Talk:Chevrolet Bolt

Suggestions

We need:

1. What is the expected KHW of the battery?

2. Weight?

3. Charger type?

4. Outside dimensions (length & width)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrilebec (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

5. Is the battery chemestry LFP or NMC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.53.141 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by volunteers such as yourself. We encourage you to do research (possibly via a web search) and then add the data in. If you want help with the technical details of editing then please ask.  Stepho  talk  21:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested update 50 feet rule text

This rule was rendered obsolete by GM and is no longer the recommended guidance. See link below:

https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2021/sep/0920-bolt.html

And I quote:

Updated guidance on parking

If customers are following GM’s instructions issued below, they can park in a location of their choice. In an abundance of caution, GM recommends customers leave ample space around their vehicle wherever they choose to park. GM is not aware of any fires that have occurred where customers followed this safety guidance, in parking decks or otherwise.

Requested move 17 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 12:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Chevrolet Bolt → Chevrolet Bolt EV – When I created this article I used the name: Chevrolet Bolt, but doing Google search about the car I realized that GM's official name is 'Chevrolet Bolt EV' - as you can see from the pictures of the concept car here and here, the EV is on the car's badge at the rear right side (just like the Spark EV) and used in GM promotional material. So I renamed the page 'Chevrolet Bolt EV'. However, another user recently moved the page back without any discussion. As of today, the Chevy Bolt EV is just a concept car that is going to be produced, with no certainty that the production model with keep the same name. So following WP naming policies, the article should be renamed as proposed, or even Chevrolet Bolt EV concept. Mariordo (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your last suggestion. As talk of the vehicle entering production becomes more common, articles refer to the vehicle simply the Bolt. Hence my earlier, ill-advised move of the article. Another article altogether, when and if the vehicle becomes a production vehicle, will be appropriate. Thanks, and my apologies. 842U (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see evidence that "EV" is commonly included in reliable sources when referring to this.[1][2][3] We don't go by the WP:OFFICIALNAME, but by WP:COMMONNAME. The naming question appears to be up in the air, but for now the current title works OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

predecessor = General Motors EV1

What is the definition of predecessor? Clearly the EV1 came before as did the spark EV1. Neither are direct model predecessors so it seems a gross use of the field. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Interpretation of numbers

This source says 94 cu ft for passengers, and 17 cu ft for cargo space. EPA only counts combined space, and calls it "small wagon" (i.e Station Wagon - EPA doesn't know Hatchback). Do we then add 94 17=111 cu ft for categorization, meaning the Bolt is Mid-Size, not Subcompact ? Or do we call it Small wagon?

As for related cars, Bolt has a BEV II chassis that isn’t related to the Gamma platform on the Sonic hatchback. TGCP (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources included in text. TGCP (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparative information?

I did not see much comparative information, comparing the Chevrolet Bolt with other EVs. As usual, the problem is often third-party sourcing.

So let's start gathering sources that do that work for us, in the interest of improving the article.

• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-16/elon-musk-wanted-a-race-now-he-has-one, 16 Sep 2016.

Add others as we find them, and we should be able to get a good section written. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a table comparing with Model 3 exterior dimensions. What do you think? https://plus.google.com/u/1/ DanielCardenas/posts/Jftq2C6XGGX   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Useable space is one of the most notable aspects of a car, and usually missing - so let's add that. Some classify by external dimensions (HLDI), others by internal (EPA), and NHTSA by weight. A general table would be useful as a spawn from the general EV article. As Bolt is mostly compared to the TM3, a simple comparison would depend on availability of confirmed TM3 dimensions (Leaf2 would also be relevant). The linked table seems US oriented (missing Zoe). I could not find a source list for that table? TGCP (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Crossover?

GM calls this vehicle a crossover. While this point is debatable, there is precedent as the similarly configured Kia Soul is also referred to as a Crossover. Freeinfo (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

No they do not. On the official Chevrolet crossovers page, no mention of the Bolt. On the official Chevrolet Bolt page as well as the original GM press release, no mention of the word "crossover". The EPA classifies it as a small station wagon, which equates to either hatchback or mini MPV, depending on passenger accomodations. I found an article at The Detroit News calling it a crossover, but that's about it. --Vossanova ^o< 21:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

On The EPA page you have to click on the tab Specs to check the class: small station wagon. And by the way, EPA also classifies the Kia Soul as a small station wagon. --Mariordo (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bolt website states: "This crossover does not compromise." [4] Scroll down, select "Cargo" tab. The Bolt order guide is listed under the "Chevrolet Truck" section as a "5-Door Crossover." [5] Select "Bolt EV" from dropdown at top right.Freeinfo (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I missed the GM press release specifications tab where they do call it a "CUV". And I just saw it is under Chevrolet Trucks in the fleet order guide, which seems odd. So, I retract my claim that Chevy and GM don't call it a crossover. However, we can still take it to WikiProject Automobiles for consensus. --Vossanova ^o< 13:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, there is no EPA classification of "Crossover" so that doesn't help us. I think that by WP:NPOV we should stay consistent with the Kia Soul. FWIW, my personal opinion is that neither the Soul nor the Bolt should be called crossovers, but we're not here to advance personal opinions. Freeinfo (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Freeinfo, one mention is not enough. In order to properly solve this issue, I suggest you go to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and ask those guys, I am sure with all their experience they will provide valuable advice. You can just invite them to participate in this discussion or open a new discussion over there. In this way, we will solve the classification of the Bolt, Kia Soul, Honda Fit, and similar cars. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Curiously, WP described the Bolt as a small car crossover in January 2015. Whatever it has been called here and in media, there seems to be a risk of wp:circular. Template:Infobox automobile refers Class and Body style to Car classification. Seems unclear. TGCP (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking back through the page history, the introduction said "crossover" from February 6, 2015 to April 18, 2016 when it was changed by an anonymous user to "sub-compact." That and a few other IPs then made changes over the following months including changing the infobox to subcompact, adding "a platform shared with the Chevy Sonic" (unsourced), changing "a US$160 million upgrade for the Bolt's production" to "...for the Bolt's and Sonic's production" (unsourced...I fixed that) and adding "also known as "Chevrolet Sonic Hatchback EV" (unsourced). I think there may have been some WP:ADVOCACY going on here, by someone wishing to establish that the Bolt is an "electric Chevy Sonic." Freeinfo (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked at wikiproject Automobiles for input. In the meantime, I'll add the uncontested point that "GM calls the Bolt a crossover" to the Design section of the article. Freeinfo (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reversed your edit for another reason, the source you provided does not says anything about the Bolt being a crossover. Please look for a proper source to restore your edit. One not related to marketing would be much better. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I was unable to link directly to the "Cargo" tab where that specific mention is made. I've substituted another reference. Freeinfo (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox parameters are usually discrete, well-defined and verifiable. The "subcompact" definition is such, but Bolt does not meet that criterion. "Crossover" is not a strict definition. Body text should include marketing terms (as GM uses them) and common names (as media uses them), provided they are described as such. In short, we should distinguish between strict definitions and more loose concepts. I don't know how strictly the Infobox parameter "Class" is enforced, we should ask the WikiProject guys as Mariordo says. GM may have motivation to distance the Bolt from the Subcompact Sonic/Spark and unpopular "Station wagon", and associate the Bolt with the popular Crossover segment - here at WP we can then try to be WP:NPOV. A simple Google search (for any word) often shows a Wikipedia page among the first results, giving higher importance to WP content. TGCP (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox changes

I'd like to remove from the Infobox mention of "Platform: Gamma G2SC" and "Related: Spark/Sonic/Corsa" to align with the body text, which points out that the Bolt is on its own platform. Are there any concerns with this change? Freeinfo (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing Heresay

The Bloomberg article quotes someone from Carlabs saying they think the GM loses 9k$ per car made. The actual article does not articulate why that would be in any way past this third party source. The actual person is not from GM and does not even give his own reasoning for the cost. Bloomberg might be a credible source by Wikipedia sourcing standards but I find it weird how this article leads off on how much is lost with 0 explanation on how why that is. Shouldn't an article which is about cost of a vehicle actually talk about the cost of the vehicle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.8.169 (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Development, ramping up and optimizing production is costly, and that cost takes time to write down. Startup costs and running costs are commonly confused and combined. GM will not disclose those numbers for competitive reasons, giving rise to speculation. The article should clarify that Carlabs offer an opinion. I have added a refute by GM. TGCP (talk) 11:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

So far as I (professional automotive engineer) am aware all small EVs sold by major OEMs are sold at a significant loss per vehicle. Fanboi dislike of that fact doesn't change it.Tesla 4000 Fiat 14000 Bolt 9500. Here's an RS talking about it http://www.caranddriver.com/features/throwing-money-at-electrics-feature Greglocock (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

CD source is from 2013 - the 2016 TU source specifically says (use translate) that profitability was impossible 4 years ago. TGCP (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And the Norwegian article says nothing about current profitability of Bolt. Nothing. "Those in GM and Opel management TU has asked this, scoffs at the claim that in the long term, when the production is turned up, will lose money on the electric car. " It says that some time in the future it will be profitable, and if anything implies current losses. Greglocock (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

My original complaint was not that they may or may not be profitable but that the article quoted a figure with no reasoning on how they got that number (agent X says Y). From that point on it was to advance that the reason Chevy is making the car is for compliance so they can sell other models into the CA market. That also may or may not be true (this I find more reasonable based on CA requirements for auto manufacturers even though it is merely an opinion). The Norwegian article also does not address whether it is actually profitable but they do supply a value for how much the battery will cost per Watt. As it is the most significant part cost it probably would be a reasonable base for estimating other costs. I suspect the Norwegian press like Bloomberg both are advancing different narratives since Norway is really big into EVs and so far as I can tell Bloomberg...not so much. I just hate magic numbers. Had he put some details showing why the car was at that cost I would not have complained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.8.169 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not how wiki works. If we have an RS saying 8-9k, even though there is no justification in the RS for that (perfectly reasonable) number then that is good enough. If we also had an RS saying that GM makes millions on every EV sold then we'd have an interesting situation. Greglocock (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Date format

As per MOS:DATERET, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it. Also, the date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used. So please, stop changing the date format of the entire article. Otherwise, discuss it here to seek consensus to justify a different format. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"Unless there his reason for changing it based on strong national ties to a subject". Clearly this is an American made car. Should use American DMY date format. JOJ ^Hutton 02:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how the YYYY-MM-DD format is "non-American". It's not specifically European, for example. It's one of several formats used in the United States. Omnedon (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There are DMY dates in the article as well. They should be MDY. If it was just a YMD issue with the citation format, it wouldn't matter, but why should the American car article use DMY?JOJ ^Hutton 14:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, but according to the diff of your edit, the only changes I noticed were ones changing YYYY-MM-DD to "Month Day, Year". YYYY-MM-DD isn't non-American. Omnedon (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bolt was designed by GM Korea, the drive train assembled in Korea, final assembly in the US (at least for US deliveries) and sold internationally (not clear where international models are assembled). That makes the tie to America not as strong as it could be.

Note also that articles should have a single consistent date format in the body but the references are allowed to have a different format (although they must also be consistent among all the references). If there is a mix of formats with each of the two types (body, references) and a strong tie cannot be found, then we usually go back to the oldest revisions of the article and use whichever format was used by the early editors as a way of choosing between equal contendors.  Stepho  talk  16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The vehicle was made by Chevrolet which is American so therefore MDY would be correct, Production area etc has no relevence when it comes to date formats - If it's an American subject then MDY applies, I would suggest turning this in to an RFC so you'd get a better consensus (or in this case no consensus but you get the point.) –Davey2010^Talk 16:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Where in the MOS is YYYY-MM-DD excluded as a format for use in articles related to the United States? I'm a US resident and it's my preferred date format for various reasons. The whole issue of day-month versus month-day is moot in the commonly-used YYYY-MM-DD format. Yet the edit here in question replaced YYYY-MM-DD with something else. It seems like an attempt to fix something that was not broken. There is a claim that there are DMY dates in the article, but if that was the problem, why where *they* not changed? Omnedon (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Omnedon: I could only see one instance of dmy in the body text and I have just changed that to mdy, as per WP:DATEUNIFY. WP:DATEUNIFY is also where MOS says that citations are allowed to have a different style.

Davey and Jojhutton: You both say that it is clearly an American car. Remember that it was designed by GM Korea (in Korea) and not designed by Chevrolet. US delivered vehicles have final assembly in the US but we are not sure where internationally delivered vehicles are going to be assembled. Possibly European deliveries could be assembled in an Opel factory somewhere in Europe, but this is of course only a guess. Claiming this is an American car is kind of like claiming Chevy Nova from the 1990s was an American car (designed by Toyota in Japan but made and sold in America). I'm not entire ruling it out, I'm just saying that the claim is weak and you need a strong tie to make the change automatically. However, MOS allows us to change it if it is agreed on the discussion page (as we are doing now). If we can't agree to change after a suitable time and somebody still feels strongly about it, then it can be taken to RFC. You can also ask people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles or any other project page to enter the discussion at any time.  Stepho  talk  22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately where the car was made or who made it is etc is irrelevant (and I mean that in the nicest possible way), The title states "Chevrolet" and "Manufacturer" in the ib states General Motors both which are American companies so IMHO all in all it's an American car. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If where it was designed and where/who made it are irrelevant then your whole argument of it being American collapses. And you do know that "GM", "General Motors" and "Chevrolet" are registered in Korea, as well Canada, the US, Australia (my country) and many other parts of the world. So references to GM and Chevrolet do not automatically mean it is American. And of course, since it is sold in Europe as the Opel Ampera–e, then it must be German (Opel started in Germany) – by your own argument.  Stepho  talk  08:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I am clearly against the change. I believe as a general principle in editing Wikipedia, if it is not broken don't fix it. There are several hundred of things that justified fixing, not this. Thousands and thousands of articles use this format. Under the WP rule I cited above, the prevailing format should be kept. There is no hard justification for the change made (as opposed to using American English or British English). If the editor wants to change the existing rule, then go to a higher WP authority, open a discussion to get rid of this short form if you consider that change so important, so we don't have to argue every time you use your script to fix what is not broken.--Mariordo (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dates are fixed on almost every article, If you don't like it then log off & go elsewhere. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So you are saying that anybody who doesn't agree with Davey is not allowed on Wikipedia? What do you mean by "fixed"? It is well established that a lot of automobile articles on WP use the yyyy-mm-dd format, so if "fixed" means following what other articles do then you have changed sides.

However, if you feel strongly enough about changing the date format, then you can ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles (which I pointed out before but nothing came of it). If you are still not happy with the result then you can ask for a Request for Comment from the administrators – see WP:RFC.  Stepho  talk  08:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah probably wasn't the most helpful of replies but no ofcourse not, Anyway "fixed" should've actually said "changed" so apologies for that. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Revisit title discussion: Bolt --> Bolt EV

Now that the car is in production and the official name has been confirmed as Bolt EV, I feel the suggestion to rename the article should be revisited. Common usage in car reviews and such appears to lean towards Bolt EV. Also in personal conversations the confusion between Bolt and Volt is very common and I and others tend to use Bolt EV intentionally to reduce this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickbuckeye (talk • contribs) 20:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100%. If you check the original discussion, the editor who changed the name without the "EV" recognized it was a mistake. I would suggest you open a formal discussion to seek consensus for the name change. cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ampera-e sales discontinued in Europe

Hello, due to the purchase of GM Opel by PSA the Ampera-e will not be sold anymore in Europe as it seems by now. In Norway it is unclear if all advance orders of the Ampera-e will be still delivered to the customers or if they will be cancelled.

https://electrek.co/2017/10/20/chevy-bolt-ev-opel-norwegian-dealers-stop-taking-orders/

https://insideevs.com/opel-ampera-e-limited-delivieries-norway-2017/

https://insideevs.com/opel-tells-norwegian-dealers-cease-orders-ampera-e-demand-far-exceeds-supply/

--78.53.139.36 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion

This is to invite regular editors of this page to participate in the ongoing discussion at the talk page of the electric car article regarding Wikipedia policy about pricing info included in several articles dealing with plug-in electric cars. You are welcome to express your view. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Which CPU is used by the Bolt ?

Hello, I was reading an article about vulnerabilities on Samsung Exynos cpu and it makes me wonder : is there a list or a way to know which CPU is used to manage EV vehicule, especially the Chevrolet Bolt ? Chevrolet Website and a quick search on DuckDuckGo was not enough to find the answer ... Christophe.agostini (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)