Chevy bolt is priced at 43-48k in NH and looks like a mini garbage truck in comparison to a T3.
He's just trying to sell his car, @burdogg. Trying so, so hard. ;-)
@mp1156 - I know, sad that people can so misconstrue fact and conjecture/opinion. Wish we still lived in a day where your word was gold, shake hands on a deal, and didn't have to worry about it. We have become such a slippery, loophole world.
@burrdog " you full well know there is a difference between lane keeping and AP. Lane keeping the Bolt and Volt have is for when you drift out of your lane, it will bring you back."
There's really no difference as the lane keeping keeps the car centered. As for Tesla Autopilot being no hands, uh...no and a crazy thing to do even though the car gives the appearance.
What AutoPilot does that lane keeping doesn't do is the park and retrieval, a cute trick but the Bolt has the essential features of AutoPilot, dynamic cruise, auto braking, lane keeping, blind side indicator, cross track warning. Bolt has a cool feature with the camera rear view mirror which also shows you 360 around the car.
With CarPlay or Auto, the AutoPilot essentials, lots of fun tech in the Bolt EV.
Funny. I don't hear the press equating Tesla's AP to features offered by any other carmaker. Others try, but aren't the same. Nice try.
@mp1156 " I don't hear the press equating Tesla's AP to features offered by any other carmaker. Others try, but aren't the same."
There is a high degree of tone deafness with the anti-EV Teslerati. All car mfg's have versions of AutoPillot with the essential features, dynamic cruise, auto braking, lane keeping, blind side indicators, cross track warning.
There's YouTube video of the Mercedes driver on the autobahn in Germany, zipping along at 100k and he jumps in the back seat as the car drives itself on the autobahn as he girl friend screams for him to get back in the drivers seat. Many of the systems have sensors that disable the "autopilot" features if they detect no hands on the wheel. In the Mercedes video, the guy rigged a soda can on the wheel to fool the system.
The Bolt's autopilot system of dynamic cruise, auto brake, lane keeping, blind side indicators, cross track indicators and 360 camera view has all the essentials.
Yeah, I am with mp1156, I don't hear the press saying what you are eagles, and trust me, they would be blasting it loud and clear if it was true :)
@eagles - I am not saying the Bolt doesn't have some cool tech, just trying to be real here though on some of your overstatements that you like to make
@burrdogg "I don't hear the press saying what you are eagles."
It's not a matter of selective hearing but of tech facts. The Bolt has the essential features of Autopilot, dynamic cruise, auto braking, lane keeping, blind side indicators, cross track indicators. It's an option on most cars today.
@eagles - yes, your majesty, I have seen the light, you speak 100% truth in all you have shared on these forums. We are so lucky to have such truth come and flow from your mouth all knowing one. Thank you for sharing the light.
Not anti EV - just anti BS.
Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt is no contest in my opinion.
More interesting is the BMW 3, Audi A4, Cadillac ATS, Lexus IS, Mercedes Benz C class which start near $35k and option up to $60k.
I'm guessing this is about a 1 million car per year market. (Red will give proper numbers, no?)
What is going to happen to their sales? Elon promises no better car for $35,000.
Doesn't this look like a repeat of Model S? Won't Model 3 be best of class?
I think so.
We already know how Model S impacts luxury sedan market.
Interesting to see how Model X impacts luxury SUV market.
How will Model 3 impact luxury compact sedan market?
Model Y impact the compact SUV?
Bolt: $17,000 ICE vs $35,000 BEV for nearly identical cars. No fast charging. No plans.
Model 3: $35,000 BEV that will be much better than any ICE equivalent. Network of 1000 Superchargers and 10,000 Destination Charging locations. Autopilot 2 and room for 5, plus plentiful storage.
Model 3 vs the network: Please see Model S vs Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, Porsche, GM, Ford, Honda etc. Best car in class. Best car period. Model 3 is just a less expensive version with 97.5% as much fun and utility.
Great comparison SamO.
It baffles me why Chevy would go half ass into this project when they could have made a killer car. But then again it is Chevy, so I guess that pretty much sums it up.
Have they even mentioned OTA updates?
jsimpsonalaska: A 'killer car' would have the effect of killing sales for the MALIBU and CRUZE at least, possibly the Cadillac ATS and CTS to boot, not to mention the entire Buick line. If there is one car you intend to sell 30,000 of and its introduction halts sales of vehicles you intended to sell 200,000 to 300,000 of, you just might decide to kill off the lower volume car. The Ford Probe is gone because people would test drive the 24v V6 version and buy it, leaving the more expensive (and slower) but more profitable Mustang V6 on the lot. The Pontiac Firebird went away because Chevrolet complained the Camaro couldn't catch the Ford Mustang in sales because the Firebird was 'stealing sales' from them. To avoid such issues, manufacturers artificially GIMP cars that they want to sell, but need to be less desirable than others, for the sake of 'balance' and profitability.
Don't you just hate it when Red Sage is right yet again?
Your insights into auto companies I think right on. Did you work for or with any of them? Or just an auto geek?
Red Sage stayed at a Holiday Inn Express........ :-)
@SamO I think there is a big flaw in your comparison (and others have made the same error too). You are all saying that because the Bolt looks like a Honda Fit or a Toyota Yaris hatchback that those are "comparable" ICE vehicles. But that's just idiotic, there is a lot more about a car than the look.
A Volkswagen Phaeton "looks like" a Ford Crown Victoria. The Audi RS3 "looks like" a Volkswagen Golf. But those are much different cars.
The Bolt is 200 hp and 0-60 in under 7 seconds. A Yaris is 106 hp and 0-60 in 10.2 s. Not to mention all the luxury tech features of the bolt like the 360 view thing. I am curious what factors besides looks you used to determine the "nearly identical" ICE equivalent.
It's that they are the same size/class of vehicle. I didn't invent car classes.
EPA car class Total passenger and cargo volume (cu. ft.)
Two-seaters Any (designed to seat only two adults)
Minicompact Less than 85 cu ft (2,407 l)
Subcompact 85 to 99 cu ft (2,407–2,803 l)
Compact 100 to 109 cu ft (2,832–3,087 l)
Mid-size 110 to 119 cu ft (3,115–3,370 l)
Large 120 cu ft (3,398 l) or more
Small station wagons Less than 130 cu ft (3,681 l)
Mid-size station wagons 130 to 159 cu ft (3,681–4,502 l)
Large station wagons 160 cu ft (4,531 l) or more
@SamO, but there's so much more to a car than the class/size. By your logic you can say a Mazda Miata is equivalent to a Tesla Roadster because they are both two-seaters. And what's the Model 3, mid-size? Is a Kia Optima a "nearly identical car"?
Thanks for admitting you were wrong. You can argue how many angels can sit on the head of a pin but the Bolt is what it is.
@SamO I don't understand your previous post. But I was wondering what factors you used to determine the equivalent ICE cars for the Bolt. If you only used the class, then that is not a fair comparison because you chose the cheapest ICE cars in the Bolt class but the more expensive ICE cars in the Model 3 class.
If you actually compared performance and features to determine the equivalent ICE cars, that would be another story. Did you?
Not to speak on SamO's behalf, but I believe and agree with him, that he is going by the size and type of car. Meaning, the Bolt has the same general proportions as a Honda Fit, both are hatchbacks, is by its nature just a small running around town car, versus something you would pile a family into for a long trip. It has nothing to do with what propels the car down the road.
What @jordanrichard said is exactly correct. Both the Fit and Bolt fit into a class of cars based on length, volume and weight. They generally measure the UTILITY of the vehicle. Both are compact/subcompact hatchbacks.
For example: The Tesla Model S is as larger or larger than any other car in its class - Mercedes S, BMW 740, Audi A8, Lexus LS. The S fits more people (5+2) than any competitor. It has more storage. It is faster. It is cheaper to run. It some cases it even has a lower sticker price. So buying the Model S, you are getting the best car for the price in its class.
Compare: Honda Fit vs GM Bolt. Similar length. Similar fit of stuff and people. Similar range. Similar UTILITY. It's not clear WHY bolt should cost twice as much as it's ICE competitor. They even look the same.
I used to make the argument that for people to do the right thing and save humanity from itself, the green ALTERNATIVE should be better and cheaper than the dirty counterpart.
Recycling isn't easier or better than throwing 1 bag of trash away. But it's good for the planet.
Driving a Nissan leaf isn't easier or better than owning a gas car or Tesla Model S. But it's good for the planet.
Driving a Model S is easier and better than owning any gas car. It's good for the planet and better than the best ICE experience.
Chevy Bolt may be better than owning a gas car. Not easier when you have to take a road trip and twice as expensive as something almost identical from the outside and inside.
So, yes. I did compare the "features" and find them woefully inadequate to compensate for the double average price.
jamilworm: Thing is...? The Volkswagen Golf and AUDI A3 both look better than the Chevrolet BOLT, but cost less, and can be made to perform just as well.
What we perceive as being 'unfair' is that GM chose to purposely style their over $35,000 electric car to look like something you could buy for under $20,000. It continues the narrative that you must give up something to have a plug on a car. In this case, a stack of bucks and appealing styling to boot. If the BOLT were shaped like the Buick Verano, Regal, Encore, or Envision instead, or even its stablemate such as the Chevrolet CRUZE, MALIBU, TRAX, or EQUINOX, it would be all good. Instead, it looks like a replacement for the SONIC.
SamO: Well, technically...? The Porsche Panamera is a 'little bit' bigger than the Model S when it comes to combined interior passenger and cargo volume. Roughly 4 cubic feet larger, per the EPA.
@SamO I completely agree with you that a BEV is a compete success when it outshines and remains price competitive with it's ICE competitors, even if you ignore the electric aspect. I am just questioning your method for choosing the "dirty counterpart".
Yes class is one way to compare, but you are ignoring luxury vs. economy. Ok we all know the Bolt is a hatchback, but why are you comparing it to a Fit rather than a Mercedes E350 Wagon? Yeah I know the Bolt is a little but shorter but it has just about the same amount of cargo space. Maybe the Bolt is just the first luxury compact hatchback. Note, that is a huge MAYBE. I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other, but my main point is that neither does anyone else.
And again, there are lost of cars in the Model 3 class ranging from cheapos to luxury, and you are just choosing to group it with the luxury ones instead of comparing it to a Corolla. That is probably because of the specs and features that make it better but you are ignoring those differences between the Bolt and the Fit when you equate those two.
jamilworm inquired, "Ok we all know the Bolt is a hatchback, but why are you comparing it to a Fit rather than a Mercedes E350 Wagon?"
Because each one is classified as a 'Small Station Wagon' by the EPA. Because they are almost identical dimensions in length, width, height, and interior volume for passengers and cargo. Because if you put a Chevrolet emblem on the FIT and a Honda emblem on the BOLT, most people couldn't tell the difference at a glance. And because there was once a Honda FIT EV that cost about the same.
@Red Sage I understand that they look alike, but I am just saying that should be one of many factors when comparing vehicles. Passenger and cargo space are good comparisons, but as I pointed out in that aspect the Bolt actually IS comparable to Mercedes E350 Wagon.
The Model 3 is just about the same length, width and height as a Corolla, so does that mean they are nearly identical cars? If the model 3 had been a hatchback, then would it suddenly be comparable to a Honda Fit instead of a BMW 3 series?
A Lotus Elite is about the same size and shape as a Miata, but does that mean they should be classified together?
I mean, I get it that appearance is an important consideration for a lot of people, and some people who gotta have a compact hatchback will look at the Bolt alongside a Fit. But can you guys even acknowledge that there are a lot more factors that make one car better than another besides shape and appearance?
jamilworm: Really? Stop acting as if we aren't using multiple factors to determine which cars are closest to each other. Dude, pay attention, because it seems you never saw the 'matching game' on Sesame Street (where 'Three of these things are kinda the same...'). The Chevrolet BOLT is more comparable to the Mercedes-Benz B250e than it is to the e350 4matic wagon. They have the exact same combined interior passenger and cargo volume, are priced closer to each other, and, oh, wait -- they are both ELECTRIC, in addition to being hatchbacks! Just like the now defunct Honda FIT EV that the BOLT was so obviously designed to one-up.
Yes. The Lotus Elise, Mazda Miata, Alfa Romeo 4c, Porsche Boxster/Cayman, and Tesla Roadster can ALL be compared against each other. Why? Because they are all small two seater sports cars that are fun to drive. That's why.
Consumer Reports has been 'acknowledging' that Minivans are 'better' than wagons, that wagons are 'better' than sedans, that sedans are 'better' than coupes, and that coupes are 'better' than two seaters for over three decades -- when it comes to the day-to-day transportation of passengers and freight. So what? Not everyone has the same day-to-day needs for transporting either passengers or freight. That's why their review of the Tesla Model S was so shocking to the automotive world, because it was literally the first time they had ever noted a vehicle with exceptional PERFORMANCE as being a great CAR. Before that point it seemed as if they would go out of their way to penalize any vehicle that had good performance as much as they could in their ratings.
Jailworm, if you are using cargo space as the sole metric to compare cars, then we should be comparing the MS to every SUV on the road. Did you know that the MS has more cargo room than the Ford Explorer, yet no one ever compares the 2 cars.
Also you have to be less technical. Meaning, most if not all of us here are technical/detail orientated. However the general public is not. No one cross shops a hatchback the size of the Bolt, with a mid size station wagon. 2 completely different animals.
@Red Sage, I guess my intentions were lost in translation, and I'm not sure how I can clarify better. I am saying that when looking for an equivalent car to compare to when determining if the Bolt price is reasonable, you should look at more that just the size and shape. You actually support my argument when you say the Bolt is most comparable to the Mercedes-Benz B250e. SamO was saying that the Bolt is nearly identical to a $17,000 car, but as you point out it is actually comparable to a $39,000 car.
And so you agree that the Tesla Roadster is comparable to a Miata? Then I can use SamO's argument and say "Why pay $100k+ for a roadster when the comparable ICE is $25k?"
@jordanrichard, I am not trying to use cargo space as the sole metric to compare cars. On the contrary, I am insisting that we should all use many more factors other than physical dimensions and space when comparing cars. People who say the Bolt is identical to the Fit are ONLY using the size and shape when they compare, they are ignoring performance and features. In my example where I mentioned cargo space, I was just trying to point out that if you ARE going to only use physical characteristics when picking a comparable vehicle, then there are more flattering ones to compare to the Bolt than a Fit or Sonic.
"No one cross shops a hatchback the size of the Bolt, with a mid size station wagon. 2 completely different animals."
You might be right in most cases, but I did cross shop those types of cars last time I bought a car. I knew I wanted a hatchback, and so I was seriously considering Mazda 3, Honda Fit and a Subaru Impreza. The smaller size is what led me to pick the Fit, but if it had not been highly rated by consumer reports then I would have picked one of the other two.
In an attempt to clarify my opinion: I do not think it is unfair to compare the Bolt to the Fit, or any other hatchback or any other car at all. Comparing is great. What I think is unfair is saying that the Bolt is identical to a Fit when the only basis for comparison was the appearance.
jamilworm: As I noted about two or three times already... It is PERFECTLY FAIR to compare the Chevrolet BOLT to the Honda FIT. They are within one cubic foot of interior volume in size. They are the same vehicle classification. If Honda had made an EV version on the current body style it would cost about the same. Oh, and if you put them in a dark room and removed the emblems, someone running their hands over them would think they were each the same car.
It is also fair to compare the Chevrolet BOLT to the BMW i3, Fiat 500e, Ford Focus Electric, Kia Soul EV, or Mercedes-Benz B250e.
It is not by any means fair to compare any of those to the Mercedes-Benz E350 Wagon -- as YOU suggested -- mostly because it costs around $25,000 more on average. But also because it has a much longer wheelbase, much greater overall length, doesn't have a plugin version at all, eats gasoline like no tomorrow, and is a completely different vehicle classification, despite having a similar overall interior volume.
@jamilworm " I do not think it is unfair to compare the Bolt to the Fit, or any other hatchback or any other car at all. Comparing is great. What I think is unfair is saying that the Bolt is identical to a Fit when the only basis for comparison was the appearance."
The Teslerati will not take yes for answer when their blood is up in defense of the faith. The Bolt is an EV with 238 mile range and that is the key buying factor. That it is built on a utility platform vs a sedan platform like the T3 is a good thing. I wish Tesla had done that with the T3 vs. going for the mini-me TS. That Musk has had to promise to increase the utility of the T3 with a liftback and towing to meet buyer demand shows GM made the right choice in going utility.
jamilworm, would you consider the VW Golf Diesel, VW Golf gas car and VW E-Golf different class cars? they are all 2/4 door hatchbacks. People in general shop by type of vehicle. If one wants a wagon, they don't look at coupes, convertibles, etc.
The Honda Fit, Nissan Leaf, VW Golfs, Chevy Bolt, MB B-Class, BMW i3s, Yaris etc. all have the same general shape, size and are hatchbacks. The day is coming that instead of having to choose between the diesel or the gas version of say a Golf, you can add Electric to your choices.
Go read this thread if you think charging doesn't matter.
GM has ZERO charging infrastructure and ZERO plans for any.
Tesla owners are defending some faith.
Charging is the special sauce. Until GM figures it out, they are limited to selling to a small subset of potential EV buyers.
Oh . . .and GM "fast charging" is actually slow.
@SamO "GM has ZERO charging infrastructure and ZERO plans for any."
1. Bolt recharges 90 miles in 30 minutes.
2. Blink and Chargepoint are building out the charging system.
So the fast charging is built in the charging structure is building out.
Saying it over and over:
1. Doesn't make GM's charging fast, and
2. Doesn't make it GM's.
GM has zero infrastructure. You admit it and agree they have no plan. They are dependent on an inferior product with Blink and Chargepoint.
90 miles in 30 minutes vs 170-200 miles for a Tesla.
You know that Bolt's next 90 miles will take closer to an hour, right?
And you know that driven at highway speeds, cold weather, rain etc, Bolt, with it's high CD, will only achieve half that range?
So, yea, I don't think it's "religious" reasons that I can't recommend the Bolt. The Bolt is simply an inferior product.
1. Doesn't make GM's charging fast, and
2. Doesn't make it GM's."
Charging 90 miles in 30 minutes is what makes it fast.
No one cares if GM owns the Blink and Chargepoint charging stations anymore than they care if GM owns the gas stations.
The Bolt has fast charging and Blink and Chargepoint are building the charging stations.
1/2 the speed and you have the gall to call that "fast" but claim others are stuck with religious thinking. lol.
Eagle still trying to put lipstick on his "sleek" pig!
"Charging 90 miles in 30 minutes is what makes it fast", compared to what? Not a Tesla and that is the point.
Also, please provide a link, a map, or a list of all the "Fast" Chargers that Blink and Chargepoint plan on putting in, along the major routes. You keep spouting of that those outfits are going to build the infrastructure, great, show us. When I placed my order for my MS, Tesla, just like today had a map of the country and their planned network of superchargers. So that instilled the confidence that there would be charging support for my car on a long road trip. So again, where is this similar list/map for Chargepoint? Also, just as it seems impressive by the number of dealerships one can charge their Bolt at, doesn't mean squat to a traveler if there is just 1 or 2 chargers and they are being used. The number and location of charging sites is only part of the equation. The equally important part is how many stalls are there. For the superchargers I have seen here on the East coast, the number of stalls have ranged from 4 to 12.
@jordanrichard ""Charging 90 miles in 30 minutes is what makes it fast", compared to what?"
Compared to a Tesla at 170 miles per 30 minutes.
@jordnarichard " So that instilled the confidence that there would be charging support for my car on a long road trip."
Long road trips are not really a factor in EV sales. It's kind of the fantasy vs. the reality, similar to what we see in ICE sales with "performance cars" to "trucks" performing acts no one really does or can do with the actual car, selling the dream. The Tesla supercharger stations mostly lie idle except for locals who use them.
But the Bolt's ability to charge quickly in the fantasy scenario is there and the "Fast DC" chargers are part of the EV infrastructure being built out by Blink and Charge point, providing the advantage of an industry standard vs. Tela's proprietary. You would have thought Tesla would have built out it's network to an industry standard as part of its mission to promote EV's.
For those of use who will be driving the EV as the only car, we will be looking at our regular usage. The 238 of the Bolt would work for me for weekend skiing (130 miles), fishing (180 miles). For my one long trip a year, Whistler, 360 miles for which I budget a day anyway, the 238 mile range would work even on a slow charger though I'm confident that the high tech, high EV population PNW corridor will have the 90 mile/30 minute chargers to use.
My T3 at 250 range is going to require similar strategizing. It's something pioneer EV'ers (over the next 10 years of EV infrastructure build out) are going to have to adapt to.
At 238 mile range and with the 90 mile/30 minute charge capability, the Bolt will work. Some Michelin Xice3 snows, FWD, traction control, it would be a fine snow mobile.
Religious thinkin requires:
Faith in something others can't see (fast charging)
Ability to see something that isn't there (fast charging stations)
Ability to lie to yourself and others
@EaglePDX fits the description to a T. Nobody is lining up for the imaginary Bolt. No wait lists, no fast charging, and no charging stations.
Maybe I should be glad that the conversation got diverted, but I must be a masochist. I'll try one more time to clarify my viewpoint and if that doesn't work I'll just have to bow out of the conversation. The whole thing that sparked my critique was the following comment:
"Bolt: $17,000 ICE vs $35,000 BEV for nearly identical cars."
The thing that I was objecting to was the specific phrasing "nearly identical" when comparing the Bolt to a $17,000 ICE, which presumably is a Fit or something similar. I am insisting that just because two cars (FIT and Bolt) look exactly the same, and even if they have the same interior volume, that doesn't make them nearly identical. There are many other factors that can make one car better than another (and of course some of them are subjective), and so if you are going to label two cars as identical you should be considering all factors, not just physical dimensions.
A quick quiz:
1. Is it fair to say that a Porsche 911 is nearly identical to a Nissan Z, purely because they happen to be almost the exact same size and shape?
2. Is it fair to say that a Cadillac Escalade is nearly identical to a Ford Expedition purely because they are almost the exact same size and shape?
3. Is it fair to say that a Chevy Bolt is nearly identical to a Honda Fit purely because they are almost the exact same size and shape?
4. If the answer to 3 was different that 1 or 2, how is it different?
Thanks, and I apologize if my previous posts were vague or unclear but I hope my point comes across this time.
Perhaps your confusion stems from your insistence on some major difference?
1. Are the Porsche 911 and Nissan Z both 2 seat sports cars? If yes, then they are in the same class of cars. Performance, handling, styling, quality, maintenance, cost are all different. A Nissan Z starts at $30k, while a 911 starts at $90,000. They don't look alike. They don't perform alike. They don't have the same reputation. But they are the same size.
2. Escalade $73,000 and Expedition $46,000 are both 8 seat SUVs. They are in the same class of cars. Performance, handling, maintenance and cost are nearly identical. Costs are very different. They look alike. Cadillac is a "premium" brand, while Ford is not.
3. Bolt and Fit/Yaris/Sonic/Fiesta are all subcompacts. So they are in the same class of cars. Performance, handling, styling, quality, interior and exterior size are similar. Bolt starts at $35,000. The others start at $13,000. None have a reputation for quality, performance or status. When they are crash tested, we'll likely find the Bolt performs comparably to other cars in their class.
4. Please read the differences:
In #1, the cars are in the "same class" but their performance attributes are wildly different. Perceived quality, wildly different. Status, wildly different. But if someone said: "Why would I buy a $100,000 Porsche over a $30,000 Nissan" I'd answer: performance and status, otherwise buy the Nissan since it is a much better deal.
In #2, the cars are in the "same class" but their only difference is status. So these are nearly identical cars for wildly different prices . I would call them nearly identical.
In #3, the only reason you'd pay double the cost is either: status or performance. Bolt has neither. It doesn't have more "utility". It just has the added drawback of being incapable of fast charging or reasonable long distance travel. So, with the Bolt, you actually have a WORSE car than the Yaris in several major ways: higher cost and inconvenience.
Perhaps if you made a list of all the characteristics of the Bolt that are not present in the other cars of its class that make it worth the double price premium, it might be easier to understand your POV. As it stands now, you seem to be objecting to the cars of the same class being included together and you seem unable to articulate the substance of how the Bolt is better than the cars in its class. A slight difference in acceleration/interior space/ "sleek styling" isn't substantive, IMO, making the cars "nearly identical".
SamO thanks for that explanation, that was well laid out and explained. However I somewhat disagree with your assessment that the Bolt has equal performance and status to the other cars you listed.
On the performance aspect, the only easy quantifiable metric I can think of is 0-60 time, so let's look at those (according to caranddriver.com)
Fiesta ST (actually $22k): 7.0s
Bolt (according to Chevy): less than 7.0s.
So compared to the cars you mentioned the Bolt out-performs them all. Though until researching right now I didn't realize how impressive the Fiesta ST is.
Regarding status, I think the car being electric gives it a certain level of status. I would certainly rather be seen driving a Bolt than a Yaris. Though admittedly I agree with you that the Chevy brand doesn't add it's own level of status.
Then in terms of other characteristics that give the Bolt an advantage, the 10.2" center display and surround vision come to mind. Oh and of course the reduced maintenance of a BEV that everyone touts as a significant advantage of Teslas compared to ICEs.
Now, I was just trying to say that the Bolt is not equal to the Fit or any of those other cars, it is somewhat better. Is it $15,000 better? Maybe not. And then of course when you throw the Model 3 into the mix, it is hard to justify choosing the Bolt. If it were $30k before incentives I think it would have much more appeal.
@SamO "Faith in something others can't see,"
Like putting down $1K on T3 which no one can see yet.
@jamilworm " If it [Bolt] were $30k before incentives I think it would have much more appeal."
$30K after incentives is very appealing to people who want to do their part with an EV but have limited funding.
jamilworm: Yes. Each of those comparisons meets my criteria for 'nearly identical to'.
The Nissan 'Fairlady' Z cars have been their version of a Porsche 911/928 since about 1990. Before then, they were Nissan's version of a Jaguar J-Type, I think. Just as the Nissan Skyline GTR has apparently always been their rendition of a proper Corvette 2+2. Nissan pays homage to other companies all the time.
Neither the Chevrolet BOLT nor the Honda FIT are 'subcompacts'. Each of them is a 'small station wagon', as I've already noted multiple times by now.
The 'slight differences' that you don't find substantive are indeed your opinion. And they are in my opinion, otherwise. But in either case, neither of us needs to substantiate our opinions, just state them, and let them be. Sorted.
Unless you now want to argue over the definitions of 'nearly' and 'identical to', in which case, I'll be elsewhere.