Does GM really want to sell the Chevy Bolt

[splitmitten]

The release of the Chevy Bolt is quickly approaching. And by most accounts it looks to be very good. Test drive reviews and ride-along reviews have been very positive, and the specs look great. Specifically the promise of more than 200 miles of range at an affordable price.

GM is heavily promoting these two aspects of the Bolt: driving range and price point. With a target starting price of $30,000 after rebates, the Bolt will be the first ‘affordable’ EV on the market with over 200 miles of range.

But something is missing. Increased adoption of EVs will only occur when three conditions are met: 1) the car must be sold at an affordable price; 2) it must have sufficient driving range; and 3)the car must be capable of charging rapidly.

Price? Check. Range? Check. But what about the 3rd condition, charging speed?

Those who’ve been following development of the Chevy Bolt over the past year know that the car will be offered with the CCS DC charging port, just like its sister car the Chevy Spark. DC charging dramatically reduces charging time and will allow the Bolt to quickly recharge for high mileage drivers and those on long distance trips. But when it comes to DC charging, GM is oddly silent.

Go to the official website for the Bolt (click here to check it out), and what you see is a very prominent message stating “Full charge in 9 hours”. No mention of rapid DC charging anywhere. It’s as if that DC charging port doesn’t even exist.


http://insideevs.com/a-tale-of-9-hours-does-gm-really-want-to-sell-the-chevy-bolt/

 

[JeffN]

So far, I'm assuming GM is just being willfully inscrutable like they were when they declared they weren't interested in building non-plugin hybrids right up until they announced the 2016 Malibu full hybrid. Or when they stated or strongly implied that the 2011 Volt was a series hybrid right up until they suddenly disclosed in September 2010 that it was a power-split hybrid with a part-time parallel mechanical path from the engine to the wheels.

GM may not want to emphasize DC charging yet at a time when there are still many large US city metro areas with zero DC charging and very little charging along highway corridors. This will likely improve quickly but if GM prominently marketed DC charging today some people might accuse them of lying or misleading the public.

Similarly, when GM does talk about DC charging they predicate all of their charging specifications upon "50 kW" chargers otherwise known as 125A chargers. I suspect that is because almost all CCS chargers installed in the US today are limited to 125A or less. I think it quite likely that the Bolt EV is actually capable of charging at least somewhat faster than that when connected to future CCS chargers that are rated at 200A or higher but GM refuses to talk about it for now.

 

[devbolt]

The article you reference is 2 months old and refers to information that has since been updated and clarified. If you go to Chevy's Bolt page now, you'll see that available DC Fast Charging is listed, and that it says that DC Fast charging will deliver 90 miles of range in less than 30 minutes:

View attachment DCFC.JPG

 

[oilerlord]

That's an interesting question. If not for EPA forcing them (and other manufacturers) to sell ZEV's, the Bolt would not exist. LIke most EV's, I see the Bolt as an EPA tax, and the cost of doing business in continuing to sell profitable trucks and SUV's.

 

[westernkicks]

That's an interesting question. If not for EPA forcing them (and other manufacturers) to sell ZEV's, the Bolt would not exist. LIke most EV's, I see the Bolt as an EPA tax, and the cost of doing business in continuing to sell profitable trucks and SUV's.

For Chevy in particular I see this too. They did have great success with the Volt though so maybe I am wrong

 

[DucRider]

For clarity the EPA has zero to do with ZEV credits.

CARB created, defines, issues and tracks ZEV credits.

The EPA has CAFE standards that deal with fleet fuel economy. EV's and hybrids certainly help them meet the average and still sell the massively profitable trucks and SUV's (at least while gas prices are low).

 

[WetEV]

That's an interesting question. If not for EPA forcing them (and other manufacturers) to sell ZEV's, the Bolt would not exist. LIke most EV's, I see the Bolt as an EPA tax, and the cost of doing business in continuing to sell profitable trucks and SUV's.

Might exist, might not.

EPA (Federal government) has no ZEV mandates, ZEV credits etc.. EV mandates from CARB (California Air Resources Board) are the reason why EVs are sold in CA and a few other states that have air polution rules that are linked to CARB rules (Oregon, others). Some EVs are only sold in CARB states.

There are a lot of EVs sold in Washington State, even though there is no CARB credits for selling here. Washington is not in the CARB rules. Yes, there is some motivation on the part of GM to improve the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) to meet EPA requirements, but there isn't such a reason for auto makers that don't sell as many larger vehicles. (Tesla, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Ford, to varying degrees). Nissan and Ford both sell EVs into nationwide markets.

Batteries are getting cheaper fairly fast. The Nissan Leaf 2011 not only was priced similar to the Bolt ($34k vs $37.5K), it probably cost more to make a Leaf in 2011 than to make a Bolt in 2017, with the 2011 Leaf having a battery less than half the kWh of the Bolt. Auto makers are in varying camps in terms of how far this goes, and when, of course. It might end up with electric cars being cheaper to buy than ICVs, and much cheaper to maintain and operate. Less labor, fewer parts, and so on. When/if the happens, who would buy an ICV for more money, needing more money to fuel, more money for maintance? Sure would be some (range, refuelling time), but might be a small minority.

Even if driving an electric is more expensive, it can be a better driving experience. I never expected the joy of learning I'd almost never need to stop and buy gasoline. I miss the responsiveness and fun of driving when I need to travel and rent a car.

Even without CARB, EPA or tax credits, Tesla was likely to take off. Price would have been a higher, not a major impact on many Tesla buyers. Nissan still might have brought out the LEAF, and if not then perhaps the iMiev would have been a hit. With batteries getting cheaper, when should GM respond? Don't want to wait for everyone to have EVs crowding the market. Might be about now, even in that different world. Sure, the car might have been different, smaller battery to make up for no subsidies.

 

[oilerlord]

Even if driving an electric is more expensive, it can be a better driving experience. I never expected the joy of learning I'd almost never need to stop and buy gasoline. I miss the responsiveness and fun of driving when I need to travel and rent a car.

Even without CARB, EPA or tax credits, Tesla was likely to take off. Price would have been a higher, not a major impact on many Tesla buyers. Nissan still might have brought out the LEAF, and if not then perhaps the iMiev would have been a hit. With batteries getting cheaper, when should GM respond? Don't want to wait for everyone to have EVs crowding the market. Might be about now, even in that different world. Sure, the car might have been different, smaller battery to make up for no subsidies.

I get a smile from plugging in my car at home, but the joy comes from driving it.

Tesla sold $138.5M in credits last quarter alone. Goes to show that the ZEV credits are pretty valuable on both sides of the transaction, and a big part of Tesla's business model. Without them, Tesla may have remained a boutique company that sells a handful of six figure sports cars to the few that can afford them.

EV's exist in an artificially created market bubble that relies on ZEV credits, CAFE requirements, and government subsidies to survive. I'm not criticizing, only recognizing that without those conditions. The B250e that I love to drive likely wouldn't be in my garage today.

Have you driven an iMiEV? It is the perfect example of a car wouldn't exist without a lot of help. Cheap alone doesn't sell cars, and Mitsubishi only managed to sell 82 of them this year. If they were priced $7500 higher, they would have sold none.

 

[SeanNelson]

EV's exist in an artificially created market bubble that relies on ZEV credits, CAFE requirements, and government subsidies to survive. I'm not criticizing, only recognizing that without those conditions. The B250e that I love to drive likely wouldn't be in my garage today.

This goes to show the vital role that governments have to play in getting the ball rolling. Without all these different kinds of incentives it would be very difficult or perhaps impossible for EV technology to get past the "chicken or egg" problem: you need volume to develop the kind of batteries that make EVs palatable to buyers, but buyers won't jump in until vehicles with those kinds of batteries are available.

The incentives have made it plausible for companies to invest in the kind of expensive research and testing that have been yielding such promising fruit over the past several years. The "engine" of the EV industry is still sputtering, but it looks like it will come to life and run under its own power within the next decade if those incentives continue to feed it.