Here in Oregon our plates no longer have raised letters, so I guess we don't get to take credit for hits.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
Here in Oregon our plates no longer have raised letters, so I guess we don't get to take credit for hits.
People think EV's are sold in a vacuum that is not polluted by a high pressure ICE atmosphere and entrenched attitudes about lousy performance from EV/Hybrids from decades ago.
Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, VW Group, Mercedes, BMW group, all sell through US dealerships. Common cars and trucks as well as special cars and trucks. They sell nearly 8 million a year. Rare models and common models. Supercars and Hybrids. BEV's and 3500 Dually Diesel Pickups.
Most models get very little advertising.
Dealerships and marketing are not the problem. Acceptance is.
Crying about a lack of national coverage for DCFC is silly as well. You need to build 1 DCFC site for ever 10 EV's ever made in the world to get the coverage that ICE has. Creating DCFC infrastructure did not make EV sales skyrocket. They are still very, very small, even with over 100 times more remote charging locations.
Production capabilities? Are they for real? If a modern car company needed to double their factories in 12 months, and double their suppliers, and double their raw materials, they have done it before. Just because they did not create surplus (wasteful) surplus capacity for unknown numbers of sales in advance doesn't mean they can't. Most of us on this board could buy 4 cars and store them away for future use, just in case we need them. But that is pretty irresponsible. Manufacturing is no different. Don't waste your capital so it can sit and rot.
People don't buy EVs because the EV powertrain is an expensive luxury feature. It is superior to ICE configurations in real world driving, smoother, better response, automatic refueling while you sleep, no warmup cycle, better power modulation. But it is a luxury item most people don't want to pay for. The image that Hybrid/EVs have are slow, expensive, and a hassle to refuel. And we bring that on ourselves by constantly overstating those issues. Most EVs are NOT slower than their ICE counterparts in traffic. Government incentives can get the costs close to ICE prices, most refueling is actually done while you are sleeping, you are NOT waiting hours to refuel, or even 20 minutes.
I predict just like all BEVs and Hybrids, the Bolt will have disappointing sales, and the Camry will outsell all BEVs combined by a very wide margin.
Compelling? Marketing? Bad Dealers? They are picking hairs out of horse poop. Camry's are not compelling, not marketed well, and have lousy dealers too. But they SMOKE EV's and hybrids. A boring FWD car at a median price, that is not particularly fuel stingy creams BEVs and Hybrids. You need to think about why THAT occurs before you blame EV makers.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
I agree that consumer acceptance is a large part of the problem and largely due to entrenched attitudes due to past "green" products; in fact HERE is a blog I wrote on the topic 3 and a half years ago.
However, that doesn't mean that dealerships and marketing are not part of the problem. Marketing (auto marketing is an enormous industry - and they wouldn't spend all that money if it didn't work) especially affects consumer acceptance. Nissan, for example, knows (not only from published research, but from their own internal research on their buyers) that polar bear ads don't sell LEAFs. In fact they turn some people off, and don't help sell cars even to self-described environmentalists - overall, these ads slightly depress sales of the car in question. Nissan runs the ads anyway because a greenwashed brand sells more cars (of all types, including SUVs) than one that isn't. It's good for Nissan, even if not good for the LEAF.
As for dealers, 20 years ago when shopping for an ICE I decided on the best car...but a bad dealership experience pushed me to buy a car from another company instead. Several surveys have clearly shown that the EV dealership experience is even worse than the ICE one, so why wouldn't the same effect be happening there?
There is also plenty of research showing that DCFC buildout accelerates EV adoption. In fact, in a report on EV buying factors I did earlier this year, it was clearly one of the top 4 out of a couple of dozen factors examined. Charging stations are used differently than gas stations and don't have to be built out in the same fashion.
As for volumes, I agree manufacturers could expand if necessary and consumer acceptance is one of the limiters. But manufacturers are not worried about expanding because they don't want to do the marketing to change consumer (and dealer! who is their real customer) acceptance. They'd rather sell just the low volumes required, so they are following every ROI strategy (compliance, versioning, halo, conquest, defensive, etc) except the "volume" strategy. Which, while not what I want to see, is not something I blame the manufacturers for. I'd be cautious too if I was in such a high-capital, long-turnaround, low-margin business. But it's clear that more manufacturer effort could sell more cars.
Also keep in mind that "consumer demand" (i.e. acceptance) is almost always measured in the industry by...sales. When few cars are built, most U.S. dealers don't carry them, and some that do carry them try to steer customers away, yeah, sales are going to be low. The real problem is when people assume those low sales mean consumer acceptance will always be low and use that to justify keeping volumes low. Sales might stay low even if manufacturers start really trying to sell them...but they will definitely be low as long as manufacturers only make a few.
However, that doesn't mean that dealerships and marketing are not part of the problem. Marketing (auto marketing is an enormous industry - and they wouldn't spend all that money if it didn't work) especially affects consumer acceptance. Nissan, for example, knows (not only from published research, but from their own internal research on their buyers) that polar bear ads don't sell LEAFs. In fact they turn some people off, and don't help sell cars even to self-described environmentalists - overall, these ads slightly depress sales of the car in question. Nissan runs the ads anyway because a greenwashed brand sells more cars (of all types, including SUVs) than one that isn't. It's good for Nissan, even if not good for the LEAF.
As for dealers, 20 years ago when shopping for an ICE I decided on the best car...but a bad dealership experience pushed me to buy a car from another company instead. Several surveys have clearly shown that the EV dealership experience is even worse than the ICE one, so why wouldn't the same effect be happening there?
There is also plenty of research showing that DCFC buildout accelerates EV adoption. In fact, in a report on EV buying factors I did earlier this year, it was clearly one of the top 4 out of a couple of dozen factors examined. Charging stations are used differently than gas stations and don't have to be built out in the same fashion.
As for volumes, I agree manufacturers could expand if necessary and consumer acceptance is one of the limiters. But manufacturers are not worried about expanding because they don't want to do the marketing to change consumer (and dealer! who is their real customer) acceptance. They'd rather sell just the low volumes required, so they are following every ROI strategy (compliance, versioning, halo, conquest, defensive, etc) except the "volume" strategy. Which, while not what I want to see, is not something I blame the manufacturers for. I'd be cautious too if I was in such a high-capital, long-turnaround, low-margin business. But it's clear that more manufacturer effort could sell more cars.
Also keep in mind that "consumer demand" (i.e. acceptance) is almost always measured in the industry by...sales. When few cars are built, most U.S. dealers don't carry them, and some that do carry them try to steer customers away, yeah, sales are going to be low. The real problem is when people assume those low sales mean consumer acceptance will always be low and use that to justify keeping volumes low. Sales might stay low even if manufacturers start really trying to sell them...but they will definitely be low as long as manufacturers only make a few.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well, you would have to take that issue up with some that actually made the claim that the Bolt was the smallest car ever made (I don't believe anyone did). My claim was that the size was around the same as a Trax/Encore, and Breezy's exterior size comparison pretty much shows it's only slightly smaller. Others have claimed the closest car was the Fit (which is quite far from the smallest car ever made). Breezy's exterior comparison shows, the Bolt is slightly larger.
However, in EPA volume, the Fit is practically the same (both categorized as a "small station wagon") with the Fit slightly larger in passenger volume at 96 cu ft, vs 95 cu ft for Bolt. Luggage volume is tied at 17 cu ft.
Compare Side-by-Side
mknox
Well-Known Member
Agree, until, as Elon says, the currently unpriced externalities of pollution and carbon are factored in to the TCO equation.
BluestarE3
Active Member
I also found this to be interesting:
If GM gives Lyft priority, what's left of the first year's production run of 30,000 may leave many retail buyers having to wait until the second model year in Fall 2017 before they can buy one. That's not much of a head start over the Model 3 (assuming Tesla is able to keep to its schedule). Also, these Lyft sales, along with ongoing sales of the Volt, will eat into GM's 200,000 vehicle threshold for the EV tax credit. So, it's not just Model 3 buyers who may have to ponder whether or not their EV purchase will qualify for the tax credit when they are finally able to get their car. Up until the actual $37,495 price of the Bolt was announced recently, GM had been touting it repeatedly and consistently as a $30,000 car, which presupposed that consumers would be able to take advantage of the $7,500 tax credit.
Last edited:
The Bolt is definitely larger than a Smart car, and other cars in that size class, but 95 cf interior puts it in the subcompact class by the EPA. Some have pointed out the Bolt has surprisingly good passenger room, but anyway you slice it, it's still a small car.
As for the discussion about EV demand, I'm probably one of those people who need to be won over to make EVs a success. I didn't go out looking for an EV a a political issue, nor was I looking to get some kind of benefit. In fact while I was saving Washington state made buying a Tesla more expensive by eliminating the sales tax holiday on more expensive EVs.
I needed a car capable of road trips. I'm in a position where I need to make trips to California a couple of times a year, my 1992 Buick was getting too old, and my SO's Subaru Impreza leaves me stove up after a long drive. When I started looking, all I wanted was something a little better than the Buick. I wanted at least 20% more gas mileage, I was willing to take a hit on storage space, but not much, and I wanted equivalent acceleration (8s 0-60).
I found that impossible to find in ICEs. The cars in my size range (enough legroom) with high enough gas mileage were too sluggish 0-60 and those with enough gas mileage were too sluggish. I found Tesla on a whim and the Model S exceeded every one of my criteria. It was a major budget stretch to buy one. Unlike the earlier poster who said he could afford to buy 4 cars and store them, I am not anywhere near than financial position.
I still wouldn't buy any other EV. They are all too small to start with. Even if the Bolt was big enough, I wouldn't touch it as a road trip car until there is a reliable network in place. I bought my Model S as the household road trip car, something you can't say about any other EV brand out there.
I am pretty much the perfect demographic for the Model 3. The M3 decently equipped is in the upper end of the price range I was considering, but affordable and it comes with a long range charging network in place. As long as the legroom would work for me, I would probably bought one if it was available when I needed to buy a car. I probably did look at Tesla because I am fairly open minded. I'm not locked into a mind set that it has to be a Toyota or BMW or Ford. Whoever provides the best car gets my business.
You don't have to guess how the EPA classifies it:
It's a Small Station Wagon. Passenger volume is about the same as a BMW 320i, go to Specs Tab:
Compare Side-by-Side
It's bigger than a Lexus CT 200h, or an Audi A4, and a hair smaller than a 320i.
It's only a subcompact if you decide it must be. Sort of like the Less Than 200 Miles When Actually Driven. It must be true, some anonymous person on the internet said it.
I should not do this here... but look on the specs on the passenger room for these 2 cars...
Compare Side-by-Side
All it means is don't use the EPA numbers for anything but fuel economy. If a car is roomy, it's roomy.
None of the cars listed in this post are Cadillac CT6 class though. That's a full sized car interior, and really nice inside.
Last edited:
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I'm the one who said it, and I said it because it is true:
Compare Side-by-Side
The Honda Fit is also classified as a "small station wagon". By the U.S. government measurement standards, it actually has more passenger space than the Bolt, at 96 ft3 for the cabin (which is larger than Honda's measurements), and the same cargo capacity, at 17 ft3.
So both the Fit and Bolt are larger inside than a Model X? Or are the EPA numbers not apples to apples?
Honda says the Fit LX has 95.7 cubed ft. of passenger space but the EX and EX-L trims have 93.8 cubed ft.
GM says the Bolt EV has 94.4 cubed ft.
The cargo area behind the rear seat in the Fit measures in at 16.6 cubed ft. and 16.9 in the Bolt EV.
If the Bolt and Fit were categorized as passenger cars instead of small wagons they would just be within the lower end of mid-size based on their interior space.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I'm not sure that the EPA figures on the Model X are accurate (listed as 94 ft3 for passengers and 26 ft3 for cargo), because the EPA spec lists the exact same thing for the Model S.
Compare Side-by-Side
It seems unlikely that the Model X and Model S would have the exact same cabin space and cargo area, even given the fact that they share a similar platform.
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Drat... I forgot that the Honda specs will vary by trim level because of the moonroof. Generally, Honda EX trims and above have a moonroof which takes up 1.9 ft3 of volume. LX and DX trims with no moonroof have a noticeable indent in the cabin roof that gives a little more headroom up front.
Car & Driver published SAE specs on the Model X: Tesla Model X - Car and Driver, claiming 60 cubes up front, 52 cubes in the middle, and 28 cubes in the rear. I don't know how this aligns with the EPA specifications. Cargo volume calculations are different depending on one's location in the world.
The data is provided by the MFR, then transcribed into the EPA database.
Mistakes happen all the time, and things like Passenger Volume are not uniformly measured by all auto makers the same way.
No, the Model X is way bigger than Fit or a BMW 320i.
But all you really need is how well humans fit into one. And that is best left to humans than tape measures. Humans are not cubic.
The X has more space, it's taller and the dashboard is moved forward a few inches. The rear is also higher so there is more vertical space at the hatch. The EPA site data on the volumes is wrong.
jgs
Active Member
Similar threads
