Stupid stupid stupid stupid....

There is a good market for an inexpensive 100 mile range Spark EV.

I think the Bolt will be a failure and here's why...

If you offered a comparable ICE today that only has a 200 mile range, it would not be a big seller because its a pain to have to fill up with fuel at least once a week.

Now... make that same car a BEV. 1) You better have a good fast charging network and plenty of them
2) At the projected price of 37,000 It would be most peoples 1st and only car. 200 miles range would be overkill for the occasional user and not enough for the only car in the family user.
3) It would take too long to recharge using the standard 110V home charger And even at 220V it would take 8 hours to charge.
4) Chevy would most likely stick with the dc fast combo charging set up which is not nearly as popular as the CHadeMO
5) You would still need another car for long trips
6) The Bolt would compete against the VOLT and for a family that relies on one car, the Volt would win

IMHO, GM blew it. They should have developed a 150 mile range with a small powerful range extender such as a 1 liter turbo charged gas or alternate fuel engine. Even a 100 mile Volt would have been preferable.

At the projected price of 37000 and with TESLA coming out with the same thing, I would buy the TESLA in a heartbeat. Better service and supercharging stations that you can use for free is a no brainer.

stuart22 said:

I still have a 1966 Corvair Corsa coupe with the turbo flat six. The style still looks good today. I'm convinced that, had the Mustang never arrived, Chevrolet would have had the time to allow the Corvair to carve out its own niche as an American Porsche.

Click to expand...

I started out of college at the GM Proving Ground / Safety Research and Development Laboratory in 1968. Corvair sales were down significantly due to all the bad publicity from the whole Nader attacks (and GM's ill advised counter-attack). The Safety Lab was created in answer to those attacks, as well as all the safety regulations that came out as a result. BTW, those safety regulations were much needed to bring the death traps people were driving up to an acceptable level. I owned a 1960 Corvair in high school / early college, and even experienced the dreaded rear axle jacking phenomenon. Nader was right it was dangerous, maybe not at any speed, but still dangerous.

To my point, the Monza was a great addition to the Corvair, but the feeling at the time I joined GM was that the Corvair was so tainted in the buying publics eye the best approach was to kill it and move on. The next ill advised effort at a compact car was the POS Vega. Then the oil embargo happened and GM started in a slow death spiral of poor quality cars which took way to many years to finally end in bankruptcy. I jumped ship in the mid-eighty's and vowed that I would never own another GM vehicle. But in 1996 I leased an EV-1 thinking that maybe they are getting things corrected, only to see them do everything wrong to tick off their customers - including me (felt like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football). I can only hope that they have it together now and will sustain future product excellence. I did buy a Volt, so I guess my vote has been cast. At this point it will be my own fault if they pull the football away on me again.

VIN # B0985

AZ EV Driver said:

I started out of college at the GM Proving Ground / Safety Research and Development Laboratory in 1968. Corvair sales were down significantly due to all the bad publicity from the whole Nader attacks (and GM's ill advised counter-attack). The Safety Lab was created in answer to those attacks, as well as all the safety regulations that came out as a result.

Click to expand...

By the time you hooked on at the lab, Corvair was in its final death throes, long past its plug being pulled by the corporate gods.

Nader did have his effect, but to say he killed the Corvair is to give him way too much credit as it entirely ignores changing market forces which I insist played the big role. If it indeed was Nader, then why would GM not have cut back on gen 2 development and let the Corvair die sooner? The Corvair was a disappointment from the beginning, clearly outsold by the conventionally designed compact Ford Falcon which set a record for first year sales for a new product - a record which stood for only a few years ... until the Mustang topped it later on.

The Corvair which did establish market appeal was the Monza, brought out late in the 1960 model year as a 2 door coupe with sporty, international touches such as floor mounted stick shift and bucket seats, a rarity in 1960. Customer reception exceeded expectations, and in the following years Chevy put the Monza name at the top of the Corvair lineup and brought out a 4 door model as well as a convertible, and came out with a turbocharged engine option.

Ford saw how the Monza salvaged the Corvair's standing in the compact marketplace, and in 1961 concocted their own Monza-fighter, a coupe with bucket seats called the Futura. The Futura really didn't do much for the Falcon brand image as did the Monza for the Corvair, as sales reflected.

In 1962, Chevrolet introduced the compact Chevy II, a more conventional front engined rear drive car as was the Falcon. Unlike the Falcon, it had 2-door hardtop and convertible models beyond the standard sedans and wagons. It matched up and even exceeded the Falcon in many areas, and sold well.

So, why Corvair then -- why keep it in the product line? IMO, it was because it had gained a certain international flair which the Monza typified with its sporty nature, and a segment of the market was buying into it. I think Chevy saw this, and gave the green light to further exploit this sporty like image into a second generation Corvair.

Meanwhile, Ford saw handwriting on the wall with regard to the Falcon - it said, watch out... you are being attacked on two fronts by archrival Chevrolet - the Chevy II has you beat on model offerings and engine selection, and the Monza is carving out its own following that the pitiful Futura won't ever match.

The Chevy II problem had an easy solution - expand the Falcon lineup and drop in a V8. Done in 1963. However, the Monza issue needed some hard thinking and planning - the Monza showed there existed market potential for a low priced, sporty themed compact which Ford did not have....out of this came the Mustang.

The advent of the Mustang signaled the end of the road for Corvair. Nader wounded the car, but it was the Mustang which killed it.

hvacman said:

I bet GM gave 3 years of Onstar service for free with the Spark EV, too. That's how they collect the test data.

Click to expand...

Bringing this thread back on subject,,,,, GM/Onstar is seeing me enjoy the hell out of my Spark EV.

If they are also gathering speed and accelerometer data they can tell that I "Put the spurs to it, Chuck" !!
It is a fun, fast little EV Hot Rod !! I changed out the stock LRR tires for "Ultra High Performance All-Season" , (whatever that means), and I'll save the stock tires for later.
I always see the Guessometer in the high 80's, sometimes in the low 90's and I'm not even trying to go easy. Why would I with free power?

I use a combination of L2 and DCFC and never charge at home.
When winter gets here I'll break out my L2 and use it just for the TMS by setting the departure time for after I leave in the mornings.


True, the Bolt will not be a road trip or regional car until the DCFC network is expanded, or Tesla starts sharing the Superchargers, for a fee.
My town has 13 DCFC units and I see that Tesla owners are using the network with their adapter cable.

True, GM could sell boat loads of Spark EV's in Kansas City with a little advertising.
Why is it so hard to get one? Why the limited release?

Loboc said:

..NO EV, including Tesla can do a normal road trip even with DCFC as densely deployed as gas stations. Road trips need gasoline for the next couple decades.....

Click to expand...

Really? 20 years before EV's can do road trips?
Have you seen the current Tesla Supercharger map? That took 4-5 years (?) to develop and it is still growing.

With the Bolt on the way there will be even more need for CCS units.
Have you seen the CCS network VW / BMW are working on along the east coast ?

20 years? No way...

I think the Bolt will be a big success!
It should beat Tesla's Model 3 to market and probably be less expensive.

I recently got a test drive in a P85D. Insane mode does make you giggle like a girl !!
But really, there is so much unnecessary flashy tech on that car. Do you really need air suspension, complicated door handles and a motorized charge port door (that can leave you stranded if it fails)?

Hopefully we will have some good old fashioned American competition between the Bolt and Model 3 !!

peterdaniel said:

There is a good market for an inexpensive 100 mile range Spark EV.

I think the Bolt will be a failure and here's why...

Now... make that same car a BEV. 1) You better have a good fast charging network and plenty of them

Click to expand...

A 100 mile BEV is about 100 miles too little for my comfort zone. A 200 mile BEV would give me enough cushion driving around the Chicago metro area, even in the winter. I don't think I'd ever need a public charge, but if I did, there are many public L2 EVSE's if it was a once in 5 year emergency.

peterdaniel said:

2) At the projected price of 37,000 It would be most peoples 1st and only car. 200 miles range would be overkill for the occasional user and not enough for the only car in the family user.

Click to expand...

It would be my second car, joining my Volt. I want overkill. The 200 mile range would be enough that, unlike a Leaf owner, I'd never be worrying about range. To me, it's a 50 mile Volt with a 155 mile battery range extender. I could even drive to Wisconsin, and with a top-off have plenty to get back home.

peterdaniel said:

3) It would take too long to recharge using the standard 110V home charger And even at 220V it would take 8 hours to charge.

Click to expand...

I have a 240V EVSE, so recharging the 50 miles or so I might drive in a typical day would be ~4 hours. Recharging daily would be no more difficult than with my Volt. I'm not taking cross country drives in it, so I don't see needing the 200 mile recharge you seem to be presently as a daily need.

peterdaniel said:

4) Chevy would most likely stick with the dc fast combo charging set up which is not nearly as popular as the CHadeMO

Click to expand...

Agiain, I'll be charging at home and doubt I'll use public charging anyway, but with the SAE fast combo being used by BMW and GM I expect more of these to be installed in the coming years.

peterdaniel said:

5) You would still need another car for long trips

Click to expand...

Got one, the Volt.

peterdaniel said:

6) The Bolt would compete against the VOLT and for a family that relies on one car, the Volt would win

Click to expand...

If I could only have one, then I'd buy a Volt. But I've always had two cars, sometimes three. Most people I know have two cars. So having a Volt and a Bolt will be a great combo for my family. The reason I want a Bolt instead of a Volt is I'd like to have a space wagon that's also battery powered.

peterdaniel said:

IMHO, GM blew it. They should have developed a 150 mile range with a small powerful range extender such as a 1 liter turbo charged gas or alternate fuel engine. Even a 100 mile Volt would have been preferable.

Click to expand...

Not for me. For me it's almost ideal though I want to see what's actually released.

peterdaniel said:

At the projected price of 37000 and with TESLA coming out with the same thing, I would buy the TESLA in a heartbeat. Better service and supercharging stations that you can use for free is a no brainer.

Click to expand...

Until the details are known, and both cars are actually being delivered it's hard to know. I'm not totally closed to a Tesla, but I don't want a sedan. I want a space wagon. Pricing details are still up in the air with both cars, and I'm not assuming that Tesla will provide free access to its SC for the base price. Also, I would rarely need one. YMMV