2027 Chevy Bolt: Meet America's Cheapest New EV

[Rick73]

46 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

That seems a bit excessive. My tiny Focus has a 12-gallon tank, and the TC has a 15-gallon tank. 

I have 35 gallons but closer to only 500 miles of maximum real driving range at highway speeds.  The only advantages I’ve experienced over the years were making it easier to avoid high gas prices in some areas/states, and also allowing me to drive through the night between roughly 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM when gas stations feel too isolated.  Fueling at 2~3 AM feels unsafe to me.  Obviously driving through the night not very wise either, but I’ve had to do it in emergencies a couple of times.  I would not mind having a little less range, but on an ICE vehicle I would not want less than 400 miles or so at highway speeds.

[Rick73]

Back on 2027 Bolt, a Munro Live video with GM engineers disclosed a couple of details.  They confirmed battery capacity of 65 kWh is useable rating, and also that making car more affordable was primary goal, hence why they borrowed from other GM EVs.  Braking is now controlled such that driver is not aware between regenerative and friction braking.  This was done to simplify operation and improve efficiency.  Car goes after regenerative braking first if possible and switches to friction when needed.

 

Also of interest is that bidirectional charging allows for up to 9.6 kW of power to be provided by a 240-Volt inverter powered by car battery.  The V2H capability can be augmented further with stationary battery capacity that can kick in automatically if vehicle is not connected to bidirectional charger at the time that grid power is interrupted.

[Biker16]

4 hours ago, akirby said:

The 36 gallon tank was an option that I wouldn’t have ordered but it is nice to have.  
 

I grew up driving full size trucks.  New ones are super comfortable, can seat 3 large guys easily in the rear seat.  I’ve carried 1K-2K lbs of mulch and stone and I regularly carry 10 foot lumber.  I towed my golf cart to the factory on a heavy trailer for repair like it wasn’t there.

 

I get 21 mpg city and 26 highway, it tows or hauls everything I would ever need, it’s super comfortable and it fits in my garage.  Cost is the only downside but I paid $37k before inflation hit.

 

Utility is important, but I struggle to understand how 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks weigh 50%more and have 300% more power for the same payload, and a smaller bed. 

 

The analogy I keep thinking of is jeep owners who buy Wrangler just for the rubber ducks. I think the entire truck market is that people buy things for rubber ducks. 

Edited October 24, 2025 by Biker16

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Biker16 said:

Utility is important, but I struggle to understand how 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks weigh 50%more and have 300% more power for the same payload, and a smaller bed.

Compared to what?

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, Biker16 said:

Utility is important, but I struggle to understand how 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks weigh 50%more and have 300% more power for the same payload, and a smaller bed. 

Can personally relate to that though one could argue that it’s not just pickups that have been affected by much greater weight and power.  Days of 2,000-pound Pintos were replaced by 3,000-pound Civics and Corollas.

 

When I was a child my father got a new work truck every few years, usually a Ford F-250 4WD; with only one exception I can recall.  Anyway, they were all single cab, long bed, much lighter, and most had 300 cubic inch sixes with about 150 HP or less.  Obviously they were not comparable to modern trucks yet they got the job done.

 

In a way the same issue affects Chevy Bolt.  It weighs as much as a Tesla Model 3, and with over 200 HP can accelerate faster than 99% of family vehicles from decades ago, yet many already question whether it’s fast enough.  For what exactly, taking a kid or two to school or driving to grocery store?  Bolt at about 3,800 pounds could go on a diet.  Granted, 65 kWh of LFP batteries are not light.

[Biker16]

16 hours ago, akirby said:

Compared to what?

 

A similar vehicle from 20 or 30 years ago

[Sherminator98]

On 10/24/2025 at 5:52 PM, Biker16 said:

 

Utility is important, but I struggle to understand how 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks weigh 50%more and have 300% more power for the same payload, and a smaller bed. 

 

The analogy I keep thinking of is jeep owners who buy Wrangler just for the rubber ducks. I think the entire truck market is that people buy things for rubber ducks. 

 

Because your completely ignoring the fact that pickups went from basic no frills transportation to luxury vehicles. As for the smaller bed thing, that is directly from having a 4 door cab vs a 2 door cab. 

[Rick73]

Talking about full-size pickups and Bolts, seeing them together for easier size comparison at a GM event reveals why even GM executives worry about 9,000-pound pickups like Hummer and Chevy Silverado EVs.  Some people actually prefer smaller vehicles for many reasons but will realistically avoid them primarily for safety reasons.  An unintended consequence of huge pickups used for daily transportation by many drivers is that they discourage adoption of smaller-size vehicles.

 

Pictures from InsideEVs article provide perspective.  Full size truck may be parked slightly farther from curve, but size dwarfs Bolt nonetheless which at close to 4,000 pounds is fairly roomy for 4 adults.  Bolt may not be large but it’s not an Izetta or Smart Car either. 

 

https://insideevs.com/news/776958/2027-chevrolet-bolt-live-impressions/

 

 

[Biker16]

8 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Because your completely ignoring the fact that pickups went from basic no frills transportation to luxury vehicles. As for the smaller bed thing, that is directly from having a 4 door cab vs a 2 door cab. 

 

 I don't think I am. 

 

There are two narratives

• One is that people have always wanted behemoth vehicles for reasonable reasons and automakers are simply meeting that demand.
• The other is that the author makers created demand through marketing, regulatory capture (chicken tax) and federal tax policy that allows such" luxury" vehicles to be used as a tax write off.

Today, more than ever you shouldn't assume that corporations base investments on meeting the needs of the customer but do so to maximize ROI at the customer's or society's expense.

 

The narrative that people hate small cheap vehicles only serves the needs of corporate interest and don't represent the wants and needs of the marketplace.

 

Which is why I, and others like the bolt, it represents something that's is rare in the United States market these days. Practical, and affordable mobility. 

 

-MarvinOut

 

Edited October 26, 2025 by Biker16

[Texasota]

3 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

Today, more than ever you shouldn't assume that corporations base investments on meeting the needs of the customer but do so to maximize ROI at the customer's or society's expense.

Don’t think that is true. Customers have the freedom to embrace or reject any automotive product as they see fit. The rejection of large BEV pickups is a recent example.

[akirby]

People like full sized trucks for the same reason they bought crown vics and town cars.  Plus knowing you can tow or haul just about anything.  Nothing to do with marketing or chicken tax.

[Sherminator98]

57 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

The narrative that people hate small cheap vehicles only serves the needs of corporate interest and don't represent the wants and needs of the marketplace.

 

Which is why I, and others like the bolt, it represents something that's is rare in the United States market these days. Practical, and affordable mobility. 

 

Being affordable and making a profit are two completely different things. Business are beholden to their stakeholders to make a profit.

 

What is affordable to one person may not be to another. That is bore out by the average cost of a new car being around 50K. And the largest segment worldwide being the compact CUV, which is what? $30-80K in the US, depending on what model your talking about? 

 

People will also overbuy what they actually need in a vehicle too, just so they aren't inconvenienced, perceived or not. 

 

In the grand scheme of things cars can be nothing more then 1-2 seat vehicle to get to and from work for the vast majority of people. But that would never work unless they could make it super cheap and a company can actually profit off it. 

[Biker16]

21 hours ago, Texasota said:

Don’t think that is true. Customers have the freedom to embrace or reject any automotive product as they see fit. The rejection of large BEV pickups is a recent example.

 

Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without." – Merovingian

 

21 hours ago, akirby said:

People like full sized trucks for the same reason they bought crown vics and town cars.  Plus knowing you can tow or haul just about anything.  Nothing to do with marketing or chicken tax.

I did an AI search on "the marketing of pickup Truck in the USA"

It is more Focused on image and cultural identity than utility. When did the Crown Vic become less rugged, more feminine, and less American? 

My point is that marketing of Light trucks is the primary reason for their popularity, and that the investments in marketing are drivven purely by Automaker profitabl8ity. 

Which Makes Sense

20 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

Being affordable and making a profit are two completely different things. Business are beholden to their stakeholders to make a profit.

 

What is affordable to one person may not be to another. That is bore out by the average cost of a new car being around 50K. And the largest segment worldwide being the compact CUV, which is what? $30-80K in the US, depending on what model your talking about? 

 

People will also overbuy what they actually need in a vehicle too, just so they aren't inconvenienced, perceived or not. 

 

In the grand scheme of things cars can be nothing more then 1-2 seat vehicle to get to and from work for the vast majority of people. But that would never work unless they could make it super cheap and a company can actually profit off it. 

If take this from Economics 101 to Econ 202, you realize that Markets are not there to benefit the seller but must also provide an equal value for the buyer.  When this imbalance becomes terminal, I.E. people can't afford the product; it should force the Seller to adjust their prices.  Of course, this isn't happening, consumers have access to Credit, leasing, longer payback periods, subsidized interest rates, and most importantly no alternatives to driving, Making car buyers the ultimate captive audience.

I feel the last 50 years have been a shell game to monetize every part of our existence, maintaining a standard of living by forcing 2 income households, access to easy credit, etc. Anyone that doesn't think this is scam is delusional.

#Marvin-out-out

 

 

Edited October 27, 2025 by Biker16

[twintornados]

6 hours ago, Biker16 said:

....When did the Crown Vic become less rugged, more feminine, and less American? 

 

When they got rid of the Station Wagon versions....

[Sherminator98]

9 hours ago, Biker16 said:

I feel the last 50 years have been a shell game to monetize every part of our existence, maintaining a standard of living by forcing 2 income households, access to easy credit, etc. Anyone that doesn't think this is scam is delusional.

 

I think your the one that is delusional-its been going on for much longer then that

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzIm9iPi2oK/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

 

But in the grand scheme of things, what are you going to actually do about it other then going to live in the woods or going full on Ted Kaczynski?

 

How about going outside and touching some grass? That would help

 

[rmc523]

On 10/25/2025 at 1:03 PM, Biker16 said:

 

A similar vehicle from 20 or 30 years ago

 

Because usage for/of them has changed.  They're the modern day full size sedan, vs. just a work truck.  And couple that with the "keeping up with the Joneses" of each company has to bump up their specs each redesign.

[rmc523]

15 hours ago, Biker16 said:

 

 I don't think I am. 

 

There are two narratives

• One is that people have always wanted behemoth vehicles for reasonable reasons and automakers are simply meeting that demand.
• The other is that the author makers created demand through marketing, regulatory capture (chicken tax) and federal tax policy that allows such" luxury" vehicles to be used as a tax write off.

Today, more than ever you shouldn't assume that corporations base investments on meeting the needs of the customer but do so to maximize ROI at the customer's or society's expense.

 

The narrative that people hate small cheap vehicles only serves the needs of corporate interest and don't represent the wants and needs of the marketplace.

 

Which is why I, and others like the bolt, it represents something that's is rare in the United States market these days. Practical, and affordable mobility. 

 

-MarvinOut

 

 

Chicken tax?

 

There are midsize and now compact options on the market now.  If the chicken tax were the reason, Maverick would be selling 1M units a year and F-series would crater.

[Sherminator98]

4 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Chicken tax?

 

He is completely ignoring the fact that the market flipped about 26 years ago-it was roughly 50/50 between passenger and light truck sales back in 1999/2000. 

 

https://sfa.senate.michigan.gov/economics/retailautosales.pdf

Part of the reason for this is that its far easier to make CAFE with light trucks then passenger cars, which in turn is forcing cars to get bigger due to the footprint rule and the profit margin on CUV/SUV/Trucks are better because people are willing to pay "extra" for them then expecting a discount on a passenger car, that has no "demand" for it. 

[Rick73]

17 hours ago, Texasota said:

Don’t think that is true. Customers have the freedom to embrace or reject any automotive product as they see fit. The rejection of large BEV pickups is a recent example.

Won’t comment on auto industry specifically but believe sometimes it can be true because the two are not mutually exclusive.  Customers’ freedom of choice doesn’t preclude some companies or businesses or entire industries for that matter from acting in selfish interest or unethical behavior.  Free markets are a great tool for societies to prosper yet require some level of regulation to prevent abuse in pursuit of profitability.

 

One clear example is the cigarette industry.  Even though people have the right to say no to smoking it did not prevent companies from doing everything possible to get more customers hooked through advertising and making products more addictive.  It is (or was) legal in a purely free market sense but is that what society wants or needs?

 

For me it’s a tough subject because I find the use of a 9,000-pound pickup to mostly transport a +/- 150-pound human from point A to B absurdly inefficient, yet at same time believe in our right to buy large vehicles that are controversial; within reason of course.

 

I don’t know of a great solution that is equitable to all hence difficulty in taking sides.

[Biker16]

4 hours ago, Sherminator98 said:

 

I think your the one that is delusional-its been going on for much longer then that

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CzIm9iPi2oK/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

 

But in the grand scheme of things, what are you going to actually do about it other then going to live in the woods or going full on Ted Kaczynski?

 

How about going outside and touching some grass? That would help

 

 
Thanks for the advice. I went outside and touched grass, a bush, and even a tree. 

I feel much better —like I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

[Biker16]

4 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

Chicken tax?

 

There are midsize and now compact options on the market now.  If the chicken tax were the reason, Maverick would be selling 1M units a year and F-series would crater.

 

I think you're misunderstanding the impacts that tariffs have. The Maverick isn't a replacement or substitute for an F-350. The Maverick does not provide the same utility to the buyer as the Maverick does when compared to a Ranger, which is what has been shrinking since the Maverick's introduction. Another thing to think of is that Toyota sold 603,000 midsize pickup trucks in 2023.

Those trucks sold in other markets are priced between $10,000 and $6000 less than the mid-sized trucks sold in the United States pickup. The impact of the chicken tax is effectively to increase the cost of all trucks imported or made domestically, when you can buy an $18,000 Toyota Helix there is no reason to sell a pickup truck the size of a maverick. If the cost of mid-size pickup trucks dropped 6 to 10,000 dollars the price of full-size pickup trucks would have to fall as well. Because the maverick isn't a Substitute for an F-150 but you can argue that a Ranger could be a substitute for an F-150.

In total, the conversation about pickup trucks misses the point: in most markets, vans are the primary utility vehicle, not pickup trucks. In my opinion, the segment most harmed by the chicken tax are commercial vans, which operate in a more competitive, price-sensitive marketplace. The cancellation of GM's bright drop is an excellent example of this. That van had the greatest utility amongst its peers, but its price killed it.

 In a market without the chicken tax we would see a wider variety of commercial and passenger vans sold and the entrance of inexpensive mid-size electric and non-electric pickup trucks into the market followed in a couple years by less expensive full size pickup trucks imported from Turkey Spain Africa even China which would have the effect of dropping the price floor on existing full size trucks, forcing more competition into the market. Which has the add-on effect of killing profits for what's left of the big three

[GearheadGrrrl]

Full size pickups sell well here because we're an unsophisticated market that equates size with value and social status. ROW looks at our full size pickups and cringes...

[Sherminator98]

10 minutes ago, Biker16 said:

Those trucks sold in other markets are priced between $10,000 and $6000 less than the mid-sized trucks sold in the United States pickup.

 

Are they?
 

using the Ranger as an example*:

US Ranger XLT starting MSRP: $35,3751

 

Australian Ranger XLT Starting MSRP:  $69000 AUD=$45230.88 USD

 

South Africa Ranger XLT starting MSRP: R681500=$39536 USD

 

UK Ranger Raptor (no XLT) starting MSRP £47,800=$63748.23 vs 56,070 MSRP

 

* This isn't completely inclusive because the ROW Ranger has a Diesel vs Ecoboost in the US and the market variations in options/packages, but close enough to prove the point. Not to mention currency strength vs the US Dollar.

Also some vehicles are going to be "cheaper" because the cost of living or earning levels are lower then in other countries also. 

[Sherminator98]

5 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

Full size pickups sell well here because we're an unsophisticated market that equates size with value and social status. ROW looks at our full size pickups and cringes...

 

But comparing the US to other countries is stupid also...since quite a few of our states have equal land mass to countries in the EU for example. 

 

What might work there doesn't work here and vice versa. 

 

its a lot easier to build say a national train system when your country is the size of say Washington State (Germany) vs one that needs to stretch over 2800 miles east to west and multiple time zone. 

 

There are so many other factors at play like cost of gas and other things that making a comparison of what works in one market vs another is far beyond most peoples knowledge here. 

 

 

[akirby]

We’re not going to continue beating this dead horse that has already been beaten at least 10 times about big trucks and chicken tax.  
 

Bolt comments only please.