Chevy Bolt: The EV for the Rest of Us - Autoline After Hours 316

UP FOR DISCUSSION:
- Deep dive into Chevrolet's new 200-mile electric Bolt
- CES: Is Las Vegas Simply Sexier Than Detroit?
- NAIAS: Did a Minivan Really Steal the Show?
- Autonomous: Ford & GM Are Chasing It
SPECIAL GUEST: Steve Majoros, Chevrolet Marketing Director
All that and much more with John McElroy, Autoline.tv, Gary Vasilash, Automotive Design & Production, and Mike Martinez, The Detroit News.
Get more video everyday at autoline.tv

[@tigeroll]

I have the Spark Ev, It is such a joy to drive because #1 Performance, #2 Maintenance Free. The idea of being green has never entered my mind. After driving it for a couple of years the cost savings is making itself more and more evident too. I will assure you I will be upgrading to the BOLT the day it comes out.

[@electrictroy2010]

+tigeroll COST SAVINGS? You would have saved 15,000 dollars immediately if you purchased the base/gasoline version of the Spark. No amount of electric driving will payback that huge gap .

[@carlgreek9263]

+electrictroy2010 Actually the difference in price between a base automatic and base electric is $11,360. After federal tax credit of $7500 and rebate here in CA of $2500, the difference is $1,360. I fuel for free on my solar panels and there is hardly any maintenance needed.

[@electrictroy2010]

I bet Chevy is pulling a NISSAN, who originally claimed the Leaf was a 100 mile car, but it turns-out they were using a Japanese City cycle. The official EPA rating was only 73. The real Bolt will probably be 150 on the EPA test .

[@danwat1234]

+electrictroy2010 I read it'll have a 60KWh battery pack and then not all that is available because the computer limits the full charge level and fully discharged level. If it gets, say 120MPGe average, so 280 watt hours per mile (.28*120=33.6 is1 gallon of gas equiv) and you can use 50KWh of battery, then 178.5 miles range.

[@Cyberwolfman]

Had to come back to this video for a good laugh. The Model 3 is now outselling the Bolt at about 14 to 1 even before the $35k base model is out.

[@theevermind]

1:03:03 - "Does [car sharing] reduce the number of vehicles sold on an annual basis?" Jon's answers: "Absolutely. ... You bet it's going to reduce car sales. It's going to reduce the reduce the number of vehicles that we need. ... The math is easy. The average car today sits parked for 22 hrs a day." 1:06:50 - Jon continues: "We'll probably see fewer vehicles, but the total number of miles driven is going to increase." Jon's second statement disproves his earlier assertion. I contend that new vehicle sales are determined by population growth and the rate that vehicles wear out (i.e., the delta of new people who need cars & old people who don't and the replacement rate). Ride sharing does not affect population growth, so ignoring that, we're left with wear-out rate. Vehicles have a finite life, and that life is generally determined not be age, but by amount of use, which we typically measure in miles driven. We get oil changes & other maintenance based don mileage, and it has proven to be a good descriptor. Therefore, we can reasonably predict the life of a car based on the miles it's driven. Now, let's do the math. Let's say the lifespan of a car is 150k mi. For the current car ownership model, let's consider 10 people who drive 15k mi/yr. How many cars are sold to this population? On average, 1 per year (10 cars times 15k mi/yr divided by 150k mi lifespan equals 1 car/year). For the new car sharing model, let's say there are still 10 people but only three cars. Each car is driven 60k mi/yr. (That's enough to cover the 10 people's needs, and a little extra associated with shuffling the cars around to make them available to everyone.) How many cars are sold to this population? On average 1.2 car per year (3 cars times 60k mi/yr divided by 150k mi lifespan equals 1.2 car/yr). The statistics to use for determining long-term sales is the total number of miles driven and vehicle longevity. Making cars that last 200k mi or 300k mi on average will decrease sales. Fewer people owning cars but driving them more miles overall will result in more average sales, unless the owners somehow make them last longer. Based on my experience with fleet cars & rentals, when drivers don't personally own a car and pay for its maintenance, they do not treat it well. There's a reason fleet & rental cars have lower resale values. I can't conclude that car sharing programs will result in increased lifespans; therefore, new car sales should not decrease.

[@theevermind]

electrictroy2010 Lousy argument. How many trips occur between 10 PM & 6 AM compared to during rush hour? The number of cars in a fully 'shared' system will be close to the peak number of simultaneous trips, i.e., rush hour..The number of cars can be decreased with car pooling, but even with that, there will still be vast numbers of cars parked (and turned off) much of the day when the number of trips is less than the number of cars. There will be few cars in use for a full 12 hrs a day, much less 22. Furthermore, since cars--not just engines--wear out, keeping the engine warm does not sufficiently predict longevity. Miles driven is still the best estimator for wear-and-tear, maintenance, and expiration.

[@unitedred07]

This Chevy guy saying Tesla's are only 100K, what an ignorant biased comment, Model 3 will be comparable to the price of the Bolt. Enjoy your Bolt sales while you can, until the model 3 is produced next year.

[@dt7353]

I wonder if there is a GMC version of the Bolt on the way. A bit bigger and better in every way could work well.

[@joewilder]

I like the look of the center stack on the Pacifica. Best I've seen.

[@fiddlesteven]

What are we going to do about predatory charging companies like Blink, that buy electricity from utilities for 11 cents a KW, and then sell it at a frequently broken level two 240 volt charging station for 49 cents per KW. This make EVs cost as much as gas cars to drive. Blink has a monopoly on charging stations in some ares. How is Chevy going to sell EVs with this kind of crap going on?

[@electrictroy2010]

+fiddlesteven THAT sounds entirely reasonable, because you are not just paying for the 11 cent electricity, but to cover Blink's other expenses: Installing the charger... paying the parking lot owner to lease the space... and also the stockholders. Markups are normal. (For example Levis jeans are $6 wholesale from the factory, but you pay a much higher price when you visit a store to buy them.) .

[@fiddlesteven]

Aero Vironment only charges $20 per month for unlimited charging with fast chargers in a vast network throughout Oregon and Washington state.

[@scoutniagara]

re: the review camera... in the winter or in wet conditions, the lenses do get road splash on them, obscuring the view. You'd need the traditional inside mirror for those times. I have four cameras on my Nissan, and there are a few times, when they need to be cleaned.

[@xchopp]

Why is there no commitment from GM to a developing a charging network? I don't get it.

[@johndonaldson5126]

I was interested in the Bolt until I learned it doesn't have a spare tire. That's a killer for me.

[@SimeonToko]

The model that GM must use for Maven is the car2go model. car2go allows the user to park the car any place within the rental zone as long as the park complies to the alternate side of the street parking. Therefore no need for designated spaces or buildings. Just use the app to find the car nearest you then reserve it. Done.

[@unitedred07]

The Chevy guy literally had nothing relevant to say when the interviewer mentioned Tesla's supercharger network.

[@philipnemer6131]

Time to buy GM Stock.

[@AlanFrance21]

Camera and mirror [internal] is fitted because it's still illegal in the US and the UK to only fit a camera. Tesla wanted to fit wing cameras on the S, because they would be 5% less drag and thus get better range. No go. Of course in the UK, the miserable shit-house police would give you a ticket if your mirror were obstructed by your load. I once got fined £45 for having a cracked wing mirror. The sergeant involved used to cruise up and down the Motorway near me, pulling over older cars, based on something will probably be bookable on an old vehicle. Karma intervened when he pulled a Member of Parliament's vintage Jag half a dozen times in one month. The Chief Constable, an old school chum, demoted him to driving a desk.

[@DocWolph]

The biggest problem with the American Luxury marques is straight up timidity. They are afraid to just do it. For GM, The Buick Avenir and Avista and Cadillac the Ciel and El Miraj before them, For Ford, the Lincoln MKR, and the numerous Chrysler concepts like the Citadel and 300 Coupe, are clear indicators of this. All of these are models that would do tremendously well. The "me too" styling of the New Lincoln Continental, is does not figure well for the brand either. I'll just harp on the Avista, which rightly should be called the Riviera, would do great in the US market alone. There is a contingent of coupe lovers who would love a luxury performance coupe, but don't have or don't/won't/can't pony up the minimum buy in for a BMW 6-series, or Mercedes E- Coupe of close to $80K. But a minimum buy-in for the Avista/Riviera being in the $30K-$35K range would easily see 40K units a year in its first year and grow from there, without taking any of the Camaro's lunch, and maybe adding to it. GM might take the Canyon and Colorado's lessons to heart that you can start or grow a segment simply by expanding your portfolio. A premium, high style, "gentleman's muscle car" would only rake in more sales. Why is GM so averse to making more money? I'd imagine GM/Cadillac would want to hold off fore a CTS Coupe. But My argument would be to let Cadillac attend to a higher price point and level of appointment, technical and technological advance, and refinement. Might also actually put the Ciel, El Miraj, and an updated version of the CIEN with V-12 (shared with the top drawer version of the Escalade) that wears that clearly high style, refined, ACTUALLY American styling, instead of the "American trying to look German" styling of current Caddys.

[@jeffreysegal2065]

+DocWolph The problem with "go for it" cars is they don't sell, so they are a huge financial hit to the bottom line. The answer is for companies to build up a series of platforms that can easily be styled into multiple models. Also a range of engines to use off the shelf. GM is striving toward these ends. Ford too. But if Chevy can't sell Camaros in large numbers, why add a Buick version to the mix, etc?

[@DocWolph]

J Segal Large numbers? Exactly what are large numbers for you? The Camaro regularly sells over 70K-80K units a year. Given what it is it is a excitingly good seller. The Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger, are the real impetus why Toyota thought it would be a good idea to sell the FR-S in the US even though it s total sells dog. I think at its height the RX-8 sold better than at any time the FR-S and BRZ had been on sale in the US. The fact is Americans , and most of the World, China notwithstanding, want exciting cars not just bread and butter, just getting the basic job done, cars. It helps if the car can do more than the basics, But there is a massive calling not being answered for vehicles that actually answer the call of the customer. The "go for it" vehicles do sell when parsed against what at least enough people actually want. What's more they get people in the door to look at everything else. Plus those exciting cars cast a glow,hence the term "Halo car" that makes those other, often lesser models more desirable. Most people think it is or should be only one car model. But that usually results in a model that fails to connect because it is so far removed from what all else the company is selling. While the Corvette is a amazing (and profitable) car it is a good reach too far from everything else they sell. The Camaro and to a greater, less exploited, degree is the is much closer and relatable. Buick and Cadillac do not have such cars. The Avista and the Avenir at the two best bets for Buick. The Avneir built on the Omega platform, like the Cadillac CT6 and the Avista (Riviera) built on the Alpha platform like the Chevy Camaro and Cadillac CTS and ATS. With the Avista and Avenir You draw in more people to buy. Maybe not those cars, although not being that expensive the cars will sell very well anyway. Plus you sell more of everything else around them. Cadillac just needs a solid sports car offering, and again the CIEN, an RMR super sports car with a V12,would drqaw in theose luxury buyers who would see the CT6 and all else and say "I might buy one of those also/instead." "Nothing sales like having something to sell." "Go for it" cars sell themselves just for being while selling everything else around them because of the Halo effect. Exciting cars shed an exciting light on less exciting vehicles.

[@joewilder]

Nissan needs to do something with the Frontier. It's my favorite ergonomically. They just need to add some tech to it and improve it's mpg. Don't change the size though. I live in the city.

[@jeffreysegal2065]

So I can't help but wonder why nobody told this guy he had hat hair prior to filming. You can bet every other guy checked the mirror before going on. He's a guest, help him out.

[@mosfet500]

I'm not so sure Tesla is going to kill the Bolt. I think both cars represent the future of what automobiles will be like. There's room enough for both and after Chevy did such a great job on the Volt I'm going to take a long look at the Bolt. Tesla has around 400k people on board for the 3 but they can't make that many cars in a year, maybe 50k right now. First they are going to favor the high option buyers and this car can run up to $70k, next are the first in line so some people could wait years for the Tesla as things stand now.Yes, the Bolt has to be an exceptional car but the Volt is and it may be too. Good for you Chevrolet! Rob

[@yujishinohara1uponatime]

The way I see it is that Bolt is good vs TSLA 3 sexy. GM mfring will be able to get the Bolt to the customer before the T3. The secret sauce for mass adoption is going to be the recharge infrastructure. Appears that TSLA has a better charge infrastructure story. For efficiency GM should work with TSLA to standardize the recharge station, so that GM or TSLA cars can recharge at either stations. Gas pumps all have standard nozzle size and not for any particular car make. There is a misconstrued tendency to create kingdoms which leads to the silo effect to purposely hinder interoperability.

[@ZiggZagg11]

When cars start driving themselves, people will start thinking of them differently... You dont have to own one, ... A car will just show up when you need one... They will just have different packages... Either you have a private car or one that you share like a elevator, people going in the same direction... Ones with less waiting time, ones that will hang around and wait for you... But no reason to actually own one...

[@electrictroy2010]

+ZiggZagg11 THAT will never work. I need a car at 6am and 3pm every day. As do 200 million other people (with some time variance). You will have a bunch of Empty self-driving cars jamming the highways and workers standing-around cursing the wait . Owning a car, which is sitting nearby, will continue to be the preferred choice. Parked cars eliminate the wait .

[@unitedred07]

Where are you going to be able to fully charge a 200mile range Bolt in 20 minutes? Will you build a supercharger network?

[@sparkss4]

He completely dodged the question about charging infrastructure. What good is a 9 hour charge if you're on a long trip? Trying to shake off GM's responsibility for developing the infrastructure for its vehicles and calling it a problem that all manufacturers need to address together. Bottom line, I didn't hear any plan for developing the infrastructure. GM likes to make a big deal out of the fact that the Bolt will be out before Model 3, and they conveniently ignore the fact that Tesla's infrastructure is already operational and keeps growing whereas GM doesn't seem to even have a plan in place. When you look at it the way it should be: EVs+charging solutions as a single unit (just like regular cars are meaningless without gas stations) rather than two separate issues, then Tesla is actually way ahead of GM, even if their Model 3 is behind.

[@honestycounts9352]

+sparkss4 = Yes, no infrastructure, not for another decade. that's why you have to get a car that will go the distance you need on a FULL CHARGE, so it will have enough to get you home where you can re-fill it with juice.

[@manoman0]

You do know the Bolt can supercharge, right?

[@AndY1ksi]

No it can't. Currently, only Tesla cars can charge at Tesla SuperChargers (115kW). The rest of the EVs quick charge at either CHADEMO or CCS quick charging stations (most of them at 50kW).

[@manoman0]

Andrej Potokar Please go and read about the fast charging capability of the Bolt EV. Please.

[@mosfet500]

I for one am not buying this car for long trips (not that they won't be possible) and I have 10.6KW of PV at my home. You have to remember this is a transitional time in history but look how far EV's have come. I want a car I can charge at home or work, has no oil pan, radiator, spark plugs, etc. A motor and a battery., these things will only get better and charging stations will pop up all over. It's not like a fossil fuel grid, all you need is an outlet - "ten years" hardly! Rob

[@DigitalYojimbo]

Dollar for dollar I'd rather support tesla and not a company that's practically gone bankrupt numerous times with garbage after service.

[@VPoje]

A dealer near my home has already 100+ orders for the Bolt, lol. Chevy is batting a thousand right now!

[@Agent77X]

Tesla model in just two week has 325,000 orders!

[@EricLing64]

Sort of random thought, will it have a HUD? Already has lots of other tech goodies.

[@victorstalick5528]

Good statistics, but it better have great reliability.

[@wdbldr67]

I read that GM will not build a charging network because this car will only service a very small percentage of their customer base. That they would be better off supporting their gasoline customers. I think they will just rely on other charging networks in place. I wonder how many EV's and hybrids they will be able to sell that still qualify for the federal tax credit as I thought it applied to both and since 2010 they have sold quite a few. It would be funny if when this hits the market their incentives will be exhausted and then they will just have a $38-40,000 dollar electric car.

[@singularity70]

To bad there is no true 150kwh fast charging capability, long range yes, cross country trips no..Slow charging defeats its purpose. Awesome set up for fail.. just like the EV1. I was interested in the Bolt until I learned it that recharges on level2 9 hours.. Unreasonably long time.

[@464RJ]

When these cars start getting fried on the high way we the tax payers shouldn't bail out GM this time around should they bankrupt..

[@House_Of_Cards_]

Great move for GM! I am in the market for an all electric car with decent range. I will test drive this as soon as it become available in Europe. I have to admit that I was not expecting this and that I do hate american cars. They are so dull. They feel bulky, look ugly and are environmentally unfriendly. They also do break a lot. I will definitely give the Bolt a try.

[@electrictroy2010]

+EHTZ1975 TRY the Ford Fiesta or Focus or Fusion with 3 cylinder engine. They look great and over 60 miles/gallon (UK) so minimal enviro impact. Even cranky Jeremy Clarkson praised those cars .

[@brianmcg321]

+electrictroy2010 A Bolt will get infinity miles per gallon. So there is that.

[@JSquaredDesigns]

RWD platform is true luxury. At least Cadillac is trying. Lincoln won't make it.

[@Slyou333]

Tesla, meanwhile, is a scruffy outsider riding on one man’s dream to save the world, has a history of lengthy delays (mostly recently with the luxury Model X), and needs to scale up production at a pace not seen in the auto industry since Ford churned out the Model T in order to become the go-to EV maker. So it’s no wonder that Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas told Bloomberg that he doesn’t expect the Model S to actually hit the market until 2018. But by then, GM could totally own that market. And honestly, that’s some bullshit. Sure, reducing emissions is the ultimate goal here. And sure, capitalism means that the best/richest/most powerful company wins. But let’s not forget that GM is the company that marketed the Hummer. And let’s also not forget that GM actually killed the electric car - twice. Fast-forward 84 years, and for a brief interlude it looked like GM was about to take the lead in bringing electrics back. In 1996, in response to a California mandate that required automakers to have zero-emissions vehicles ready for market by 1998, GM rolled out the EV1, the first mass-produced electric vehicle of the modern era. The funny-looking two-seater had a range of about 50 miles and was offered for lease to consumers in California and Arizona. It was impractical, dinky, and entirely doomed. It earned a small coterie of devotees but held little appeal for mainstream consumers. It used almost all unique parts, forfeiting the advantages of GM’s scale. And even as GM’s EV1 team was busy building the car, GM’s lawyers were lobbying hard, side by side with the other big automakers, to get California to back off its requirement. So it’ll really suck if Tesla can’t beat GM to the market with its Model 3, because unlike GM, which is clearly just cashing in on what it sees as the future of the auto industry, Tesla’s explicit mission is to “accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.”

[@agasd67654asdga]

Chevy.....they put on a guy with hair like that????....reinforces my impression of Chevy.....second rate.......Tesla impression: refined and cutting edge-----Chevy impression: cheap, stagnant, catch up

[@cavramau]

Tesla refined? Their model range S3X. Elon is just a big kid.

[@honestycounts9352]

I need an all-electric car that is under $40,000 and has a range of at least 200 miles. I was thinking of getting a VOLT but that would give me only a 50 mile all-electric range, after that I would have to run on gasoline, which I don't want to do because I want to go 'ALL-ELECTRIC' in my next car. The Tesla Model 3 ? It has no instrument pod in front of the steering wheel, and the radio controls are not there, all they've got is this large iPad like thing. No, I want a REAL CAR, not a mockup of a car with a computer tablet stuck somewhere in the dash. That's why I'm passing on the Tesla and buying the BOLT instead.

[@t_adams]

If Chevy and the other auto makers showed they were really interested in EVs, and were willing to invest in the infrastructure, then I would take them more seriously. The Volt was a half hearted attempt are best. There Bolt looks like it might be a step in the right direction but I am very leery of most of what is coming out of GM. I believe that if GM really want to, they could take the lead like they did years ago. They talk a good game but they have yet to back it up.

[@unitedred07]

+T Adams If you have the money, buy a Tesla model 3 on March 31st. They have already built a supercharger network, which sadly the traditional auto makers like Chevy have not seemed to give any real thought to.

[@chrisr2507]

The Tesla Model 3 blows this fugly thing out of the water!

[@cavramau]

Still waiting...

[@chrisr2507]

Chris Avram please enlighten me. How many Bolts have been sold? Last count was 512. So yeah, still waiting.....

[@cavramau]

Um 0

[@chrisr2507]

Chris Avram so anyone who wants one can get one today? No waiting?

[@markwilliams5654]

what's the cycle life on the cheap lg chem cells 300 cycles ?! don't really care how connected it is I want the battery to last . how quickly does the motor overheat and slow down like a Tesla, will the battery last at least 15 years

[@RichardJoashTan]

+Mark Williams AND YOU ARE A BULLSHIT!

[@JD-yx7be]

most EVs have 2000-3000 charge cycles. 200miles x 2000 cycles equals 200,000

[@DocWolph]

1) All you fans of Tesla, Do not sing Tesla's their praises for the Model 3 until AFTER the car is being delivered. Remember Tesla delayed the Model X for almost 2 years after its original date certain so don't get too happy until they deliver. Like the man said, 200K reservations does not add up to sales, and Tesla lost reservations over Model X delays. 2) It is debatable if the Model # will come to only $30K after rebates and incentives. It is sad that rebates and incentives are STILL part of an EV's business plan. 3) You can only buy so much for $40K, before rebates and incentives. Don't expect what you'd expect for a $60+K for only $40K and then less after rebates and incentives. Even then, the tech is still not cheap and it makes more sense for the car to be aimed, in price, at upper tier 3/4-series, C-class and ATS, including the M, C63, and V models. It'll be easier to compete with that instead of gong lower. If the Bolt is a fair assessment of what the technology actually costs, even with GM cutting such a good deal on the battery cells, you have a pretty good idea of what the Tesla Model 3 will be like.

[@electrictroy2010]

+DocWolph TESLA EVs can supercharge at 220 miles in 20 minutes. The Bolt is much slower at a mere 90 miles in the same time. Drivers want a car they can recharge in just a few minutes (tesla) not one where they have to stand-around for an hour (bolt) .

[@DocWolph]

electrictroy2010 I'm afraid that is a total untruth. You cannot recharge lith-poly batteries that fast without outright exploding them. Even then you would need to pump in some much power so fast you'd kill the power grid in the area. What's more is when you recharge batteries that hard, that fast, the batteries life is cut very short. Not a few years, down to a few charge cycles, so a few weeks to a couple of months at best. A Tesla supercharge station is supposed to be capable of up to 440v. Even Tesla will recommend that you use 440V ONLY if you actually need it, not a regular thing, for the reasons I stated earlier and more. Even at 330V, is would take under an hour to fast charge a Bolt. You may be thinking of a super/ultra-capacitor array, which Tesla will not use because they do not have in infrastructure to supply that and "Caps" currently don't have the capacity to hold that large a charge. Super/Ultra caps can reach 80% charge in about 20 minutes. While the technology does exist, it was General Electric that invented it, not Tesla or some Japanese, Chinese, or other company, and it was by accident. It was GE trying to figure out how to mass produce Graphene, for various purposes, that led to the discovery of a Graphene based Ultra Cap.. Now they are developing the tech, but it is by no means ready for "prime time". Tesla does not have nor will it have access to the technology you think they do for a quite a while and chances are someone else will beat them to it. So stop it with the magical thinking. You'll only be disappointed.

[@electrictroy2010]

+DocWolph I AM AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER. And you are? (Nothing) I have stood and watched superchargers filling Teslas, and they fill the battery from near-0 to 80% in just 20 minutes. (Ditto LiPoly Nissan Leafs at 480 volt, but slightly slower.) That means Tesla refill time is 220 MILES IN JUST 20 MINUTES . As for battery life, Tesla warranties them for 100,000 miles so owners do not need to worry .

[@DocWolph]

electrictroy2010 Every claims to be a thing with NO proof that they are. Also don't ask the question if you aren't going wait for or listen to the answer. It just makes you become a total ass. Also, don't +1 your own comments, it confirms you are a total ass and a loser. No one is watching a comment thread, that is over two weeks old, just to +1 you. Next, watching something being done does not make you an engineer of that or any thing, electrical in this case. At best you are a technician, which is the sidekick gofer for an engineer. You can learn but judging from you comment, you have MANY years to go. More than likely you are just a Tesla Fanboy because you want to be one of the "cool kids". Anyway. I stand by what I said. If you think I'm wrong, then PROVEIT. Don't be a little bitch-brat crying "nuh-uh!"

[@Slyou333]

+DocWolph Tesla, meanwhile, is a scruffy outsider riding on one man’s dream to save the world, has a history of lengthy delays (mostly recently with the luxury Model X), and needs to scale up production at a pace not seen in the auto industry since Ford churned out the Model T in order to become the go-to EV maker. So it’s no wonder that Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas told Bloomberg that he doesn’t expect the Model S to actually hit the market until 2018. But by then, GM could totally own that market. And honestly, that’s some bullshit. Sure, reducing emissions is the ultimate goal here. And sure, capitalism means that the best/richest/most powerful company wins. But let’s not forget that GM is the company that marketed the Hummer. And let’s also not forget that GM actually killed the electric car - twice. Fast-forward 84 years, and for a brief interlude it looked like GM was about to take the lead in bringing electrics back. In 1996, in response to a California mandate that required automakers to have zero-emissions vehicles ready for market by 1998, GM rolled out the EV1, the first mass-produced electric vehicle of the modern era. The funny-looking two-seater had a range of about 50 miles and was offered for lease to consumers in California and Arizona. It was impractical, dinky, and entirely doomed. It earned a small coterie of devotees but held little appeal for mainstream consumers. It used almost all unique parts, forfeiting the advantages of GM’s scale. And even as GM’s EV1 team was busy building the car, GM’s lawyers were lobbying hard, side by side with the other big automakers, to get California to back off its requirement. So it’ll really suck if Tesla can’t beat GM to the market with its Model 3, because unlike GM, which is clearly just cashing in on what it sees as the future of the auto industry, Tesla’s explicit mission is to “accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.”

[@badimpulses17]

I would lease the Bolt then buy the Tesla 3 when it comes out.

[@RichardJoashTan]

+manifest 73 AND YOU ARE A BULLSHIT BECAUSE I WILL BUY THE 2017 VOLT!

[@badimpulses17]

Learn how to speak English you dumb shit. You don't even make sense.

[@danielb4010]

So before tax credit it would cost between $38k&$40k to start but the tax credit is up to $7500 and they don't have the charging network tesla has and the bolts really just an overpriced hatchback

[@jamesveach6918]

30k to much money

[@Agent77X]

Tesla will clean house with Model 3! Nobody is going to buy the Bolt!

[@markwilliams5654]

the worst name ever bolt wow I bet there paid a mint to make up bad names

[@RichardJoashTan]

+Mark Williams AMD YOU ARE A BULLSHIT!

[@electrictroy2010]

+Richard Joash “RJ” Tan YOU are not right in the head . Volt and Spark were already taken, so that left Bolt. I think it's a good name because "bolt" means to take off quickly .

[@danwat1234]

+Mark Williams ALSO YOU ARE A BULLSHIT!