Forums

Does the Bolt have too much range?

Does the Bolt have too much range?

I know that most people will disagree with me, but I think the Bolt has too much range. I know most, especially first time, electric car drivers want as much range as they can get, but really, what is it used for?

The Bolt makes a good city car. Most drivers drive well under a hundred miles a day. Getting down to this number by removing battery weight would increase efficiency.

The Tesla can use its range for long distance travel but the Bolt, without a supercharger network, really cannot. You could drive to a destination within 200 miles as long as you have access to an L2 charger and the ability to leave the car there overnight. Otherwise you could only travel about a hundred miles away from home. Less if you want to drive anywhere once you get there.

Without ubiquitous high speed charging, I don't see the ability to travel so I see the extra range as useless. It is good for marketing though as no one would be talking about it if it had 100 mile range.

Carl Thompson | 10 mars 2017

swingshiftworker:
"@Car Thompson: There are those of us who don't need to use an EV for long trips. I'm one of them which is why the Supercharging network is meaningless to me in terms of my interest in buying/leasing an M3 or any other Tesla."

That's what I think currently with traditional cars. I would much rather fly for any trip over 200 miles because I hate the idea of spending hours driving all at once. But I was thinking future... At some point in time (maybe 3-10 years from now?) they will hopefully throw the switch and turn on fully autonomous self driving mode for the Model 3. At that time if I think it's safe enough I may decide that I _want_ to take the car on long trips because I won't have to drive myself. I could just recline the seat and go to sleep in the evening and wake up in L.A. Or for longer trips I can work, or read or do whatever. Sure it would take longer than flying but my own car would be a lot more comfortable than dealing with airports and airplanes and parking and all that. Plus at the destination I have _my_ car and not some rental that has an unidentifiable odor.

So while I don't take long car trips _now_ an autonomous vehicle gives me an attractive alternative. While there's a possibility that our cars won't be allowed to drive themselves for longer than I actually own the car I choose to buy next I would kick myself if I bought a Bolt and all the Model 3 drivers were out there getting chauffeured by their cars.

Carl

KP in NPT | 10 mars 2017
SamO | 10 mars 2017

Except . . . No chargers crossing the country. Except Superchargers and destination charging. Thanks Tesla.

Red Sage ca us | 10 mars 2017

andy.connor.e: Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. A lower capacity battery pack takes more time to add miles of range while charging. You cannot have 'superfast' charging by going with a smaller battery. Otherwise, the electric motorcycles on the market would all be Supercharger compatible.

Red Sage ca us | 10 mars 2017

swingshiftworker: The 'regular highway speeds' of 70 to 80 MPH concern me a bit. I remember a lot of those who complained about range on the Model S a couple of years ago would claim that for them 'real highway speeds' were something like 90+ MPH. I'm certain that EPA range ratings are not determined by that type of driving.

Perhaps if you left 10 or 15 minutes earlier and kept your cruising speed at 65 MPH maximum, you would see better range results? This is the part where people typically claim either that they refuse to 'drive like a Grandma' or that traffic on the highways around them demand higher speeds and that driving slower would be suicide... But if you insist on driving faster, while also allowing a 30 to 50 mile buffer, then the results you are seeing with the BOLT are right on target.

A 50 mile buffer works out to 21% of the 238 mile EPA rated range. It basically means you would be filling up when you had 'a 1/4 tank' remaining, much as you might have done with an ICE. I think that with time and patience you may come to trust the BOLT a little more. So that you arrive home 'on vapors' with only 5% to 10% charge remaining. Only 12 to 24 miles left, then you'll feel a lot more comfortable with the car, I hope.

noleaf4me | 10 mars 2017

NO - In a real world, you would want to be able to drive 3-4 hours before having to stop (I go 5+ hours on my trips back home without stopping) At 238 miles @ 70 mph under super ideal conditions -- that is 3.4 hours. In reality, you would be lucky to get 2.75 hours as 70++ eats up battery way faster.

I would really like to see 300 Highway miles. My trip to go see my folks is 700 miles and many times I do that in just 1 stop......I can live with 2 stops. My bet with the Bolt - minimum of 3 stops and likely 4........

mntlvr23 | 10 mars 2017

@KP - great article - good for people to know what they are getting into.
I am planning a big trip with my M3 and am seeing huge differences between the Model S 60D vs 90D through EVTripPlanner - and it is making me rethink my battery choice (was originally budgeting for the base battery)

bigd | 10 mars 2017

KP in NPT Thanks KP good read if the naysayers chose to read this +42

kaffine | 10 mars 2017

@swingshiftworker

Thanks for the info on the Bolts actual range.

Yes I think they could offer a 90kWh battery on the M3 while keeping the base price at $35k. It is called options the 90kWh battery would not be the base model. I am guessing they will offer at least an 80kWh battery as an option it won't be a cheap option though.

Red Sage ca us | 10 mars 2017

noleaf4me: My first car, a 1990 Accord, could go 530 miles between fillups, when using cruise control set at 85 MPH. No other car I've driven since came anywhere near that type of range. The best of them have barely managed 400 miles. At least one struggled to see 250 miles.

I'll be 50 in a few months. I can no longer drive six hours straight, followed by a second run of six hours. It's all I can do to manage four hours at a time, if that much. So at 75 MPH, that is 300 miles before I have to take care of biological needs. Food, drink, lavatory, or rest.

JeffreyR | 10 mars 2017

One other thing to realize is that Tesla's approach of using many small cells to add up to a sub-pack, then sub-packs adding up to the whole gives them a few advantages:
1) greater energy density, the 21700 cells (and possibly new chemistry) help
2) greater flexibility in producing different sizes of packs; pouch-based batteries seem like they allow only a few choices w/ little evolution while Tesla has done 40, 60, 60 (sw-limited), 70, 75, 85, 90, and 100-kWh packs.
3) temperature management and multiple layers of safety are built into the packs (opportunity to save weight if they can improve things; 100-kWh pack is a result of better layout for cooling)

andy.connor.e | 13 mars 2017

Red sage that is true. More cells means faster charging.

But without trying to impose numbers on anything. I dont think that range is the biggest problem. I think its the biggest psychological problem for people to get used to with a newer technology. We are addicted to gas. But i think the biggest problem that the EV market has is charging speed.

Likewise, everyone who owns a car does not own a house. So suggesting that people can charge at home is limited to those who own a house. Apartment/condo renters do not necessarily have the ability to do that. So not only are there going to have to be more charging stations, but they are going to have to charge faster.

And on top of that, battery technology limits charging speed. You can pump 1MW into a lithium pack, but the degradation will be outrageous. I still think EVs are just not quite there yet for mass market. But they are getting there. Tesla has the right attitude, and is heading in the right direction.

swingshiftworker | 14 mars 2017

@andy.connor.e

Agreed. That's why I've decided to NOT bother charging my Bolt on the road and only go as far as I know for certain that I can get to and back on a single charge.

I made this decision after doing a couple of tests using an L3 EVGO and an L2 Chargepoint charger. The L3 was too expensive (more than gas) and the L2 charger was too slow.

Re the L3: Who wants spend the same cost as you would for gas and wait 30-60 mins for a fill up? Re: the L2: Who wants to wait HOURs for the same even if it's free?

Of course, if I absolutely need to charge up to get back home, I will but I will do everything possible to avoid the necessity to do so.

BTW, there are NO Tesla Superchargers available in the routes that I normally take. So, my decision to only go as far as I can go on a single charge would also apply to any model Tesla that I eventually lease/buy.

mntlvr23 | 14 mars 2017

dawn hall respectfully disagrees

Frank99 | 14 mars 2017

Sorry, Pigeon, but after actually seeing the car and listening to user experiences, we feel more pity for the Bolt than fear. It's a good car handicapped by a brain-dead ICE manufacturer. Too bad GM didn't accept Tesla's offer to join the Supercharger network; the Bolt would go from being a good car, to a great car.
Latest sales figures show roughly 2100 Bolt sales in Jan/Feb 2017. That's about half the sales of the Model S + X at twice or more the price.
http://gas2 org/2017/03/03/us-electric-car-sales-soar-bolt-disappoints/

mntlvr23 | 14 mars 2017

Unfortunate that the Bolt sales actually dropped in Feb compared to Jan (whereas the Model S sales almost doubled over the same period). Perhaps the pent-up demand from the 1,200 people who lined up for the Bolt has been exhausted and it will be downhill from here - and then will drop to the pits once the Model 3 starts rolling off the line. Range + Supercharging = Sales

Also very odd that the GM ads that I see on TV (and that even mention that "GM" won the 2017 Car of the Year) don't even mention the Bolt.

KP in NPT | 15 mars 2017

400K+ reservations for the 35K Model 3. How many for the Bolt?

Flagged.

dave | 15 mars 2017

The different comments and opinions here are fantastic, which I've wrote about here - http://www.torquenews.com/3855/tesla-model-3-vs-chevy-bolt-too-much-range
I think with any EV vehicle it's that peace of mind thing when it comes to the range of a car. A bit like only having a limited range regular gas powered car, just because it's built for the city. People will argue over pricing, but as one comment said, for those times you want to do a long journey, it may just be worth it to have the additional range than not.

KP in NPT | 15 mars 2017

Poor Pigeon. has to compare Bolt sales, which dropped significantly from Jan to Feb 2017, to a car that isn't even out yet but has 400K+ reservations.

What fun it will be to compare the sales charts once both are on the market.

bmalloy0 | 15 mars 2017

EaglesPDX | March 15, 2017
Bolt Sales 2017 2,114
[Model]3 Sales 2017 0

So the Bolt is selling at about 1000/month, and the Model 3 should launch at about 1000/week in July. So by mid Agust the Model 3 should be outselling the Bolt?

jordanrichard | 15 mars 2017

Eagles, you keep saying that Teslas are a status symbol. Well after 3 years of owning mine, I still have people asking what kind of car it is. If no one has ever heard of the car, then just how can it been seen a "status symbol" In CA, it is said that there are so many Tesla's out there that they are often referred to as California Camrys". Well, there can't be much of a "status" when your car is as common as a Camry.

bmalloy0 | 15 mars 2017

August*

andy.connor.e | 15 mars 2017

The funniest part about this thread is that Eagles literally just made a post that was completely irrelevant to the conversation, as he has previously been involved in discussions. And as soon as he even typed anything you all started at him. I think the real joke on these Tesla discussion boards is how easily everyone gets triggered when Eagles posts.

@EaglesPDX

Your tactics are so original and thoughtless, yet they are so incredibly effective. I applaud you.

andy.connor.e | 15 mars 2017

@DisscussionPosters

#Triggered

Carl Thompson | 15 mars 2017

EaglesPDX:
"Because the low end EV is a much harder sell than a luxury, status end EV. It's why Tesla started and still remains a luxury, status vehicle including the T3. The cost for Tesla to produce the T3 is pretty much the top end Bolt's selling price. Tesla needs and will sell most T3's in the $50-60K range vs. the Bolt's $38- 42K range."

This is probably true for the most part. While I'm not sure that "most" Model 3's will be sold in the $50k - $60k range I think it's a fair statement that the average selling price of the Model 3 is likely to be _much_ higher than that of the Bolt.

That said many more people will actually be _able_ to buy a Model 3 as to this point GM does not appear interested in selling the Bolt in any volume.

"The 'concern' expressed by the Teslerati about the Bolt's range, more than a base TS or TX and likely T3, is that people not so status conscious and more budget conscious will buy a Bolt."

I think a lot of people here are very competitive and want their team to win. But if what we really care about is the environment as so many people here profess then it shouldn't matter to us whether other people buy a Bolt or a Tesla or something else as long as they're buying an EV.

I think you are absolutely correct when you say Tesla's are status symbols. All cars are. The truth is that a large part of the reason I plan to buy a Model 3 is that it _is_ a Tesla and I want something that makes me look more successful to friends, neighbors, coworkers, women, etc. Does that make me a bad person?

But even the Bolt is more of a status symbol to those in the pro-environment crowd than a draw from purely a economic standpoint. Both cars are more expensive from an economic standpoint for most people than for example a Prius.

In my part of California the utility (PG&E) charges between 20 cents - 40 cents per kilowatt-hour. So even at the low end (20 cents) a Prius is slightly cheaper at current gas prices. For example, my commute is about 58 miles round trip and takes about 16kWh in my i3. So that's $3.20 in electricity if I always get the _low_ price from PG&E. For $3.20 at current gas prices you could put 1.3 gallons in the Prius and go 13 _more_ miles than I can go in my i3. For me an EV is still better economically but only because I invested $25,000 in solar panels and now pay 0 for electricity. Most people can't afford to do that and for them it would be less expensive to operate a Prius in my area than an EV. And that's _before_ you take into account that a similarly equipped EV will generally cost you between $12,000 and $20,000 more than a gas powered car.

So in light of that both the Tesla and Bolt are non-starters from an economic standpoint for many when gas prices are this cheap. So probably most people buying either car are doing it
a) as a status symbol
b) or as a political statement
c) or because they have access to much cheaper electricity
d) or some combination of the above

You make some good points, Eagles. But I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions.

Carl

EaglesPDX | 15 mars 2017

"That said many more people will actually be _able_ to buy a Model 3 as to this point GM does not appear interested in selling the Bolt in any volume."

PHEV sales 2017

Chevy Volt 3,431
Toyota Prius Prime 2,728
Tesla Model S 2,650
Chevy Bolt 2,114
Tesla X 1,550.

Chevy 5,545
Tesla 4,200

"But even the Bolt is more of a status symbol to those in the pro-environment crowd than a draw from purely a economic standpoint."

I would say EV's and hybrids are more about doing something about the global warming problem but Tesla's sales are also likely 30% price/status. Even on Tesla forum you see many say they get Teslas for the "performance" either because they actually do that or more likely because they don't want to admit to global warming due to their social situation.

Carl Thompson | 15 mars 2017

EaglesPDX:
"I would say EV's and hybrids are more about doing something about the global warming problem"

Yeah, that's included in my option 'b' - "a political statement" .

But my opinion is that most people who say they want an EV because of global warming (essentially to make the world a better place) are largely kidding themselves. If All EVs looked like a Prius, and if all EVs performed like a Prius, and if no EVs were less expensive to operate for anyone then I think a large majority of the "I bought it solely because I care about the environment" EV owners would evaporate. I think the truth is that we are all here willing to do our part for the environment... but only if there's something more in it for us.

This is the part where people indignantly shout: "No! I really do buy EVs _only_ because I care about the environment! I would still drive one even if I didn't save money and even if it performed poorly and even if it were ugly and even if I couldn't use it as evidence of my intellectual superiority!"

Carl

EaglesPDX | 15 mars 2017

"Yeah, that's included in my option 'b' - "a political statement""

But its really Option A and not political but environmental action, not a "statement", actually reducing one's GHG output.

Rocky_H | 16 mars 2017

Wow, I agree with @Eagles? What's going on here? Dismissing environmental concern as being a political statement is disturbing and harmful in itself. I was always raised just to not waste things. Remember to turn lights off. Put on a sweatshirt instead of turning up the heat. I've never had a car with more than 4 cylinders. We got a used diesel Jetta and got it converted to run on used vegetable oil. We've been driving hybrid cars since 2002, back when people were scared of those. I've been waiting for a long range electric car to exist, and Tesla finally made one. So yeah, the nature of its being electric is the only concern for me.

Carl Thompson | 16 mars 2017

Rocky_H:
"Dismissing environmental concern as being a political statement is disturbing and harmful in itself."

I'm not dismissing it. I myself am on my third electric car going back several years before I had the solar panels that make them economically smart. And before that I had a Prius when owning a Prius was about the most un-cool thing you could do. I recycle and I care about the environment and the legacy we leave. But environmentalism is a philosophy that I put under the category of a person's politics.

"So yeah, the nature of its being electric is the only concern for me."

So if it being electric is your _only_ concern why haven't you bought a Leaf? You could buy one _now_ and help the environment _now_ instead of who knows when. The longer you wait the more damage you're doing to the environment. The lower performance would be better for the environment because it's more efficient. And the smaller battery is actually more environmentally friendly unless you drive very long distances every day because there's less waste of the materials and carbon used to make the battery.

My point is _not_ that environmentalism is _bad_. Environmentalism is politics (or philosophy if you prefer) that I myself share. My point is that as humans our motivations are rarely as pure as we tell ourselves they are. Put another way our desire to have a positive self-image makes us believe we are "better" people than we actually are. You like the idea that owning a Tesla _might_ be good for the environment. (You can help make sure it is by getting solar.) But I suspect if you were to dig deeper you'd see that other important parts of your motivation are self-centered including the potential to save money over time, the thrill of owning a performance automobile, the status and sex-appeal of owning a Tesla and a whole bunch of other things without which you probably wouldn't actually buy one.

Carl

Rocky_H | 16 mars 2017

@Carl, Wow. Not that I need to justify myself here, but it looks like you could use a teachable moment not to impugn someone’s motives with false accusations. You’re wrong on pretty much all of your assumptions about me.

(1) Quote: “So if it being electric is your _only_ concern why haven't you bought a Leaf? You could buy one _now_ and help the environment _now_ instead of who knows when. The longer you wait the more damage you're doing to the environment.”

Do I have to explain “reduce, reuse, recycle” to you? NOT buying new things and continuing to use and repair things that already exist lowers demand for building new things and conserves quite a lot of resources itself. I had been looking at the Leaf and the other 80 mile EVs for a while, but responsible conservation is also about not wasting money. We don’t flip cars every few years. We will keep a car for at least 10-15 years. I was watching the development of electric cars, and the price versus miles of range was on a good development curve. It seemed that we were right near the point where someone would come out with a long range electric car that could be used for almost all of our driving. I live in Idaho, so distances are pretty far and remote if you’re not on the main interstate. With little 80 mile range EVs like the Leaf, that would be problematic more often and would require driving the gas car more. Since this was going to be a really long term car purchase of 15 years or so, we didn’t want to buy right before a long range electric car came out. We ordered in January of 2014, so we’ve had our electric car for 3 years now.

Also, you don’t know me and our driving habits. My wife and I work at the same place and go most places together. We don’t do “his car” and “her car”, where half of the driving would be using gas. The vast majority of our driving is together, so we do the primary car and secondary car. The primary is now electric, and the secondary car gets used about once or twice a week. That is a 2005 Civic Hybrid. Now here is where you are flat-out wrong about doing more damage to the environment. If we were to sell that car, someone else would buy it used and be driving it many more miles than we do, polluting with it more. We do plan to replace it with a Leaf or something like that, if/when it gets in a bad accident or needs some major repairs, but in the meantime, it’s a paid off 12 year old car that gets over 40mpg, gets low use, and does about 1 or 2 trips a year in places where we would have to rent a car otherwise.

(2) Quote: “The lower performance would be better for the environment because it's more efficient.”

This may surprise you, but performance and efficiency don’t scale with electric motors much, like it does with gas engines where they have to keep burning gas in a lot of big cylinders while they idle. You just put less current through the motor if you’re not driving it hard. I was talking with a guy who has a Leaf, and he was surprised at how my Tesla does get almost the same efficiency as his Leaf does. Most electric cars do. Yes, the weight is heavier, but again, there was only one 200+ mile electric car that existed in the world when we had to replace a car.

(3) Quote: “And the smaller battery is actually more environmentally friendly unless you drive very long distances every day because there's less waste of the materials and carbon used to make the battery.”

Oh, really? Now you’re going to hypocritically consider the material and resource impact of building a new vehicle after two sentences ago suggesting I should throw away a perfectly good older car to buy a new one? Obviously you’re not serious about any of this. Here’s the other factor that trips you up. Using an EV with a small battery like that means that you are very frequently pushing against its range limitations, so you have to constantly charge it to 100%, which degrades the battery faster and pushes it toward not meeting your needs and needing replacement sooner. Having a big enough battery that you can do 80% charging most of the time, means it will not be constantly damaged and degraded as fast and can last for much longer, getting more useful life out of it, thus putting off the need for those resources to build a replacement. Huh. So that’s the opposite of the point you wanted to make.

(4) Quote: “My point is that as humans our motivations are rarely as pure as we tell ourselves they are. Put another way our desire to have a positive self-image makes us believe we are "better" people than we actually are.”

Depends on the person and the issue. You seem to really want to tell people that you know all about their thoughts and heart and motivations about how they live their lives and the decisions they make and that they’re not very good. That is starting to sound like that character flaw you’re talking about.

(5) Quote: “You like the idea that owning a Tesla _might_ be good for the environment. (You can help make sure it is by getting solar.)”

Our solar system got installed and turned on in December. That was also part of watching the technology curve. I had been watching pricing of it for over 10 years, waiting for the right time. Costs were dropping so fast, waiting another couple of years and another couple of years was having bigger and bigger impact for a multi-decade purchase. They had finally gotten to a really good price point, so we went for it.

(6) Quote: “But I suspect if you were to dig deeper you'd see that other important parts of your motivation are self-centered including the potential to save money over time,”

HA HA HA, no. I hold no illusions that I’m going to save any money over time with the car. Remember how I pointed out how we always had cheap and used economy cars? I’m losing a lot of money to support the mission of Tesla to be able to bring more electric vehicles to market so they can stay in business and give more people the opportunity to switch away from gas cars.

(7) Quote: “the thrill of owning a performance automobile,”

I specifically did not get the P version, and all wheel drive was not available when I bought, so it’s not massive performance. You’re almost close here, that I do like the feel of sporty driving, but I never would have gotten a sports or luxury car before because they’re just wasteful. It was a nice bonus that electric motors can be economy at times and performance at times, depending on how you drive them.

(8) Quote: “the status and sex-appeal of owning a Tesla”

HA HA HA This is the funniest one, because it’s about the farthest from the truth. I want to not treat it specially and not care if it’s dirty because it should be just a daily driver, and I don’t want to make it something that is showing off or getting noticed.

Carl Thompson | 16 mars 2017

Rocky_H:
" I had been looking at the Leaf and the other 80 mile EVs for a while, but responsible conservation is also about not wasting money."

That's a rationalization. The best thing you could do for the environment is to stop driving the ICE car _now_. You don't want to do that because it would waste money. That is a selfish (but reasonable) concern. You are saying that not wasting money has more value to you than the good you would do the environment by discontinuing the use of that car _now_. Most people would say that's perfectly reasonable but it means your motives are not purely driven by what is best for the environment.

"Now here is where you are flat-out wrong about doing more damage to the environment. If we were to sell that car, someone else would buy it used and be driving it many more miles than we do, polluting with it more. We do plan to replace it with a Leaf or something like that, if/when it gets in a bad accident or needs some major repairs, but in the meantime, it’s a paid off 12 year old car that gets over 40mpg, gets low use, and does about 1 or 2 trips a year in places where we would have to rent a car otherwise."

No. Buy a Leaf now to replace it and don't sell the old ICE car. Scrap it. That would be what's best for the environment. Again what you're saying (but don't want to admit) is that your personal financial concerns are more important to you than the negative impact on the environment of driving the ICE car until it breaks. Perfectly reasonable but your motivations here are not guided by what's best for the environment.

"Now you’re going to hypocritically consider the material and resource impact of building a new vehicle after two sentences ago suggesting I should throw away a perfectly good older car to buy a new one?"

You already said you were going to buy the new car. But you're right. The best thing you could do for the environment is _not drive at all_. No new car. Just take the bus. But make sure it's a bus that was already going to run anyway so you'll just increase its efficiency. That would be even better for the environment. But what you won't admit is that your convenience (and ability to go to work and make a living) matters more to you than the benefit to the environment of you not driving the ICE or buying a new car.

"Our solar system got installed and turned on in December. That was also part of watching the technology curve. I had been watching pricing of it for over 10 years, waiting for the right time. Costs were dropping so fast, waiting another couple of years and another couple of years was having bigger and bigger impact for a multi-decade purchase. They had finally gotten to a really good price point, so we went for it."

Again, you're saying your financial concerns were more important to you than the impact to the environment of not going solar sooner.

What you yourself have written has proven my point. It's clear from your post that your finances (and through that your family's security) is more important to you than the damage to the environment caused by some of your decisions. That's the way it should be and no one is faulting you for that. But it simply is not true that concern for the environment is your _only_ motivation in your car purchase decision. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

Carl

EaglesPDX | 16 mars 2017

"So if it being electric is your _only_ concern why haven't you bought a Leaf?"

Getting back to the topic, because it does not have enough range to be practical.

The Chevy Bolt at 238 miles does have the range. I drove a Bolt. It's a great car but it lacks two key features for me specific situation. I drive a lot (20,000 a year) and need power seats and dynamic cruise, neither of which the Bolt offers. A Chevy Volt, another excellent car, does not offer the power seats. A T3 will offer both of those necessary (for me) features. So I put a deposit down on a T3.

I ski a fair amount, 30 days a year, and I'm in a critical job where I not only have to be able to get to work when others can't but have to be able to respond to emergencies during emergencies. The AWD is a bonus for that though I have done it with the Prius.

Now if I were to lose the long commute, the Bolt's range of 238 and FWD (key to getting around in bad weather) would work and the lack of power seats would not be an issue due to reduced time in the car.

"Again what you're saying (but don't want to admit) is that your personal financial concerns are more important to you than the negative impact on the environment of driving the ICE car until it breaks."

Well being working person I would call them constraints. I can't afford a TS or TX. I did already borrow to redo the house as 120% solar powered home so we do what we can. The idea that those of us who are reducing our CHG emissions need to be human sacrifices is wrong. We do what we can.

To do that, I need an EV with 200+ range....the Bolt has that and is a great EV for most applications.

JayInJapan | 16 mars 2017

It appears the troll count has increased. Bummer

SamO | 17 mars 2017

Yea. As long as you don't drive 100+ miles from home, Bolt is amazing. Best car ever made. For city driving. As long as you have no spirit for adventure, Bolt is perfect.

Lulz.

andy.connor.e | 17 mars 2017

@SamO

The practicality that the Bolt has that people like you so derogatorily impose a connotative negativity towards, is that the Bolt offers a vehicle that you use 95% of the year. There are also other methods of long-distance travel such as buses, trains and planes. The suggestion that personal vehicle transportation is the only "practical" method of long-distance travel is also not a very solid argument.

SamO | 17 mars 2017

@andy.connor.e,

Please quote where I've said anything bad about the Bolt. Go ahead. I'll wait here.

.
.
.

Now . . . I have said many bad things about GM. Everyone knows why GM is terrible. BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON THEY SUCK . . . is that they don't actively support their customers with charging. They could actually commit to giving their customers what they want: a 100% car.

I've been a Supercharger booster more than a Tesla booster. I've used it. I like it. I think it works for everyone. I think it's fair and I it's free, then cheap thereafter. I'd consider buying a car from ANY automaker that has something comparable because then you actually DO GOOD. No more gas cars. No more hybrids. No more faux-hydrogen highways. All EV, all the time.

andy.connor.e | 17 mars 2017

"As long as you have no spirit for adventure, Bolt is perfect."

Derogatorily negative. Because this is not a true statement.

andy.connor.e | 17 mars 2017

As for the second part of your post, Its clear that YOUR preference is to have a long-distance charging network. Therefore, the Bolt is not the ideal car for you. But its far from impractical. You dont NEED a car to do long distance travel, so if that is your criteria for a car, thats your preference. But dont make it seem like your preference generalizes its overall practicality.

Rocky_H | 17 mars 2017

@Carl, You really have no concept of levels of priority in decision making? We had already decided that our next care replacement would be an electric one. It was not comparing various cars, some electric and some gas. That was the #1 primary consideration. So yes, being electric was the factor that eliminated all other categories of cars from consideration. You're not getting that.

Now level 2: Which electric car to choose? Factors like practicality and economics now come into play. You are making no sense here by saying that considering other factors as secondary within the electric car category now means that electric car wasn't the reason for picking the car. What a ridiculous mental contortion!

And you're still not making sense saying that getting a Leaf would have been better. I live in Idaho, where car charging was not really available back in 2014. Driving to Mountain Home and back or driving to Twin Falls and back would not have been doable with a Leaf, so under your regime, there would have been a lot more driving that would have needed to be done with a gas car. Getting the longer range electric allowed us to do almost all of our driving not using gas. Your selection would have been worse in that respect.

Rocky_H | 17 mars 2017

Dang, frequently "care" comes out instead of "car". I guess I just care too much. :)

SamO | 17 mars 2017

@andy,

Sorry but your selected quote was a dig at people who never driver more than 100 miles from home rather than a deficiency with the Bolt.

You unfortunately refused to address the 100% transition to EVs rather than 90%.

Why choose a 90% solution? Why gimp your cars, as GM does.

Don't get mad at the messenger.

jordanrichard | 17 mars 2017

andy.connor.e, the problem is GM themselves touted the Bolt as being the first long range EV that everyone could afford. Implying that one it is easy to do road trips in the Bolt Clearly demonstrated by that article about the woman and her daughter's road trip, that took them 11.5 hours to do a trip that would have taken 5 hrs in an ICE, the Bolt is not what GM touts it as. Without a dedicated, convenient, reliable DC fast charging network, the Bolt is gimped car.

Carl Thompson | 17 mars 2017

SamO:
"I have said many bad things about GM. Everyone knows why GM is terrible."

At least GM doesn't try to tell you how you're allowed to use the car for which you just paid tens of thousands of dollars. Although they probably will start if Tesla is able to get away with it.

Carl

andy.connor.e | 17 mars 2017

I dont need to drive more than 180 miles (total) to experience an extremely diverse selection of mountain peaks, state parks, and lakes. Again, depending on your geographical needs, the bolt will display its practicality to YOU. There are EVs in Nissan and BMW. But please, tell me all about your hard feelings against GM. Salty.

jordanrichard | 17 mars 2017

Now obviously I nor anyone here has the details of this Tesla Network, but it does seem only fair that if you are utilizing Tesla's servers to enable your car to go driverless and navigate on it's own to make you money, that they get something for it. Lyft and Uber get a cut of the fares for providing the platform which to receive ride requests and handle payments.

SamO | 17 mars 2017

Aw Andy . . . don't be mad at me.

I live somewhere with lots of things MORE than 100 miles.

Los Angeles:
Santa Barbara 100 miles
Big Bear 100 miles
San Diego 140 miles
Palm Spring 150 miles
Death Valley 160 miles
Central Coast 170 miles
Yosemite 220 miles
Mammoth 250 miles
San Francisco 270 miles
Lake Tahoe 350 miles
.
.
.
Bolt just is simply NOT doing the job. That's a simple fact.

Red Sage ca us | 17 mars 2017

The BOLT is at least thrice gimped.
-|- Gimped in Styling compared to Cadillac ATS, Buick LaCrosse, and Chevrolet MALIBU, which all cost less.
-|- Gimped in Performance compared to Model ≡, 3-Series, A4, Giulia, Q50, TLX, IS, and C-Class.
-|- Gimped in Usefulness due to lack of compatible DC fast charging network to allow long distance travel between major population centers.

Each of those was a purposeful and planned gimping by GM. Each plays a role in limiting the potential appeal of BOLT. Each reinforces the notion that by getting a car with a plug you must give up something else. Each ends up telling a narrative that you absolutely must have a gas car in your life... If you want things like styling, speed, and practical mobility.

Not so with Model ≡.

andy.connor.e | 17 mars 2017

Not every car meets the needs of every person. If thats the goal, its a failure. In that case, neither the BMW or Nissan EVs are practical for you. #FocusGM

Carl Thompson | 17 mars 2017

jordanrichard:
"Now obviously I nor anyone here has the details of this Tesla Network, but it does seem only fair that if you are utilizing Tesla's servers to enable your car to go driverless and navigate on it's own to make you money, that they get something for it."

Well, yeah, if you're utilizing Tesla's servers and they are providing a service to you. But if self-driving is a feature built into the car like Autopilot that doesn't require anything from Tesla then it's not OK. I think it will surprise a lot of people if self-driving ends up not being a feature you can buy (and sell) with your car and ends up being a service that you license separately and requires you to be connected to Tesla.

Carl

Pages