Bolt EV gripes

[michael]

Okay, my gripe has nothing to do with the Bolt itself, but with the way the federal tax credit of $7500 is only realized by those who earn sufficient income to realize it. I purchased a Spark EV and received $4,500 in tax credit. I know, I'm "looking a gift horse in the mouth" here, but it seems a fairer way to award such a tax incentive would be to allow such a credit to be spread over a couple of years. In other words, don't penalize those who earn less than $65,000 (my rough estimate of annual income required to pay $7,500 in income tax).

There...gripe aired, feel better...now back to on topic posts.

Will they be taking the $7500 off up front on leases? You could then buy out the lease and realize the full credit.

AFAIK, that is yet unknown. When I got a quote for leasing a Foot, hey did NOT do that, but tacked it on to the residual. The resulting lease cost the same but they buyout was $7500 higher than it should have been. Anyone hoping to lease and buyout an EV should take a good look at the numbers and make sure they are getting the tax credit.

Some companies use the $7500 (or a portion of it) as a capital reduction, and some use it to allow an artificially increased residual. Both approaches reduce the monthly payment, and both have good and bad.

As noted above, an artificially increased residual makes it harder to buy the car at lease end, but the bank may be willing to negotiate a reasonable buyout.

If the money is used as a capital reduction, then (at least here in California) that money is subject to sales tax, reducing the benefit to the buyer.

On balance, I think the inflated residual approach is preferable, but both are OK

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I didn't notice before that my device auto-corrected "Volt" to "Foot". No, I was not looking to lease a Foot :lol: I think most people got the idea.

In my case, I was looking to lease with intent to buy. If I bought outright, I would lose all $7,500, since I already knew I had wiped out all tax liability for the year, and most of it for the following year (thanks to a new array of solar panels). But if you are looking to lease only, having a lower tax bill is a plus.

Again, bottom line - look at all of the numbers. Make sure they work for you, and if so, enjoy your new car!

 

[wwhitney]

In my case, I was looking to lease with intent to buy. If I bought outright, I would lose all $7,500, since I already knew I had wiped out all tax liability for the year, and most of it for the following year (thanks to a new array of solar panels).

Not sure of the details of the tax code, but as I understand it the EV tax credit can't be carried forward, while the Solar Panel tax credit can be carried forward. So could you take the EV tax credit this year, and carry forward (almost) all of your Solar Panel tax credit?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Tessy]

And remember that's US only - in Canada we get fast charging as standard equipment on both models.

(now the real question is why did Chevy make this a Canada-only thing? Maybe because they tried to give more value since the price is high here because of poor exchange rate?)

No way! Typically Canada isn't the one getting better perks than America

 

[GetOffYourGas]

In my case, I was looking to lease with intent to buy. If I bought outright, I would lose all $7,500, since I already knew I had wiped out all tax liability for the year, and most of it for the following year (thanks to a new array of solar panels).

Not sure of the details of the tax code, but as I understand it the EV tax credit can't be carried forward, while the Solar Panel tax credit can be carried forward. So could you take the EV tax credit this year, and carry forward (almost) all of your Solar Panel tax credit?

Cheers, Wayne

I was under the impression that the Solar tax credit would be applied first. But maybe the EV credit would be, and would have pushed the solar one out a year. Even with that, my tax liability was only about half of what the credit is worth. Other things like dependent deductions and a new mortgage (lost of interest payment to deduct) reduce my taxable income as well.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

According to InsideEVs, GM is planning on passing $2,500 to the lessee and tacking the other $5,000 onto the residual.

As for rebates and incentives, there’s a $2,500 Incremental CCR incentive through GM Financial (CA or OR only). Given how Bolt EV qualifies for the full $7,500 federal tax credit, we frankly expected the CCR to be higher. But it looks like GM is passing only a fraction of that amount to lessees — and using the rest to inflate the residuals (which also lowers the payment).

insideevs.com/lease-chevrolet-bolt-just-309-per-month/

So yeah, if you lease with intent to buy, be prepared to fight for 2/3 of your tax credit at lease end. If you lease with intent to return the car, then it's a non issue.

 

[SparkE]

I'll let somebody else get a new Bolt, pay for 2-3 years, and then buy it for $12-15K at lease end. Thank you, whoever you are faceless, early adopter!

 

[michael]

Not me. What would I be driving those three years? My Focus with the faded battery? Life is too short to be controlled by money.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I'll let somebody else get a new Bolt, pay for 2-3 years, and then buy it for $12-15K at lease end. Thank you, whoever you are faceless, early adopter!

I may take this route too. My current cars work just fine for me. But i doubt the Bolt will depreciate to 12-15k after 2-3 years. I'm betting it will still be over 20k after 3 years. If course the tax credits will have expired by then too so the price of a new one will be higher. What to do, what to do.

 

[SparkE]

Not me. What would I be driving those three years? My Focus with the faded battery? Life is too short to be controlled by money.

Doesn't your Focus have a warranty for the battery? I'm not worried about a 10 mi difference, but much more than that should be covered by warranty, no? (Maybe not - I don't have a Focus EV.)

 

[karza]

After a mostly standard and positive article about the bolt, this author goes into a rant about electric cars in general.....

https://www.thestar.com/autos/2016/12/03/chevrolets-bolt-ev-is-fully-charged.html

The end of the article:

OK, so why did I separate Bolt’s car-ness from its electric-ness? Because the briefest glance at the facts shows that electric cars are pointless.

Apart from the noise, there’s nothing about the Bolt that wouldn’t be better if it had a modern Diesel engine in it.

It would double, possibly triple, its range. You could ‘recharge’ that range fully in five minutes, not nine to 60 hours. From a delivery infrastructure that is in place literally everywhere in the world, which would not require you (or likely for most urban dwellers, your landlord) to install a multi-thousand dollar Level 2 charging station where you live.

And, Bolt’s overall environmental impact would probably be less with a Diesel engine.

First, cars contribute only about 12 per cent to our greenhouse gas emissions, and with electrics’ current (ho-ho) collective market share around one per cent, that’s a 0.12 per cent reduction in air pollution.

Whoop-dee-do. Let’s start planning the parade.

No percentage of new car sales that electric cars can possibly hope to achieve will ever have any significant impact on our atmosphere.

In most parts of North America, electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, so no advantage there.

And with the president-non-elect in the U.S., coal seems set for a comeback. Oh, goody.

Chevrolet is offering an eight-year, 160,000-km warranty on Bolt’s battery. But when it is done, you will have 450 kg of toxic sludge to deal with.

My two Diesel station wagons are both much older than that, with almost two-and-a-half times that mileage on them and at least that much more life still left in them. No recycling issues if they ever actually die.

And the most environmentally friendly car you can buy is one which doesn’t have to have a replacement built for it.

So, by electric car standards, Bolt is very good. But by the standards that all other cars have to meet, Bolt just doesn’t measure up.

What’s more, a Diesel Bolt’s business model would not depend on governments bribing potential customers with your and my tax dollars. With $14,000 in Ontario, mostly going to wealthy people who can afford any car they want, why isn’t there rioting in the streets?

Listen; if you want to spend your own money buying an electric car and pretend you are saving the planet, fill yer boots.

Likewise, if you want to spend your own money buying a Porsche and pretend you’re driving on the Nurburgring on your way to work.

Just don’t expect me to be happy with the government using my taxes to help you fulfil either fantasy.

When Bolt — when any battery-powered car — can compete on a level playing field without tax-funded bribes, give me a call.

 

[Schnort]

fwiw, you might want to put the portion from the article in quotes, so people don't think it's you ranting. Unless it is you, then you're wrong and should feel bad.

 

[michael]

Not me. What would I be driving those three years? My Focus with the faded battery? Life is too short to be controlled by money.

Doesn't your Focus have a warranty for the battery? I'm not worried about a 10 mi difference, but much more than that should be covered by warranty, no? (Maybe not - I don't have a Focus EV.)

No, of course it has no warranty against battery fade. Very few EVs do. Even the Bolt warranty explicitly states that the battery may fade as much as 40% over the 8 year/100K mile warranty period. My 22% fade in 54,000 miles is pretty much in line with this.

After 100K miles, our 240 mile Bolts may be 145 mile cars and still considered OK by GM. I'm not attacking them for this, it's reality....batteries fade. In fact, it's possibly worse than that...a 50,000 mile Bolt could be down 39% and still not eligible for warranty replacement.

 

[JupiterMoon]

Fast charge should be standard but from a business perspective I understand why it's not

I can understand the business case for leaving it off the entry-level trim. GM promised "under $30k", and they delivered. Some things didn't make the cut, and became options.

However, I disagree with any "business case" for leaving it off the Premium package. It should be optional on the LT and standard on the Premium. JMO, of course.

If people only realized how easy and cheap it is for the manufacturer to build into the vehicle DCFC capability.

 

[Anonymous]

Fast charge should be standard but from a business perspective I understand why it's not

บาคาร่า

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Fast charge should be standard but from a business perspective I understand why it's not

I can understand the business case for leaving it off the entry-level trim. GM promised "under $30k", and they delivered. Some things didn't make the cut, and became options.

However, I disagree with any "business case" for leaving it off the Premium package. It should be optional on the LT and standard on the Premium. JMO, of course.

If people only realized how easy and cheap it is for the manufacturer to build into the vehicle DCFC capability.

Sometimes it's not about how easy and cheap it is for the manufacturer, but how much of a premium it is worth to the customer. It could be that GM really doesn't want to sell any Bolts at $37,495. That could be a loss-leader (there are rumors that all Bolts are sold at a loss, but I don't take that at face value). Up-selling the customer a $750 DCQC option should be fairly easy, even if that option only costs GM $50 to build in. That's an extra $700 in their pocket.

Like I said, I can see the business case for making it an option. That doesn't mean that I don't realize how easy and cheap it is for GM to build it into the car.

 

[JupiterMoon]

I can understand the business case for leaving it off the entry-level trim. GM promised "under $30k", and they delivered. Some things didn't make the cut, and became options.

However, I disagree with any "business case" for leaving it off the Premium package. It should be optional on the LT and standard on the Premium. JMO, of course.

If people only realized how easy and cheap it is for the manufacturer to build into the vehicle DCFC capability.

Sometimes it's not about how easy and cheap it is for the manufacturer, but how much of a premium it is worth to the customer. It could be that GM really doesn't want to sell any Bolts at $37,495. That could be a loss-leader (there are rumors that all Bolts are sold at a loss, but I don't take that at face value). Up-selling the customer a $750 DCQC option should be fairly easy, even if that option only costs GM $50 to build in. That's an extra $700 in their pocket.

Like I said, I can see the business case for making it an option. That doesn't mean that I don't realize how easy and cheap it is for GM to build it into the car.

It would be a better business case for GM to be a leader in offering included (and an almost necessary at this point in battery EV attractiveness and functionality) DCFC capability as standard in order to A) stand out as a genuine promoter and leader of EVs and B) make their cars more appealing to a broader and more realistic group in general. This car is not cheap. It should have this option as standard no matter what.

On one hand everyone keeps saying the Bolt is a leader in the market because for the price there is nothing else out there that offers its range and performance. On the other hand, people are trying to make a business case for GM for leaving out the perhaps the second most important aspect of the car's practicality and performance...fast charging capability...for a mere $750 (MSRP) at this price point?

It's a very bad business decision IMO....especially given how cheap and easy it really is to fit vehicles with DCFC capability.

 

[litesong]

Looking quickly through the thread, did anyone mention the lack of a simple two-speed manual transmission. Not for performance, but to drop the rpms by 25% & gain 10+% more range while on the highway. On other forums & threads, people mention the difficulty of matching rpms for an electric motor. Well, they have rev-matching tech for the big horsepower ICE vehicles. Just give me a simple 2-speed manual tranny. I want my 10% range extension. Was' da matta!

 

[devbolt]

AC motors tend to be more efficient when they are running at or near full load. Dropping the RPMs by 25% could actually be worse for range..

 

[michael]

Looking quickly through the thread, did anyone mention the lack of a simple two-speed manual transmission. Not for performance, but to drop the rpms by 25% & gain 10+% more range while on the highway. On other forums & threads, people mention the difficulty of matching rpms for an electric motor. Well, they have rev-matching tech for the big horsepower ICE vehicles. Just give me a simple 2-speed manual tranny. I want my 10% range extension. Was' da matta!

Interesting that you cite this as a shortcoming.

Volt actually accomplishes this in effect, using the two motors and a planetary gearset to add RPMs, allowing each to run slower. And it does work to improve efficiency at high speed. But...

EV purists (and the Tesla crowd especially) deride this as "unnecessarily complex" "bound to breakdown" "mickey mouse". True believers think that a single speed electric solution is vastly better.

And in fact I'm sure Chevy considered this as an option and concluded a single speed arrangement was the best compromise. Unlike Tesla they actually have experience with a dual speed setup. I assume they geared the car for good efficiency at normally expected cruising speeds and still had an excess of torque available at low speeds.

I can assure you that if the Bolt had provided a dual speed transmission, there would be raging posts on all the other forums condemning Chevy for falling back on old technology from the ICE age.