
The Chevy Bolt Is the Ugly Car of the Near Future - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-19/the-chevy-bolt-is-the-ugly-car-of-the-very-near-future?cmpid=BBD121916_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=
======
RKoutnik
This article (like many) misses why people buy Teslas. Teslas are amazing cars
that just happen to be electric - not the other way around. The large car
companies think that "electric" is enough to sell a car, whereas Tesla knows
they need luxury options, autopilot & the supercharger network.

I've got a Model 3 reservation myself and wouldn't even think of switching to
the Bolt. I want a nice car, not just an electric one, and Tesla's got that in
spades.

~~~
untog
I don't doubt you're correct in summarising why many _current_ Tesla owners
buy Tesla cars. But if they want to be hugely, mass market successful they
need to expand their client base beyond customers who "need" luxury options in
a car. It's Tesla that would need to match GM's market proposition, not vice
versa.

> I want a nice car, not just an electric one, and Tesla's got that in spades.

And I suspect many Bolt owners want an economical car, not a luxury one, and
the Bolt's got that in spades.

~~~
RKoutnik
> And I suspect many Bolt owners want an economical car, not a luxury one, and
> the Bolt's got that in spades.

See my other reply in this subthread - Bolt/Model 3 will be equivalent in
terms of price, so I don't see how the Bolt is more "economical".

~~~
untog
Certainly possible, but the Model 3 isn't available yet and (according to link
in the article) is predicted by some to not be available until 2018. So it's
difficult to compare the buying choices for customers when one car can be
bought and the other cannot.

------
pseudometa
"Tesla loses money on every car too." This is false, Tesla averages $18,000
margin on every model S & model X it sells.

"So how did GM pull off a $30,000 car with 200 miles of range?" It didn't. It
is $30k only after $8000 of federal tax credits.

~~~
colechristensen
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems like the battery packs on cars are engineered to manipulate people,
and this would be an easy way of making two very different cars seem the same.

Lithium batteries degrade. With heat, with time, with charge cycles. Article
after article writes about how Tesla's battery packs barely degrade! 8%
capacity loss over 100,000 miles.

This has to be a lie. Unless they've come up with a new magical battery
chemistry.

Lithium batteries degrade. 15-20% capacity loss per year. 2-5% per hundred
cycles.

There are ways to cheat though, design your battery electronics to pretend to
have a lower capacity at first and then gradually allow them to discharge more
and more as the battery ages. It's true that there's a small boost to capacity
retention if you don't fully discharge.

A new Tesla might well have an actual 400 mile range the day it comes off the
lot, but they figure consumers would be really disappointed if that 400 mile
range went to 350 after a year and so on... instead I'm guessing they pretend
the battery capacity starts lower so that it's more consistent. In the end
when they run out of spare room they'd initially left themselves the battery
would fail fast.

What's to prevent a competitor to cut just a few corners on this strategy –
don't give yourself as much future wiggle room so that you can say your
capacity is higher?

I would actually love to be wrong, but what you see from the battery
performance metrics just doesn't match up with any of my existing knowledge
about how battery cells work.

~~~
Thorncorona
Keep in mind you wouldn't regularly fully discharge a car battery pack,
however you would discharge a phone battery. Thus capacity reduction occurs at
a slower rate than a laptop or phone.

~~~
torpfactory
Why don't electric car manufacturers build in some time-dependent margin into
their range estimates?

E.g. Only display a range of 350 miles at the start of a battery pack's life
even if the real range is 400 miles. To the user, the batter pack performance
would appear static (to some limited lifetime, anyway). At the end of life the
margin would be zero, and the actual life would be equal to the true battery
capacity at that time.

I know Tesla and GM would much more happily report the new battery range than
that of a tired, old pack...

~~~
NickM
Some do that. The Mercedes B-Class Electric is one example. Tesla is more
"honest", so you actually get to see the full capacity.

This does mean that you can see the capacity very slowly decrease over months
and years, but I would personally prefer to know what's actually happening and
be able to get the maximum range out of my car that I can.

~~~
jwatte
The trade off is that the mere option to have higher range up front actually
increases the rate of degradation! So, would you rather have high range first
and low range after six years, or a motte even range that degrades more slowly
and is better after the first few years? I prefer the latter.

------
krschultz
Boiling it down to the core point, "the Bolt will let GM sell more swanky
Silverado pickups at much fatter margins without paying penalties or buying
credits from competitors".

It's important to know that fuel mileage regulations are calculated on a fleet
basis, not per model. So manufacturers are actually trading off optimizations
across their entire product line. The Bolt is just an iteration on the
existing strategy of using cheap small cars to offset the emissions from
larger (higher margin) trucks.

~~~
notatoad
Is that a bad thing? Afaik, the CAFE standards are applied over the total cars
sold, not just having the car in your lineup - GM can sell lots of big
Silverados if they sell lots of Bolts, but they can't just make a little
electric car to make the regulators happy and not care if they sell any of
them, because they'll get no benefit out of it.

~~~
Neliquat
That leads to selling a crap e-car at a loss to push your profitable lines. A
race to the lowest common denominator is not what we need.

~~~
WorldMaker
Isn't that exactly what we need? Electric cars are selling just fine in the
somewhat luxury new car space, but the majority of people that I know only
ever buy used cars or lease very modest sedans. To get electric cars in the
hands of those drivers, electric cars need to be cheap and "lowest common
denominator" and there needs to be a flood of them sold new or leased new to
enter the secondary markets effectively.

------
codeulike
I think it looks fine. You Americans have a weird dislike of hatchbacks. To
European eyes, it just looks very normal. Good luck to GM but I suspect their
dealerships won't bother trying to sell many of these.

~~~
twblalock
Americans love hatchbacks when they are called crossovers, SUVs, or minivans.
They just don't like the small ones.

~~~
mywittyname
They like the small ones too, the "compact CUV" is one of the fastest growing
auto segments in the USA. Think, Honda HR-V, Toyota CH-R, Jeep Renegade, Chevy
Trax, and Nissan Juke; the market is expanding soon to include entries from
Mazda and Ford.

Americans love the high seating position. I imagine Europeans would too, if
they had the option to buy one.

~~~
twblalock
Many similar vehicles are available in Europe. They just don't like them as
much as Americans do.

~~~
mywittyname
Which isn't really true. The CUV segment is growing for many manufactures in
Europe. The best selling Honda in Europe: CR-V. Toyota's RAV4 sells even
better than the CR-V.

Audi and BMW are adding even more CUVs in Europe after the success of the Q3
and X1 respectively. So Europe's not just getting these because of their
success in the USA, it's because the segment is strong and growing in Europe
too.

(all stats from [http://carsalesbase.com](http://carsalesbase.com))

------
print_r
I am glad that this article isn't saying "haha they beat tesla" in any way.
Though I think they do miss out on one point in regards to Musk's
"cleverness". The way that Musk commodified the electric car made everyone
want one, much like the iPhone when it came out. Tesla car's spurred the EV
revolution. Tesla's are appealing to many who want them and can afford them
but what they have done is made clear that the EV (or 0 Emission Vehicle) is
the vehicle of the future.

Tesla doesn't care that much if they get beat to market, in fact I would posit
that the more EV's come to market before the Model 3 the better (for the world
anyway). The iPhone was always an iPhone and many (not a majority) people have
one, however over time all the other phone manufacturers decided to go with
Android (as it was open source) and made their own phone, now they all fight
for supremacy in the phone market. All the various androids have a way bigger
market share than iPhones but the important thing is that we had a smart phone
revolution. Most [read all] phones are smart phones these days and all cars
will be electric cars soon.

------
_ph_
From all I read, the interesting parts of the Bolt are actually completely
made and designed by LG - all the electric components. And Tesla makes more
Model S per day than GM builds Bolts. But I am happy that Bolt exists, as it
currently is the most affordable electrical car with a long range. We need
more of those.

~~~
Someone
[https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-and-panasonic-
collaborate](https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-and-panasonic-collaborate):

 _" Tesla and Panasonic have entered into a non-binding letter of intent under
which they will begin collaborating on the manufacturing and production of
photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules in Buffalo"_

That can be read as the two companies will work on manufacturing cells and
modules together, but I think that isn't the case, given that that same press
release states:

 _" The parties intend for Panasonic to begin PV cell and module production at
the Buffalo facility in 2017. Tesla intends to provide a long-term purchase
commitment for those cells from Panasonic."_

If that conclusion is correct (corrections welcome), I would guess (again:
corrections welcome) that that includes quite a few bits of software and
hardware components on top of that that control charging and battery
longevity.

So, is the Tesla-Panasonic really that different from the Chevy-LG one? From
what I can see, the main difference is that the former are more committed to
each other, with the advantages and disadvantages that that brings.

~~~
spiznnx
Is Tesla-Panasonic more than just PV? I don't see how it's related to their EV
business, just their Powerwall and Powerpack products.

~~~
Someone
Sorry, I copied from the wrong press release (I guess I got confused about the
two meanings of 'cell' somewhere in my search path. It can be either a solar
cell or a battery cell). Panasonic plays a large part in both Tesla's solar
cell manufacturing and their battery manufacturing.
[https://electrek.co/2016/11/02/tesla-
panasonic-2170-battery-...](https://electrek.co/2016/11/02/tesla-
panasonic-2170-battery-cell-highest-energy-density-cell-world-cheapest-elon-
musk/):

 _" Tesla’s current custom 18650 battery cells produced by Panasonic are
estimated to have an energy density of ~250 Wh/kg"_

------
kr7
If GM loses $9,000 on a $30,000 sale, that puts production costs at $39,000.
The battery costs $9,000, so the car without the battery costs $30,000 to
make.

The Sonic starts at $15,000, which seems to be the ICE equivalent of the Bolt.

Are they counting R&D costs? If not, why would Bolt cost $15,000 more (not
counting the battery) than the Sonic? Is GM selling the Sonic at a $15,000
loss?

~~~
mars4rp
the MSRP is $37500, they are counting the federal grant too !

------
drewg123
_One of the Bolt’s best features is a regenerative braking paddle behind the
wheel, which simultaneously slows the car and recharges the battery when
pulled._

So their tech is so crude that there is no regenerative braking built into the
standard floor mounted brake pedal? Even my 2006 Prius does regenerative
braking based of the brake pedal, with no need for such hacks.

Is there any fast recharge system for these? Eg, does GM have a supercharger
network? If I buy a Bolt, can I purchase / rent access to the Tesla
superchargers? Or is the tech different?

~~~
sfeng
The regen built into pedals feels strange to people not used to it. As does
the regen which activates when you lift your foot off the gas. This was not
done because they're incompetent, it was done to create a car which is more
intuitive to people not used to electric cars.

~~~
5ilv3r
I've never heard of an efficiency enhancing feature not being automatic. That
would be like overdrive defaulting to off, or having to manually enable
cylinder deactivation. People would use it more if it was in the pedal's
logic.

~~~
twblalock
People who are used to automatic transmissions would think something was wrong
with the car, and the dealerships would be swamped with service appointments.

~~~
Neliquat
This type of comment makes me wish there was a higher bar for car ownership.

------
Qub3d
The Title of the actual article already points out why GM still hasn't "beaten
Tesla to the punch": The Chevy Bolt Is the _Ugly_ Car of the (Very Near)
Future.

Tesla has a fanclub because they're making electric cars into a sports brand.
Motor Trend asked a bunch of current Tesla owners (and model 3 reservees) what
they thought of it. The general consensus was "moving in the right direction,
but not enough to make me switch." [http://www.motortrend.com/news/what-tesla-
owners-think-about...](http://www.motortrend.com/news/what-tesla-owners-think-
about-chevrolet-bolt/)

~~~
vvanders
There's also the supercharger network which is often glossed over but pretty
critical when you're considering it as a primary car.

~~~
brohoolio
Honestly I'd probably rent a car if I need to drive far enough that I have to
use the super charger network.

~~~
drewg123
Its ironic, isn't it. The main reason I want to buy a tesla is due to their
advanced autopilot making long distance driving easier. Yet the whole electric
thing makes those drives take longer due to recharge time. I wish there was a
trailer with a diesel generator you could rent to tow behind your tesla.

~~~
brohoolio
You could buy a volt!

:)

------
Fricken
I don't understand car aesthetics. With vintage cars, or luxury or sports
cars, the aesthetics make sense, but amongst reliable, affordable automobiles,
I can't tell what makes one nice and another ugly. They all just look like
generic plastic bubbles to me, they're all made from the same materials, they
were all stamped out in a factory. We may as well be discussing the aesthetics
of screwdrivers or milk cartons.

Still, you get guys who haven't bought a new shirt in 5 years, their homes are
filled with mismatched Ikea junk, they don't give a fuck about how anything
looks until you bring up cars, and suddenly passions are inflamed.

What's worse, is that the fixation is all about the car itself, when in
reality they come bundled with all sorts if infrastructure that's almost
exclusively hideous. Nobody looks at a gas station, a parking lot, or a
freeway interchange and says 'my, what a beautiful sight, I want to build my
home right here so my livingroom window can overlook this fabulous vista'.
Block that shit out and fixate on the car itself.

~~~
ungzd
Screwdrivers and milk cartons are often look nice, while most modern cars are
ugly. Moreover, they have unpleasant aggressive look (and all are the same).
Maybe it's something related to marketing.

It's not because of aerodynamics. Trains are designed with aerodynamics and
look fantastic. Buses are plain rectangular but still work. There's something
unhealthy in car aesthetics.

------
jaimex2
Is this a sponsored article by GM? I'm honestly curious.

~~~
Neliquat
GM has paid off the auto media for nearly a century now, you would be amiss
not to at least suspect it.

------
dirkg
Why are diesel cars hated in the US? You can get a range of diesel car sin
Europe which give you 50-60mpg, have all kinds of comforts and can be cheap,
without the trickery of tax credits.

~~~
Decade
Instead of trickery of tax credits, you get trickery of rigged emissions
tests. Because when you regard air quality, it is not just carbon dioxide, but
various nitrous oxides.

Also, most diesels are noisier, and diesel fueling stations are further apart,
and the federal tax is higher, and gasoline-electric hybrids have much better
consumer branding.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/automobiles/as-the-
world-e...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/automobiles/as-the-world-
embraces-diesels-americans-still-play-hard-to-get.html?_r=0)

[http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a4567/4330313/](http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a4567/4330313/)

~~~
DannyBee
" most diesels are noisier, and diesel fueling stations are further apart, "

Both of these are myth.

Having driven a Q5 and Q5 TDI, they are totally and completely
indistinguishable, noise level wise. Same with BMW/Mercedes, if you prefer
people passing newly stringent emissions tests (IE EPA gave them a special
proctology exam in 2017 before approving those models).

"further apart" is also certainly not true, unless you live in a very very
weird area. Yes, not literally every gas station has diesel. But that's about
it.

To whit: Over 55% of gas stations in north america offer diesel.
[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094908_fewer-gas-
statio...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1094908_fewer-gas-stations-but-
more-diesel-pumps-as-diesel-sales-rise)

As for air quality, in the US, we seem very happy to require things that are
better in the air for the environment but much worse in the air for people[1],
so i'm going to reserve judgement as to whether it's truly better in the
relative scheme of things

[1] As a random example: low-voc regulations have pushed coatings
manufacturers towards 2k isocyanate based polyurethanes. Previously, the
solvents used in wood coatings and auto coatings and what have you were not
great for people, or the environment, but not often horribly toxic either (in
a relative scale). By contrast Isocyanates are _horribly_ toxic to people, and
by the time you can smell them, you are many times over the PEL. Thus,
spraying them requires supplied air. They easily cause permanent asthma, etc.
However, in the amounts being used, they are better for the environment.

So yeah, worse for people, better for "air quality". Meanwhile, tens of
thousands of workers end up with serious overexposure issues. (and if you read
the studies they use to justify doing this, the level of emissions wasn't
really that high in the first place. Now they are finally going back and
saying "hey, we also think you should get rid of isocyanates, too". At some
point, at least they'll run out of chemicals to regulate)

~~~
Decade
I don’t see how you are disproving those points. Especially since I weasel-
worded it with “most.” I had quickly fact-checked, and discovered that modern
diesels can be quiet.

So a 2017 diesel SUV is as quiet as the gasoline model. That really doesn’t
override the common experience of diesel in connection with either trucks and
buses, or ancient Volkswagens. All of which are much more common, and much
louder, than modern TDI vehicles.

Also, only 55% offering diesel automatically, mathematically, makes diesel
fueling stations farther apart than gasoline. Exactly how much farther is
something I don’t care to model at this time of the night. Except to say that
that there do seem to be about twice as many gasoline-only stations as diesel
stations in San Francisco, and the only Costcos vaguely in the Bay Area that
sell diesel are in Concord and Santa Cruz.

As for the air quality, that was one thing that drove me to my current general
anti-fossil-fuel sentiment. I was raised in a conservative family, and back in
the late 90’s it was fashionable to be suspicious of the fuel, because of the
oxygenation requirements satisfied by MTBE and ethanol. And then Al Gore did
his spiel, and the Heartland Institute got into global warming denial, and
conservatives here are positive about buying and burning fossil fuels again. I
feel it is most consistent to simply be against emitting poisonous pollutants
near population centers. Whatever the case, there is certainly a difference in
air quality between gasoline-congested Los Angeles and diesel-congested Paris.
Which is also partly because of the tough California emissions standards,
which severely cut into the fuel efficiency and hassle-free operation that
made diesel attractive in the first place.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-summer-
smog-2016...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-summer-
smog-20160805-snap-story.html)

[http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-smog-
problem-2016-12](http://www.businessinsider.com/paris-smog-problem-2016-12)

------
marcell
Reading between the lines, I think this car is a trick and not meant to sell
at all. They get fleet wide mileage credits by producing it, and they are
losing money on each car. Electric cars are easy to make, especially if you
don't put much effort into it (example: regenerative brake paddle is separate
from normal brake paddle). Dealers don't make as much from servicing electric
cars.

I suspect the fact that it's ugly is a feature: it will hamper sales a bit and
reduce the chance that they'll need to produce lots of this car.

Is the mileage credit on electric cars calculated as a formula of the range?
If so, that would explain why they focused on getting a 200 mile range.

Edit: selling this car will also eat into the U.S. limit on tax credits for
electric cars, which hurts their competitor Tesla.

~~~
gozur88
>I suspect the fact that it's ugly is a feature: it will hamper sales a bit
and reduce the chance that they'll need to produce lots of this car.

I doubt that. I'm sure GM would be perfectly happy selling millions of these
things if consumers were willing to buy. They're in the business of selling
cars, after all.

But I also doubt they'll put much effort into it.

~~~
mark-r
No, they're in the business of making money. Selling cars is the means to the
end. If they can make more money selling fewer cars, they'll do it. You need
to look at the overall fleet sales - somebody somewhere has calculated the
exact number of each vehicle they need to sell to maximize the profit.

~~~
gozur88
It only hurts them to sell more Bolts if those sales cut into other vehicles
or if they're selling at a loss.

~~~
mark-r
It's quite possible that either or both of those are true. Or it could be that
they have limits on their manufacturing capacity and would have to cut back on
production of something more profitable to make more Bolts. There are probably
other factors that you and I wouldn't think of in a million years.

~~~
maxerickson
Earlier I was trying to find some other takes on their output and 1 article
mentioned that the plant they are building it at is only running 1 shift,
which puts it at 90,000 vehicles per year. It's a mixed line with the
Chevrolet Sonic, which probably isn't super profitable. So they can flexibly
shift production from the Sonic or they could expand production by an awful
lot, but I guess to add a shift they would need much higher sales volume.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-bolt-
idUSKBN1300PM](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-bolt-idUSKBN1300PM)

GM has also recently announced that they are idling several plants in January
because they aren't selling enough cars.

[http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-
motors/2016/12...](http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-
motors/2016/12/19/gm-idles-5-plants-jan-passenger-car-supply-swells/95625740/)

------
FussyZeus
Tesla proved that eco-minded cars didn't need to be ugly, yet ALL other
manufacturers continue to produce only ugly cars (they don't get points for
bootstrapping hybrid models of existing cars).

I am amazed none of the other purveyors of electric cars have managed to
figure this out. Even the BMW offering ranks high on the "God what the hell"
scale in terms of its design.

The Prius started this stupid trend of cars friendly to the polar bears
looking like hot garbage and I have never once understood this logic.

~~~
threeseed
Tesla also has the worst interior of any premium car company. It has the
unique combination of feeling cheap: unappealing leather, plastic finishes as
well as tacky: the giant computer screen.

It's all fine if Tesla is competing with Mazda but they aren't. And frankly
they need to do much better in the future to go against the likes of Mercedes,
BMW, Range Rover etc.

~~~
jaimex2
First I've heard of them having bad interiors.

~~~
Spooky23
Sit in a similar price point Mercedes.

------
pascalxus
I actually think the Bolt is not bad looking, it's pretty good looking
actually.

------
CptMauli
I still don't see the point. Even when I consider the cost of electricity as
zero, then I still pay way less (1/3! less) over 10 years, then with my new
cheap Dacia (LPG) - even when I factor the fuel in - compared to the Bolt.

~~~
alex_duf
have you factored in maintenance and environmental cost?

~~~
Neliquat
Most pollutants actually come from brake pads, so lack of ice will only knock
total emissions down 30ish precent. But everyone likes to think its only the
engine. Also consider the impact of mining copper and lithium. Its still in
favor of conventional cars by a wide, but closing, margin.

~~~
alex_duf
> Most pollutants actually come from brake pads

It's the first time I'm hearing about that, the good news is that with
electric cars and regenerative breaking you barely use the mechanical break.

Also, I wouldn't qualify it as being "Most". Most of the particles yes, but
not most of the green-house gas, which could reach a theoretical 0 if the
production of energy is managed correctly.

I guess it all depends on everyone's definition of "pollution"

I found this paper about brake pads and their impact on micro particles:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315878/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315878/)

------
bjarneh
The Bolt is not Ugly; it's not as good looking as a Model S, but it looks very
good for a car in it's class

~~~
_nedR
I like it!

~~~
bjarneh
Same here, much better looking than any of the other EV's in it's class/price
range. It's also more powerful and has much better range; what's not to love
about that car?

It seem that the Model S has become the yardstick for any new EV coming out
now; but that extremely unfair, we don't compare other cars coming out to
super cars to justify calling them slow and bad looking..

------
thewhitetulip
It might be Ugly, but it is the first working EV which is relatively cheap
than contemporary EVs in the world!

------
mtgx
Let's hope they didn't get first to market at this level by cutting corners on
battery quality and use batteries that degrade quickly. Time will tell, I
suppose. At least we know that Tesla's batteries degrade very little even
after 100,000 miles used.

------
kazinator
Nissan owners do not kick themselves, silently or otherwise, for not buying
Chevy. Doesn't happen, even in those hypothetical circumstances in which they
objectively should.

------
tener
> The company is expected to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of $9,000 per
> Bolt, but it likely doesn’t crunch the numbers that way.

Well, that explains a lot.

------
advertainment
This isn't news though, it's an ad.

------
DennisP
> The Bolt’s gear-selector comes from Buick.

Why does an electric car have a gear selector?

~~~
vmarsy
It's probably not "gears" per se, but to choose between "P", "R", "N" and "D".
Electric car needs to be able to reverse too :)

------
brightball
Still don't understand the appeal of anything in the electric space not named
Volt.

------
5ilv3r
So a leaf with a +20 mile upgrade would beat it easily in everything including
ugly points? Neat. Way to flop again, GM.

I've got a crumby idea: How about a long range EV with a dual pack system,
like a dual tank pickup truck. You could get away with half the charger and
half the wire capacity, and still get nearly 2x the range.

~~~
torinmr
Where'd you get +20 miles from? The Leaf has a 108 mile range, the Bolt has a
238 mile range - that's a huge difference.

~~~
5ilv3r
I must have misheard the sales guy when I test drove one. Thought he said 180.

~~~
codeulike
Depends whether your talking NEDC range (European standard) which is always
wildly over optimistic, or EPA range (USA) which is actually pretty accurate.
30kwh Leaf gets about 110 miles which is roughly it's EPA rating (I drive
one).

Be very skeptical of European manufacturers talking about their EV range in
press releases, they are usually talking NEDC.

------
thecity2
...and none of this will matter when most of us are using self-driving car
services in the next 5-10 years. I mean, it won't matter if my Lyft or Uber is
an ugly Bolt. As long as it's cheap and safe.

------
codeduck
Ugly, fat and tacky. I can't imagine dropping £10 k on this, let alone the
£30k or more it would cost if it made it to the UK.

Model X to go, please.

