Forums

More BOLTS sitting on SoCal's Chevy lots than total sold nationally in April

More BOLTS sitting on SoCal's Chevy lots than total sold nationally in April

April BOLT sales nationally = 1,292
SoCal dealership search = 1,362

Twenty-nine (29 pages) listing BOLTS for sale! Understand this is just Southern California. I'm not opposed to the GM product but what if the BOLT had an appealing body style or a GM charging system like Tesla's Superchargers. Would those two issues significantly reduce the 1,362 listed BOLTS for sale?

https://www.socalchevy.com/inventory/New-Chevrolet-Bolt_EV/

lilbean | May 29, 2017

I think so.

akgolf | May 29, 2017

I guess if I ever need to replace my Leaf I could pick up one of these up to haul my dog around in.

dyefrog | May 29, 2017

Something doesn't make sense here. I was under the impression that the cars are considered sold when they leave the factory. Most of these must have been sitting for a few months if that's the case.

Bluesday Afternoon | May 29, 2017

I'll repeat there are more BOLTS sitting for (re)sale in just SoCal than were sold NATIONALLY in April!

@dyefrog

Good point! So I added (resale) to the above data point. ;-)

Sandy’s 3 | May 29, 2017
Iwantmy3 | May 29, 2017

Strong bolt sales are good for everyone. The sooner ICE makers start seeing success, the sooner they will make a real commitment to the EV market. I hope they are doing well.

I just don't want one myself.

lomunchi | May 29, 2017

I'll have to check the resale market. I couldn't get a test drive at a local dealer because they don't have any! (not that I plan to buy the 'less than attractive' thing).

JeffreyR | May 29, 2017

@Iwantmy3 +1 good point. I don't want one either. But a big part of the reason for that is the shape/form factor of the Bolt. I prefer a sedan and really like the idea of a CoD of 0.21 (M3) vs. 0.30 (B).

Coastal Cruiser. | May 29, 2017

When I researched the article for Clean Technica/EV Obsession in January, a high volume Chevy dealer in the Bay Area told me that most shoppers looking at the Bolt were actually buying the Volt (The Volt sold 1807 in April). He was not trying to "up-sell" me.

He didn't say why folks gravitated to the Volt. That would be the interesting research to do at this juncture; interview car buyers who looked at the Bolt but didn't buy it. Was it:

1) Range anxiety? As in, the shopper balked that the car had no ICE and the dealer was unable to assuage the shoppers anxiety due to pitiful charging network. With a Volt the buyer could go -semi-green and skip the paranoia (Volt has best e-range of current hybrid crop).

2) Body style? Just too goofy looking / hatch back.

3) Price? The Volt is cheaper... but not that much cheaper.

4) Something else? The argument has been made repeatedly in this forum -backed up by an array of evidence- that the Bolt is a compliance car (perhaps too early for the jury to come back on that one).

5) First year of production? If you look at the Bolt forums the car seems to be having its teething pains.

Once could make assumptions as to buyer behavior, but a man-on-the-street poll would be more telling. Such feedback may well inform as to how Model 3 sales might ramp up. We have discussing all the pluses and minuses of the the M3 in here lately as more and more is revealed, and folks have strong opinions, but what really counts is how is the general public going to take to the car. Is America, and the rest of the world, going to fall in love with the M3? And if so, when? 1st year? 2nd year?

I hope someone does a Bolt shopper poll. I haven't the time or energy.

Iwantmy3 | May 29, 2017

Coastal_Cruiser,
To me it is obvious, 1) Range anxiety.
The Bolt does not have access to a supercharger network. Even if the range of the car meets 95% of a person's needs, it is still useless. People buy cars because they give them the freedom to travel anywhere at any time. They allow us to pick up on a weekend and make a road trip to a cottage, a beach, a ski hill, or visiting family. The Bolt limits its drivers to a maximum 100 mile radius (at the best of times). For trips beyond that radius, drivers can easily be stuck for hours (L2) of recharging. L3 chargers are limited in availability and are still too slow. The Volt gives people the ability to drive electric during the week and still have the freedom of ICE on the weekends.

Tesla's EVs are the only useful EVs because they are the only ones with a true supercharging network.

Frank99 | May 29, 2017

I think it's price and size. I'm sure it's a tough sell to convince someone to spend $40K+ on a subcompact Chevy with unconventional styling. They could sure use some help from Corporate with, perhaps, some advertising providing education.

Bluesday Afternoon | May 29, 2017

As Tesla continues to take sales away from the established car manufacturers we will see a stronger movement to match Tesla in styling, range, fast charging and autonomy. European manufacturers have grasped the future. Ford is starting to take notice and their concern is now on beating Tesla to an EV truck option. I just hope it's not a compliance effort. I've had many Ford products including three F-150's over the years. My favorite was the 1998 F-150 Flareside with the small suicide door.
If Tesla offered a pickup truck I'd definitely buy it over the Model 3 sight unseen (I seem to have done that before for a Tesla product).

It clearly appears Tesla will continue to expand their Supercharging network and model options. GM still appears disinterested but hopefully not for long. I welcome competition and the Teslarati (proud member here) on this forum clearly want EV's to flourish! Just make them appealing, with range and "fast" charging.

mntlvr23 | May 29, 2017

"Bolt sales are excellent. Bolt (1,292) beat both TS (1,125) and TX (715) in sales in April and Volt/Bolt sales total for the year 11,754 are right there with TS/TX at 12,240." - HA

The real sales figures are, for 2017 Q1:
Chevy Bolt (~$30K after tax credit) - 3,092 sales
Tesla MS & MX (~$80-130K after tax credit) - over 25,000 sales

I too hope the other car makers succeed, but I think the Bolt missed its best chance.

ReD eXiLe ms us | May 29, 2017

To qualify for ZEV Credits, compliance cars need only be 'offered' in the Great State of California. There is no provision that they actually be sold, leased, or put into service. The traditional automobile manufacturer will still get to claim those ZEV Credits two years in a row on the same cars.

It seems that the 'travel rule' is set to expire, that is why GM needs a whole lot more compliance cars (BOLT EV) sitting on lots, because they will no longer get the residual percentage bonus of ZEV Credits they used to get in States where the cars are NOT offered. So, rather than less than 3,000 or under 1,500 units, they might actually 'offer' as many as 30,000 units this calendar year, before coming up with some other means to artificially boost their Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings. It sure would be nice if they simply built more fuel efficient vehicles than gas guzzlers.

Bluesday Afternoon | May 29, 2017

Sorry, couldn't resist this real person perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSBsq6HBBzw ;-)

lilbean | May 29, 2017

That is so hilarious!

akgolf | May 29, 2017

Thanks for that link SR, I subscribed.

They were great and so much closer to the truth.

carlgo2 | May 29, 2017

A widespread fast charging system sells EVs.

It may well turn out to be a battle of the chargers, as much as the cars themselves.

Bluesday Afternoon | May 29, 2017

@carlgo2

I agree! I'd prefer all car manufacturers agree on a universal fast charger system. Right now it looks like survival of the fittest will win out.

KP in NPT | May 29, 2017

"Taking hours to find and stop for charging is the bane of EV's."

Which is exactly what Tesla drivers do NOT have to do with the supercharger network. Hilarious.

KP in NPT | May 29, 2017

Says the troll who has never owned a tesla. MMMKAY.

ReD eXiLe ms us | May 29, 2017

Simply Red: The members of the SAE already agreed, before the Model S was released, to agree to a 'standard' that they knew full well would be inferior to Tesla Superchargers -- that was the original CCS Frankenplug. Then, they went further, to make sure there were two separate versions of that 'standard' -- one for Europe, another for the U.S.

ReD eXiLe ms us | May 29, 2017

People who champion hybrids as a means to 'reduce emissions' while 'saving gas' are a bane to the Tesla forums.

Coastal Cruiser. | May 29, 2017

"The members of the SAE already agreed, before the Model S was released, to agree to a 'standard' that they knew full well would be inferior to Tesla Superchargers -- that was the original CCS Frankenplug. Then, they went further, to make sure there were two separate versions of that 'standard' -- one for Europe, another for the U.S."

Uh, you're gonna have to come up with some links for this conspiracy Red.

Love,
cc

MarlonBrown | May 29, 2017

I think if the Bolt had an appealing looks, it could not be a GM. Sorry that car is very similar to a Nissan Versa. One must be out of their minds to buy that junk. I guess the same type of mindset is what can make people pay $450K for a Ford V6 F-150 engine. You find all type of fools out there.

ReD eXiLe ms us | May 30, 2017

Coastal_Cruiser: Dude. I first saw it about three years ago. I think it was video... It was something about J.B. Straubel. He noted that Tesla was actually part of SAE then, and that they brought their solution before them, and that everyone listened intently, then told them they were 'the new guys' and didn't know what the [FLOCK] they were talking about. So Tesla took their ball and went home, realizing that there was no way in [HECK] they would be able to convince those guys to do anything other than baby steps. Sorry, but I hadn't reached the point where I bookmarked or saved a video playlist of everything Tesla related.

The primary evidence I see is that even when a 'standard' is made, it is not accepted by all traditional automobile manufacturers. There is a 'standard' for U.S. automobile manufacturers -- SAE CCS Combo1. There is a 'standard' for European automobile manufacturers -- SAE CCS Combo2. There is a 'standard' for Japanese automobile manufacturers -- CHAdeMO. Each of these has a supposed maximum amount that charging can be allowed, usually 'up to' 100 kW -- and the chargers that are actually deployed in the field typically only allow up to 50 kW charging maximum for 'DC Fast Charging' and often as low as 30 kW. Almost none of the cars are DC Fast Charging compatible by default -- it is instead an option. Tesla Superchargers started at 90 kWh, then moved up to 120 kW, on hardware that was capable of output of 135 kW at once, split between two cars at 'A' and 'B' stalls.

Tesla apparently wanted to use a charger port communication protocol that the rest of SAE didn't like for some reason. I think that Tesla uses CAN (Controller Area Network, a data protocol used between components inside cars) while SAE wanted to use PLC (Power Line Communication, part of the smart grid protocols).

www.greentransportation.info/ev-charging/range-confidence/chap8-tech/ev-...

www.insideevs.com/chademo-officially-recognized-international-charging-s...

en.wikipedia DOT org/wiki/Combined_Charging_System

By the way... Some have challenged me on a point I've made before... Prior to the recent changes to the Supercharger network this past January 2017, Elon had mentioned at least a couple of times that I remember the phrase 'unless you purchase that package' regarding the continuation of 'FREE for LIFE!' as an option for Model ☰. I was told that I was making it up. Here is one video where he says that, in case you hadn't seen it yourself...

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, CTO JB Straubel, Explain Model 3 Supercharging Policy, May 30, 2016.
[ YouTube -- sgm1NXkuppU ]

Coastal Cruiser. | May 30, 2017

"... It was something about J.B. Straubel. He noted that Tesla was actually part of SAE then, and that they brought their solution before them, and that everyone listened intently, then told them they were 'the new guys' and didn't know what the [FLOCK] they were talking about. So Tesla took their ball and went home, realizing that there was no way in [HECK] they would be able to convince those guys to do anything other than baby steps."

Right. That is a completely believable anecdote. But, it doesn't necessarily line up with your statement:

"The members of the SAE already agreed... ...to a 'standard' that they knew full well would be inferior to Tesla Superchargers..."

Respectfully, your characterization that SAE knew full well their standard was inferior is not proven. That's why I queried you. In my experience with standards, they tend to come in multiple flavors in the early life cycle of a product, (an attempt by competitors to rule by Fiat), and are derived from competitiveness, ego, or incompetence. Perhaps all 3 reasons are attributable to SAE, but there's no evidence that they were doing an anything but putting horse blinders on from JB's paraphrased statement.

To finish the train of thought, later of course the marketplace actually chooses the standard by voting with their wallets (VHS vs Betamax is the classic example).

Let's hope (Betamax wins this time. ;>

"-- that was the original CCS Frankenplug. Then, they went further, to make sure there were two separate versions of that 'standard' -- one for Europe, another for the U.S."

One may see an inference in your statement of conspiracy, or at least an intent to confuse or divide or "proprietize" the market. Maybe, maybe not. I'm just looking to see if you happen to know why this was done (competitiveness, ego, incompetence, or some other reason).

Cheers!

Coastal Cruiser. | May 30, 2017

"By the way... Some have challenged me on a point I've made before... Prior to the recent changes to the Supercharger network this past January 2017, Elon had mentioned at least a couple of times that I remember the phrase 'unless you purchase that package' regarding the continuation of 'FREE for LIFE!' as an option for Model ☰. I was told that I was making it up. Here is one video where he says that, in case you hadn't seen it yourself..."

Very vague recollection of that, but I watched the video and you clearly are correct.

BTW - that statement alluding to the idea that there would be an option for lifetime M3 supercharging, in my view goes right to the heart of why this forum is a bit divided right now in terms of being disappointed, or not, about he approaching final version of the Model 3. Sure, some folks ran with the fantasy that the 3 would just be a smaller version of the S. Aside from that however, EM has made a number of statements and twits (yes, I'm using the word 'tweet' in a pejorative context) hinting, alluding, teasing ... pick your word ... that the M3 would have things that it apparently will not have. Apparently.

And I 'm not talking about the list of add-ons like AWD that will be coming later. But based on that tape you linked to someone may have had their expectations tempered to believe that lifetime supercharging would be an option. Other statements like the reference to the interior being spaceship-like, and the stream of assurances about how cool it would be, and such as and so forth... all have gone to tempering people's expectations. I think HUD, if it came from nowhere else, came out of the notion of a pointedly austere interior, with a single display at the center.

Before I get trounced I would point out that this is not passing judgement. Who knows what compromises may had to have been made to achieve the 35K goal. Because if any spec on the M3 is a hard number it's that. But I understand how some are disappointed at this juncture.

Bigger picture, our take on the final version of the M3 is not all that important. I'm referring to us the reservationists. The world has to fall in love with this car. The car has to work on all levels. The single vent across the dash has got to "work". Just an example.

My Opinion? In my view the M3 will work. But there may have to be an iteration or two before the demand steps up to meet the production. Maybe. Which is the other way around from how some see it.

Disclaimer: I could be worng about everything I just said.

/soapbox

JeffreyR | May 30, 2017

Remember part of the reason BetaMax lost was it did not allow lower quality video for a longer time.

For me charging is all about:
- Reliable experience (works, not long wait)
- Easy to find on trips
- Fast charging time (car tech dependent not just charger)
- Not too expensive (less than a tank of gas)

carlgo2 | May 30, 2017

Simply Red | May 29, 2017
@carlgo2

I agree! I'd prefer all car manufacturers agree on a universal fast charger system. Right now it looks like survival of the fittest will win out.
--------------------------

The fittest now looking like Teslas, with lots of Superchargers promised and also those gas station-like charging parks. Add eventual fast charging and consider that the new for-profit charging model is a vastly better idea and one that will lead to more and more, better and better chargers and subsequently more and more Teslas.

Tesla seems to be going on alone, letting the various committees and other manufacturers screw things up for themselves.

ReD eXiLe ms us | May 30, 2017

Coastal_Cruiser: I refer to myself as the Friendly Neighborhood Over-the-Top Optimistic Tesla Certified Apologist Fanboy around here. I do so mostly to prepare those who are unaware of my positions for what they are likely to see in my posts. But I also do it as a flag waving banner of 'Up YOURS!' to the variety of Tesla Naysayers and Trolls I have encountered over the past three years or so online. Effectively, embracing what they cast my way as insults as something to be proud of, up to and including being a member of an 'EV Cult'. If there is such a thing, I joined when I was six years old and got my first slot car racing set for Christmas. I have always known, ever since then, that electric vehicles should simply be 'BETTER' than ICE. It always seemed... 'wrong' to me, to have to burn a flammable liquid just to make cars and trucks and tractors and lawnmowers work. And, I have seen and admired many beautiful cars over the years, but the sad, sad question always remained, somewhere in the back of my mind, "Why isn't this an electric car?"

It pains me that you feel a need to ask whether I am in favor of a divided, confuse, or proprietary market. I would think the answer to that should be rather obvious. I pointed out that multiple traditional automobile manufacturers are members of the SAE, which is composed of Engineers that work directly for those automakers, but that each time they are tasked with coming up with a charging standard for electric vehicles, they always come back with the least common denominator as a 'solution'. My point is that division between them is done on purpose, and by design. Not at all by necessity.

Tesla took it upon themselves to present to them a solution that was superior to everything they had come up with, even before releasing anything using the technology themselves. It was a smaller, sleeker plug than even the J1772. It allowed for both AC and DC charging without additional adapters. It was lightweight, compact, and efficient. It could be used with 3-phase AC if need be. But for all the advantages offered to make using electric cars as convenient as possible, this solution was rejected out of hand. And Tesla's engineers were told it was because they were 'the new guys'. They were told they didn't know what they were talking about. They were told that they should listen to the 'REAL' car companies, shut up, sit down, or get out. So they got out.

Once again -- they developed the system that is used for their Wall Chargers and Superchargers internally, then brought it before others as a solution. They were put off by being dismissed off hand. So they went ahead with what they knew was the best option, because they had already seen what everyone else had to offer, and knew it wasn't good enough to reach their goals. The result of that is the narrative by Tesla Naysayers has been ever since that Tesla built a 'Proprietary Network without Regard to Industry Standards' and no one mentions that isn't so. It is specifically because they do use industry standards that the Superchargers in Europe can use the Mennekes 'Type 2' connector.

Now that it seems, all these years later, some of those traditional automobile manufacturers are finally serious about progressing above 100 kW levels of power delivery in charging... Starting at 150 kW, and progressing to 350 kW... Tesla has again decided to join them in that endeavor to create a standard that would be superior to Superchargers. But that group is not led by the SAE, but 'CharIN' instead:

"In Germany the Charging Interface Initiative e. V. (CharIN) was founded by car makers and suppliers (Audi, BMW, Daimler, Mennekes, Opel, Phoenix Contact, Porsche, TÜV SÜD and Volkswagen) to promote the adoption of the Combined Charging System. They noted in a press release that the majority of cars can not charge with more than 50 kW, so that was the first common power output of CCS stations to be built during 2015. The next step was the standardization of charging stations with 150 kW output that they showed in October 2015, looking to a future system with 350 kW output.[20] Volvo joined CharIN in 2016.[21] Tesla Motors joined CharIN in March 2016.[22] Lucid Motors (previously Atieva) joined June 15, 2016. [23] Faraday Future joined in June 2016. Toyota joined CharIN in March 2017.[24]" -- per Wikipedia

[20] http://www.charinev.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/20151014_PR_Char...

[21] http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/bilar/elbil/article3966190.ece

[22] http://www.charinev.org/news-detail/news/charin-e-v-welcomes-member-tesl...

[23] http://charinev.org/news-detail/news/charin-e-v-welcomes-atieva-inc/

[24] http://charinev.org/news-detail/news/toyota-motor-europe-joins-charin-ev/

Coastal Cruiser. | May 30, 2017

Sorry for your pain brother. Sincere thanks for the thoughtful answer.

Frank99 | May 30, 2017

The Bolt is a good car that needs to be successful. Lots of positive things about it, but it has two critical problems for this Phoenix resident:

1. Even though it would cover 95% of my usage, I want a car that I can rationally do a road trip in. The Bolt isn't that car. The “disaster for aero” Cd of 0.32 means that highway mileage (which is about 90% of what I do) is vastly lower than city mileage, and combined with required continuous AC usage, makes the car unusable for trips to visit family in SoCal.
http://insideevs.com/instrumented-test-of-chevrolet-bolt-190-miles-of-ra...
Once I turn on the AC on a 110 degree day, the measured 190 miles of range likely drops near 175, which gets me approximately halfway to grandma's house. If there were a CCS charging station in Blythe, CA, I'd have to stop for two hours; there isn't, so it's a 9 to 10 hour stop. And there's no Chargepoint station until I get to Indio - about 250 miles away.

2. The Bolt is saddled with a manufacturer who has no desire to see it succeed. Six months after initial deliveries, there have finally been reports of ads for it. The nine month rollout schedule is something I expect from a small manufacturer like the Tesla of 2012, not one of the biggest auto manufacturers in the world.

carlk | June 1, 2017

News is not so good for the Bolt. Only about a thousand per month sold in the last six months. That's even with the reported $7K loss for GM for each one sold.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chevy-bolt-creeps-along-while-140416338.html

spmeister | June 1, 2017
ReD eXiLe ms us | June 1, 2017

Well, the BOLT is doing swimmingly well compared to the Toyota Mirai. Though, the Mirai was only scheduled to manufacture a total of 3,000, units for sale worldwide over the course of three years... So... Yeah.

Iwantmy3 | June 1, 2017

Any guesses on when the model 3 sales (shipped) will first surpass total Bolt sales?
I would guess the end of September.

dyefrog | June 1, 2017

"Any guesses on when the model 3 sales (shipped) will first surpass total Bolt sales?
I would guess the end of September."

I would guess week 3.

SamO | June 1, 2017

Bolt is destroying the sub 100 mile EVs.

Frank99 | June 1, 2017

As it should. The Bolt is King in that crowd.

Bluesday Afternoon | June 1, 2017

Iwantmy3

"Any guesses on when the model 3 sales (shipped) will first surpass total Bolt sales?
I would guess the end of September."

Before any non-employee receives a Model 3!

Frank99 | June 1, 2017

Well, let's see. Bolt sales so far have been steadily increasing if you take the January bump out of the data. A quick estimate might suggest about 15000 Bolts sold in the US by Sept 30, and 26000 by Dec 30.

Iwantmy3's guess is, IMHO, going to be mighty close.

Simply Red's guess is, IMHO, also very close.

Bluesday Afternoon | June 1, 2017

Remember that many of the Bolt's sold are sitting on car lots and that's not how Tesla does business.

carlk | June 1, 2017

SamO
"Bolt is destroying the sub 100 mile EVs."

Maybe not. You still can't beat Leaf's $149/month no money down lease deal. For people who's paying $37,500 there is little reason why they don't want to wait for the model 3.

Mike83 | June 1, 2017

I prefer an electric bicycle for short trips. Less than $2500 and 80 mile range. 4 hours to charge. The range can be extended by more pedaling.

carlk | June 1, 2017

I'll peddle for long distance to charge up the battery to power my house.

ReD eXiLe ms us | June 1, 2017

My guess is that Model ☰ will pass BOLT in Deliveries to end users in August 2017.

SUN 2 DRV | June 2, 2017

If comparing Deliveries represented the relative customer interest, it might be an interesting exercise.

But the car buying public's acceptance of the Model 3 (400k reservations) has already far surpassed the interest in the Bolt. So the only question right now is how fast Tesla can make them.

Iwantmy3 | June 2, 2017

It will be about bragging rights. First it surpasses the "Tesla Killer" Bolt after just a couple months of deliveries at early production levels. Then, approx. 12 months from now, it passes the lifetime sales of the Leaf to become the all time best selling EV.

SUN 2 DRV | June 2, 2017

Like... My dad can beat up your dad????

Pages