2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV Pre-Order Timetable Reportedly Pushed Back12
Moving the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV from concept to production came at lightning fast pace; promising the affordable electric vehicle would be available by the end of 2016 is presumably an even greater task to fulfill.
Chevrolet has iterated the 2017 Bolt EV will still reach customers by the end of 2016, but it seems the pre-order timetable has been pushed back slightly.
Cleantechnica reports, upon a visit to a local California dealership, the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV is not available for pre-order just yet. The dealer instead said November 2016 for pre-orders to officially begin. The original report also states deliveries had slipped to January of 2017, utterly skewing what GM has told us since the production vehicle’s reveal.
We reached out to Chevrolet for clarification and the brand told us retail production for the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV will begin this year. Chevrolet also stated the EV will be in dealerships shortly thereafter, meaning 2016 is still a firm timetable for retail purchases.
It remains to be seen how availability will work initially, but we’ll bet hot EV markets like California will be the first recipients of Chevrolet’s EV.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
If the ordering books don’t open until November, the odds of you getting one this year are near zero.
Production will begin this year. I’m sure one will make it off the line as they’re popping the champagne corks at midnight… December 31.
Do we trust the big automakers to promote EVs outside areas where the law requires them to be available for sale? History says….no. If Evs are a huge success it leaves them with billions of dollars in stranded engine production assets and nukes their relationships with many suppliers and lays waste to their intellectual property in internal combustion engine technology. Not to mention the impact on dealerships of simpler EV cars that require virtually no maintenance. IBM resisted the move from mainframes to servers and PCs for years in order to preserve their existing business model. Change was thrust open them by new enterprises.
We will find out for sure one way or the other over the next 6 months.
I don’t agree with that, though I do believe the Bolt EV is somewhat a compliance car – it’s also built to serve as a capable EV for the day when gas is not under $2/gallon nationwide anymore. GM learned its lessons from the Prius (and Tesla), and knows not to get caught without a capable EV fleet vehicle.
Personally I don’t think GM needs to promote. Market buyers today are hyper-savvy. They’ll self-select the best solution for them.
That’s all good as long as one doesn’t care about climate change. If one does care about climate change…and the 14 all-time global record months in the row we are currently “enjoying’….then one might think there would be some urgency to reducing emissions. The price of gas should be part of the problem and easily addressed with a carbon tax.
Our grandkids are going to hate us all because we did nothing for decades despite all warnings. Yes, I’m self-selecting. 🙂
Good for you. And there are a lot of people that agree with you. But there are a lot of people that don’t, too.
The good news for GM is that those customers that agree with you, will now have a vehicle that they can choose from – but again, that circles back to the fact that GM doesn’t need to advertise to those customers… they will do their homework and don’t need advertising.
The agree thing is an American problem the rest of the world is largely free of.
Looking at the global field of EV growth I suspect more people will be driving EVs from China in 5 years than from any other source. They (BYD and Denza and others) are releasing some great EVs right now.
While it is prudent to take precautions for theories, let us remember that there are enough scientists out there that are on the opposite end of this theory and surely enough evidence out there to show that standing. This includes the fraudilant evidences of altered stances that were uncovered regarding the initial discoveries that promoted the climate change position back in England some years back that must be investigated as affecting the credibility of the claims. Remember, theories are just that, and even Darwin allegedly denounced his evolution theory on his deathbed.
Like I said….the doubt you suggest is very much an American thing. I don’t know why that is and it sad so much time is being wasted……but there it is. Too much vested interest, I guess.
The rest of the world is just getting on with it. Not much doubt out here in RoW. (Rest of World).
If there was a reasonable chance that you look at ALL the evidence of both sides, I would say we can have a discussion. I am not so closed minded as to say that it does not exist. I mere see a large argument for both sides and conclude that the evidence is not fully in. If it was, there would be no reason for further research. But I find that discussing this subject with most “climate change fanatics” is that they are the ones with the refusal to look at both sides and rather it to be an American thing, the doubt or lack of objectivity usually falls on them. And quite many of them become quite shrill. Here is a question for the global warming crowd: with the Rain Forests being responsible for for than 20% of the replenishment of our global oxygen from CO2 gases (a natural phenomenon since that beginning of time, I might add), why does “your side” bring a larger voice to the objection of harvesting and stripping of 10s of thousands of acres DAILY of rain forests in the Southern Hemisphere? According to the EPA, ALL CO2 contribution from all things transportation related (includes trains, planes and ships) is 14%. So rather tha focus on that 14% factor, would not your money be more productive joining my fight to stop the stripping of our biggest saving cause. The fact that none of the pro change crowd ignores this fact suggests to me that they truly can not be serious and are like sheeple for the money grab of the few at top. But as I said, most of the opinions of that Pro Climate Change Crowd seem to have an attitude of “my way only” without any rational discussion or debate, so I do not care to have s tit for tat discussion. Good luck to your side. I remain open to decide.
“Remember, theories are just that,”
Lets not confuse theories with wild guesses. When someone says theory, it means they are bringing the ammo. A hunch is unarmed.
Theories have substance and evidence behind them even in the absence of direct visual evidence. Wild guess do not. You don’t need to witness a murder to create a theory of events when you look at the evidence that the murderer left behind.
If you were right, and theories were just unsubstantiated guess then atomic theory is just a wild guess, thereby undoing all of chemistry all known laws of physics.
Even gravity is a theory because we don’t fully understand the mechanism behind it, and yet the same gravity keeping you in chair is still as predictable and testable as the gravitational orbits that holds the planets in our solar system.
It’s not just a wild guesses. Gravity, atoms, and evolution are all rock solid theories. They aren’t positions where you’re either for or against. They exist regardless how you think and feel politically, weather you’re wearing a black or a white shirt, or what you do in your free time. Gravitational theory, atomic theory, and evolutionary theory are still occurring independently, and the mountains of evidence over centuries doesn’t fully explain their mechanisms, but they do describe their existence.
Remember: You don’t have to witness the murder to have evidence that it has happened. When you’re ready to name who did it, you’ll have a theory, not a guess.
“even Darwin allegedly denounced his evolution theory on his deathbed.”
Never happened. Common ploy used to diminish the scope of evolutionary biology. That sentence alone doesn’t overturn the theory of evolution, and the subsequent discoveries afterwards that fortified it, chiefly DNA and RNA.
Even an Atheist has faith in something. Yet they chastise Christians because they believe without physical evidence. Still waiting for that “Missing Link” to show me that my ancestors came from pond scum.
I’ve know you’ve heard of DNA, and you don’t have to be an atheists to how that links humans to bacterial life. Heck, I never even said anything about atheism.
But lets dig deeper. I just finished eating a Granny Smith apple, and those are well-known genetic mutations of the original Malus sieversii wild apples of Central Asia. Artificial selection of the Granny Smith began in Australia in the 1800’s, and made them green in skin colour and turned the flesh slightly sour. There’s no faith needed in that, and it doesn’t matter what god you believe in.
The ‘missing link’ is a quaint Victorian age understanding of evolution. There isn’t any missing link, only the nearest genetic ancestor we have; that being the rest of the great apes of which humans are also hominids.
But this is the real kicker for me:
“Yet they chastise Christians because they believe without physical evidence.”
I chastise ALL who don’t bring hard evidence to the table. If it won’t stand up in court, it won’t stand up for me.
Evolution made sense to me when I was a Christian, and it still makes sense to me now. I don’t know why you think evolution has anything to do with any religion, as there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution as they do in the triune God. After all, evolution takes many millions of years to unfold. Why would that pose a problem for God to put many millions of years within His creation?
See what happens why you try to boil this down to a religious narrative? Like I said, evolution occurs independently regardless how you think and feel politically, weather you’re wearing a black or a white shirt, or what you do in your free time. That free time includes your sundays.