[ARob]

If the efficiency goes up and the charge rate goes to 3-5 times Bolt then it will easily be OK on 65kWh pack for many. This is the low-end car after all. Not a Lucid.

I would argue range cannot drop for the Bolt to remain viable. Yes, faster charging will definitely help for trips. As it is, range is barely adequate for many stretches of interstate still. Reality is, 50-60% SOC is kind of the sweet spot for DCFC in a Bolt, and that translates to around 120 miles between DCFC stops. As infrastructure projects go online, this may become less critical. The problem of gaps in charging infrastructure are regional, in many areas it isn't too challenging, but in the mountain west, and northern tier states, it is often difficult to find charging with less than 100-150 mile gaps.

That said, as a commuter vehicle, range it isn't particularly critical. Anything over 200 miles is probably fine, particularly if cold weather efficiency improves.

 

[BehindBars]

Hopefully they will redesign the body to be nice and sleek like the 2021 and below models instead of the ugly 2022 + models.

That and to fix the brain dead rear taillights and signal locations.

And bring back the more intersesting colors like 2021 and below models, instead of the drab ones they have today! I want an orange or yellow Bolt.

 

[pooge30]

Where is the Equinox? The Silverado EV? I don't buy it.

 

[Voldar]

If the efficiency goes up and the charge rate goes to 3-5 times Bolt then it will easily be OK on 65kWh pack for many. This is the low-end car after all. Not a Lucid.

I wouldn't bet on the efficiency going up more than it is now. And the Bolt efficiency is amazing as it is now. It has IMO a better powertrain than the Tesla at low to medium speeds, in a stop and go traffic. Once the speed exceeds 65 mph (sustained speed) things start to change, but even then, at 70 mph the Bolt EV has a better efficiency than an EV6 or Ioniq 5.
LFP battery = more weight, so the efficiency will likely take a hit, but I doubt it will be a big one.

Based on the 15-20 mins of charge to drive 110-120 miles, if we consider that the Bolt will keep its efficiency of 3.4 mi/kWh @ 70 mph speed, over a 55 kWh pack, we can do the math :

• for 120 miles : we need 35 kWh to get there
• 35 kWh = 64% of the pack
• the average charging speed should be 165 kW for 20 mins of charge

I doubt the charging speed over 20 minutes would be 3C in the case of a Bolt EV (GM is not Tesla, they like to play it safe), so a more realistic average speed would be around 80 kW (with a peak of about 100 kW), which would be translated in about 25 minutes of charge to get the 35 kWh needed for 120 miles range.

If they do this, they have a winner in their hands, especially if they come with a price bellow 35 000 $ - to avoid cannibalizing their other EVs.

Problem is, GM is now producing a Lyric EV RWD and a Blazer EV RS RWD at about the same price (Lyriq a little more), performance and specs wise. Unless I missed something, I don't see why someone would buy a Blazer EV over a Lyriq EV. If they make a Bolt EUV for 30 000 $ they will definitely cannibalize their Equinox EV. That's the problem GM faces : presenting two or more models in the same price range that compete each other and that compete with only one model of other makers. There are not two of a kind made by Hyundai, Kia or Ford in the same segment.
GM should do something about this 👆 or else they will be were they are now. At the end of the peloton in the race for EV.

If I would be in GM place, I would really only target the truck market, EV trucks. And keep the Bolt EUV only. Their Silverado EV looks promising and they should really go this road. But ... GM being GM, they will never do it. They don't like to excel in doing one thing. They like to be average in doing more others.

 

[atc98092]

which would be translated in about 25 minutes of charge to get the 35 kWh needed for 120 miles range.

I don't see 25 minutes of charging to gain two hours of driving as a win. That's almost 25% of the time to cover the distance. Seems like a long road trip would be better with a lower percentage of time spent charging.

 

[Voldar]

I don't see 25 minutes of charging to gain two hours of driving as a win. That's almost 25% of the time to cover the distance. Seems like a long road trip would be better with a lower percentage of time spent charging.

We are talking about a low cost EV. If you want to get better charging times, you'll need to pay more.

P.S. Also, drive slower and you'll be able to have shorter charging times. The example above was for driving 120 miles @ 70 mph speeds. Drive at 60 mph or 65 mph and you'll get to charge 15-18 minutes for the same amount of distance to cover.

 

[CABOLTEUV]

The only thing missing from the conversation about when the 2025 Bolt will appear is Positive Gross Margin.

Just sayin'.

 

[bisco]

Because gm is closer to the vest than Ford

 

[ARob]

The only thing missing from the conversation about when the 2025 Bolt will appear is Positive Gross Margin.

Just sayin'.

Not entirely necessary... volume helps bring down fixed expense ratios which makes all vehicles sold using common components more profitable. It is partly why GM/Honda are sharing components. It is a huge part of why the Japanese companies were so successful in the 70s and 80s, selling low priced, high volume models with low margins, enabling them to reap profits from their up line models. Lexus, Acura, Cadillac, Lincoln are all cash cows for the big companies, in large part because shared component costs are helped by the volume of low margin cars sold.

Add to that ZEV credits worth several thousand per BEV sold (ie offsetting $7K in CAFE fines for highly profitable ICE cars and trucks) and there is a positive impact on the bottom line, even if the model itself doesn't have a large positive margin.

Having been a product manager for a loss leader product, we were considered a valuable product line despite very narrow (or even negative) net margins. Part of it is the overhead costs of the business are typically allocated based on revenue, so net margins in the negative range are still valuable to the business profitability as they contribute to offset corporate expenses like R&D, rent, utilities, taxes, etc.

 

[CABOLTEUV]

Not entirely necessary... volume helps bring down fixed expense ratios which makes all vehicles sold using common components more profitable. It is partly why GM/Honda are sharing components. It is a huge part of why the Japanese companies were so successful in the 70s and 80s, selling low priced, high volume models with low margins, enabling them to reap profits from their up line models. Lexus, Acura, Cadillac, Lincoln are all cash cows for the big companies, in large part because shared component costs are helped by the volume of low margin cars sold.

Add to that ZEV credits worth several thousand per BEV sold (ie offsetting $7K in CAFE fines for highly profitable ICE cars and trucks) and there is a positive impact on the bottom line, even if the model itself doesn't have a large positive margin.

Having been a product manager for a loss leader product, we were considered a valuable product line despite very narrow (or even negative) net margins. Part of it is the overhead costs of the business are typically allocated based on revenue, so net margins in the negative range are still valuable to the business profitability as they contribute to offset corporate expenses like R&D, rent, utilities, taxes, etc.

Then why did GM discontinue the Bolt before a replacement was ready?

 

[TheCyberKnight]

Then why did GM discontinue the Bolt before a replacement was ready?

Because they never intended to bring it back... Until they realized the mess they created. Poor vision. That simple.

As for the Equinox EV LT turnaround - being pushed back and having its price raised from $30K to $35K - don't look too far either. The Ultium Bolt EV is the culprit. It would have been impossible for GM to sell the upcoming Ultium Bolt at a lower price than the Equinox EV LT (originally planned at $30K).
Thus, to fix the problem, GM raised the Equinox EV LT price and stated that it would have the same battery as the 2LT model, bringing the expected range from 400 km to 500 km. Problem solved.

Thus, The Ultium Bolt EV will start just below $30K, the Equinox EV LT at $35K.

 

[RacerX00]

Because they never intended to bring it back... Until they realized the mess they created. Poor vision. That simple.

As for the Equinox EV LT turnaround - being pushed back and having its price raised from $30K to $35K - don't look too far either. The Ultium Bolt EV is the culprit. It would have been impossible for GM to sell the upcoming Ultium Bolt at a lower price than the Equinox EV LT (originally planned at $30K).
Thus, to fix the problem, GM raised the Equinox EV LT price and stated that it would have the same battery as the 2LT model, bringing the expected range from 400 km to 500 km. Problem solved.

Thus, The Ultium Bolt EV will start just below $30K, the Equinox EV LT at $35K.

It's also a "no margin" product they lose money on. Invoice:MSRP is $0 with $0 holdback iirc. I know it was like that on the Mach-E.

They don't want the Bolt because they don't want the Bolt. My guess is the new Bolt is a kind of "break even" product.

 

[ARob]

My guess is the new Bolt is a kind of "break even" product.

Maybe, but they expect Ultium to be some 30-40% lower cost than BEV2 on the battery side of the equation. With batteries being a significant part of the overall cost, and higher MSRP by selling only the EUV, there could be small net margins in the model. More significant, the low price will enable them to sell volumes, probably greater than the current generation Bolts which will help them achieve the economies of scale for Ultium.

 

[RoadTripBiker]

Think GM really wants to sell big and expensive (i.e. high margin) vehicles that give easy profits. Everyone else is in that market as well. Making money producing lots of low margin products is so old fashioned, and it's harder to do.

Still say GM has great engineers but not great marketing folks and recently marketing folks have been calling the shots - LOL and they don't shoot like Tesla Bots

To me the Bolt is the urban runabout, a smaller vehicle that is good at stuff like hauling 4 people some stuff and has descent range. Small on the outside but big on the inside. I'm still amazed at how much stuff I can fit in the back - not as much as a Suburban obviously but for the size it is a very handy place. Trip to Costco, no problem, taking mother-in-law somewhere and need to put her wheelchair back there, no problem.

Charging speed and range are something that do not mean as much to me. Living in Birmingham, AL the charging infrastructure is sparse at best. I frequently drive to Chattanooga which is 300 miles round trip but never take the Bolt due to no good place to charge. Atlanta is similar but more places to charge but still would be at least one charge. I have other vehicles for those drives and the Bolt is a pure local car which is OK with me. In that regard I could get by with just 100 miles of range as very seldom drive more than 50 miles in a day. What I would love would be my Bolt with 100 mile range and the additional battery replaced with a small engine generator range extender. Not like a Volt but a simple gasoline powered generator that could power the car and charge the battery.

 

[HuskieJohn]

I don't see 25 minutes of charging to gain two hours of driving as a win. That's almost 25% of the time to cover the distance. Seems like a long road trip would be better with a lower percentage of time spent charging.

25min of charging to gain 2hr of highway driving (at 70mph) would qualify an EV as a full road trip vehicle for me. The only thing that would hold me back from using a EV like this on a road trip would be the infrastructure to be available to keep up with that 25min charge.

Ever since I hit 40 I have to take a 20-30min break every 2hr of driving so its ideal for me.

For an entry level EV if they can hit that mark while next focusing on keeping the price down that sounds great.

 

[CABOLTEUV]

Because they never intended to bring it back... Until they realized the mess they created. Poor vision. That simple.

I wasn't referring to a replacement Bolt. Just a replacement BEV. Like Equinox. @ARob's argument that offsetting $7K in CAFE fines would apply to either a break even/NGM BEV2 or Ultium Bolt, so by that logic why drop the Bolt in the first place?

And for that matter why reintroduce the Bolt when there is a 30K slightly larger and more capable BEV in the wings? Did GM surveys conclude that the desire for a Bolt sized vehicle (and no bigger) was that strong a preference among buyers? I for one would have been delighted to trade up to an Equinox from my EUV. I really can't draw a bead on what GM is thinking here. The bad marketing decisions argument makes the most sense though. When you're all out of one kind of candy for a child, you describe how good the new candy is going to be, and how the child will like it so much more. And you keep doing that. Over and over. Until the child forgets all about the old candy. Perhaps GM forgot that.

(Naturally the economies of scale argument makes the break even/NGM Ultium BEV even more justifiable. Once it gets here.)

 

[bisco]

gm is inscrutable

 

[Voldar]

Think GM really wants to sell big and expensive (i.e. high margin) vehicles that give easy profits. Everyone else is in that market as well.

Then they should only target the EV trucks "niche" and spend all their efforts in this field.

 

[bisco]

ev trucks don't provide easy profits

 

[CABOLTEUV]

Exactly. Ford is losing money on every Lightning is sells. I happen to know that they lose 18K on each Mach-E.