GHG rules, and for the first time allows a market to develop that should help to equalize marginal costs between companies and lower the overall costs of meeting both standards. Companies that have high costs or the greatest difficulties in complying can purchase credits from other companies...

Click to expand...

http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-15-16.pdf

And FCV and PHEV manufactures also get some of the gravy:

2017-2025 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards; Supplemental Notice of Intent

2. Incentives for Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and Fuel Cell Vehicles

To facilitate market penetration of the most advanced vehicle technologies as rapidly as possible, EPA intends to propose an incentive multiplier for all electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) sold in MYs 2017 through 2021. This multiplier approach means that each EV/PHEV/FCV would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's compliance calculation. EPA intends to propose that EVs and FCVs start with a multiplier value of 2.0 in MY 2017, phasing down to a value of 1.5 in MY 2021. PHEVs would start at a multiplier value of 1.6 in MY 2017 and phase down to a value of 1.3 in MY 2021. (11) These multipliers would be proposed for incorporation in EPA's GHG program...

Click to expand...

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-0594

Click to expand...

IOW the typical "write a law to shut up the masses but in a way that benefits Big Corp the most"

truly "business as usual"

Repost from this post:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=22460&start=10#p470858

Boomer and I got to see and ride in the Bolt. A auto magazine writer and his photo crew had a pre-production Bolt to drive for the weekend. They were especially interested in how those of us who have reserved Tesla Model 3s found the Bolt.

Better interior than Volt, comfortable rear seats with good leg room, more than in LEAF. "leather" on higher trim felt like vinyl, definitely not near luxury quality. Biggest disappointment for me was no GPS even with higher trim. Instead the good high-quality central display had a "projection" mode that could display the GPS map from your smart phone.

Best features of car: real good torque, better than LEAF, and real good Regen. The Regen was also adjustable.

Reporter asked for a vote as to how many folks who had reserved a Model 3 (almost all 20 something present had), would now consider a Bolt after seeing it. Only one hand went up. Boomer said he might convert on of his two Model 3 reservations to a Bolt, but not his other one.

Reporter understood that one of the biggest disadvantages of the Bolt was its very limited fast charging network vs Supercharger network. Another was the lack of over-the-air software updates. He said the car was capable of over-the-air updates, but he doubted whether GM would use it because that would anger their dealers who want excuses to charge fees. Boomer said he had that problem with his i3, where BMW had good updates, but his dealer would refuse to install them unless he could find something wrong with the car, because they wouldn't deal with the car without being reimbursed by BMW.

NYTimes ran a story a week ago that claimed the Bolt was a "Model 3 killer" and that giant GM was going to crush Tesla. Based upon what I saw, this is Not going to happen. GM is producing the Bolt on one of their many regular assembly lines, mixed in with ICE cars, which reduces risk and allows them to scale production up or down to match demand. This reduces risk, but it also reduces production efficiency. Tesla, used to high risk, will produce the Model 3 with a highly automated assembly line where "humans are banned." I think we will get more car value the Tesla way.

It would be great if GM produces and sells 100K Bolts next year, which would further the EV revolution without seriously impacting Tesla or Model 3 sales.

I would hope the torque is MUCH greater than the LEAF! No GPS in the system is a complete joke on many levels, talk about cheap. I expected the premium interior to be disappointing as well. The Tesla killer comment is very ignorant at the least, these two vehicles are very different and from what I hear so far it seems Nissan has a good chance against the Bolt.

By making people buy or lease the Premiere to get the Surround Vision (and maybe the SAE Combo port?), then giving the Premier a cheap interior and no GPS, they are apparently going to sabotage their own sales before the car even hits the showroom. I'm already debating between getting a fire sale 2016 Leaf SV for much less money and waiting for the 2017 Leaf SV for more range. The Bolt only re-enters my equation if they offer cheap leases on the Premiere, which I also doubt will happen. They'll have to hope for a lot of first time EV drivers, and a lot of former FFE and iMiev and pre-2013 Leaf drivers. Their chances for winning over sales from Tesla and even Nissan, post-2012, don't look good.

So, is "projection" GPS really so bad? Nissan's nav is no great shakes. Google maps or whatever shows up without having to send a route as we can now.

Would it support Plugshare's route planner?

This way, they don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can use the latest and greatest nav app.

DNAinaGoodWay said:

So, is "projection" GPS really so bad? Nissan's nav is no great shakes. Google maps or whatever shows up without having to send a route as we can now.

Would it support Plugshare's route planner?

This way, they don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can use the latest and greatest nav app.

Click to expand...

Agree, Google maps is excellent. GM has plans for embedded android. Perhaps in the 2018 Bolt?

EVDRIVER said:

I would hope the torque is MUCH greater than the LEAF!

Click to expand...

Right! With 60 kWh vs 24 kWh and both using about 360 - 400 volts, the potential peak current to the
motor is about 2.5 X, thus much more torque potential. A real negative for the FCEV, with a small battery,
is having marginal torque, but the positive is not having the additional battery weight of a BEV.

TonyWilliams said:

NYTimes ran a story a week ago that claimed the Bolt was a "Model 3 killer" and that giant GM was going to crush Tesla. Based upon what I saw, this is Not going to happen. GM is producing the Bolt on one of their many regular assembly lines, mixed in with ICE cars, which reduces risk and allows them to scale production up or down to match demand. This reduces risk, but it also reduces production efficiency. Tesla, used to high risk, will produce the Model 3 with a highly automated assembly line where "humans are banned." I think we will get more car value the Tesla way.

Click to expand...

Since Tesla is presently behind in their 2016 guidance of 80K for in-production vehicles, forecasting their "killer car"
for late 2017 delivery becomes hyperbole! Luckily, most of the Model 3 reservations will be refundable,
i.e. unless Tesla's cash position worsens by late 2017.

lorenfb said:

TonyWilliams said:

NYTimes ran a story a week ago that claimed the Bolt was a "Model 3 killer" and that giant GM was going to crush Tesla. Based upon what I saw, this is Not going to happen. GM is producing the Bolt on one of their many regular assembly lines, mixed in with ICE cars, which reduces risk and allows them to scale production up or down to match demand. This reduces risk, but it also reduces production efficiency. Tesla, used to high risk, will produce the Model 3 with a highly automated assembly line where "humans are banned." I think we will get more car value the Tesla way.

Click to expand...

Since Tesla is presently behind in their 2016 guidance of 80K for in-production vehicles, forecasting their "killer car"
for late 2017 delivery becomes hyperbole! Luckily, most of the Model 3 reservations will be refundable,
i.e. unless Tesla's cash position worsens by late 2017.

Click to expand...

I was right! You are the perennial "Tesla hater". I hope you have lots of short positions on TSLA.

lorenfb said:

EVDRIVER said:

I would hope the torque is MUCH greater than the LEAF!

Click to expand...

Right! With 60 kWh vs 24 kWh and both using about 360 - 400 volts, the potential peak current to the
motor is about 2.5 X, thus much more torque potential. A real negative for the FCEV, with a small battery,
is having marginal torque, but the positive is not having the additional battery weight of a BEV.

Click to expand...

And the LEAF motor design

DNAinaGoodWay said:

So, is "projection" GPS really so bad? Nissan's nav is no great shakes. Google maps or whatever shows up without having to send a route as we can now.

Would it support Plugshare's route planner?

This way, they don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can use the latest and greatest nav app.

Click to expand...

I agree - it gets updates, and you can use your program of choice.

They did talk about EV specific navigation with elevation and temperature and charging stations.

I also just found out that the Bolt EV coasts in D - which is music to my ears: https://www.periscope.tv/dennis_p/1djGXYoXbzVJZ

NeilBlanchard said:

DNAinaGoodWay said:

So, is "projection" GPS really so bad? Nissan's nav is no great shakes. Google maps or whatever shows up without having to send a route as we can now.

Would it support Plugshare's route planner?

This way, they don't have to reinvent the wheel. You can use the latest and greatest nav app.

Click to expand...

I agree - it gets updates, and you can use your program of choice.

They did talk about EV specific navigation with elevation and temperature and charging stations.

I also just found out that the Bolt EV coasts in D - which is music to my ears: https://www.periscope.tv/dennis_p/1djGXYoXbzVJZ

Click to expand...

Yeah, considering how overpriced and lousy most in-car GPS navs are, how out of date the maps are and how infrequent the updates, why would anyone want to pay the ridiculous prices companies charge (at very high profit margins) for built-in nav, when you can use your phone? Given the choice between Google maps and the nav. in the LEAF, how many would choose the latter?

I do wish they'd separate the safety equipment from the Premier upgrade (don't want leather seats), but since I have that same gripe about option bundling with every manufacturer it's just same old same old.

EVDRIVER said:

lorenfb said:

EVDRIVER said:

I would hope the torque is MUCH greater than the LEAF!

Click to expand...

Right! With 60 kWh vs 24 kWh and both using about 360 - 400 volts, the potential peak current to the
motor is about 2.5 X, thus much more torque potential. A real negative for the FCEV, with a small battery,
is having marginal torque, but the positive is not having the additional battery weight of a BEV.

Click to expand...

And the LEAF motor design

Click to expand...

Have you not read that both use PM motors whereas the Volt used an induction motor?
Given that, the difference is?.

I do wish they'd separate the safety equipment from the Premier upgrade (don't want leather seats), but since I have that same gripe about option bundling with every manufacturer it's just same old same old.

Click to expand...

I haven't mentioned this before, but for me the Around View / Surround Vision has become pretty much a necessity. I'm now disabled (but can still walk) and use Handicapped parking. Those spaces tend to be marked with signs on posts that are positioned right at the front of the space, which is also usually too short for safety. (I guess they were designed back when most disabled people drove specially outfitted vans with tanklike bumpers.) As a result I'd have to choose between hanging out the back of a parking space and risking nudging the pole. So I'm just not going to get a vehicle without a front camera.

GRA said:

Yeah, considering how overpriced and lousy most in-car GPS navs are, how out of date the maps are and how infrequent the updates, why would anyone want to pay the ridiculous prices companies charge (at very high profit margins) for built-in nav, when you can use your phone? Given the choice between Google maps and the nav. in the LEAF, how many would choose the latter? ...

Click to expand...

I think the point is that a $37,495 car should have nav as standard equipment.

As to whether I'd rather use Google maps on a tiny phone screen or the LEAF nav, I'd rather have the latter: it worked fine in my experience. Not that I needed to use it much in a short range car that couldn't go anywhere that I wasn't already familiar with. I suppose the proposal is to link the phone to a car screen, but that seems a kludgy way to run a nav system; why not just do it right and include a decent nav system?