Bolt starts at ~$26k. Civic starts at just under $24k. The Bolt is a mediocre road tripper, but lots of cars in that segment are just commuters that only very occasionally road trip. It'd be a great choice for a lot of people.
I don't want a $26k car. Back in 2014, I bought a base model Ford Fiesta for $14k. Modern cars are badly overpriced, which is part of why people are holding onto used cars so strongly.
Looks like it starts at 28.5. Low-end IC cars (with more range and convenience) start at ~15-16k new in the US. (Kia, Nissan, etc).
That's a huge difference when that's the price range you're shopping, with added benefits of higher issue rates and less convenience when it comes to charging.
While I'd argue anyone looking to spend under $20k on a car would be better suited going used/pre-owned instead of new, theres really not a price premium on new electric vehicles anymore.
The Chevy Bolt MSRP is $26,500[1] (not sure where you saw 28.5) but it qualifies for the $7500 rebate. In the past that was a tax write-off and you still had to pay sticker up front but it changed this year to be a credit the IRS gives the dealer at time of purchase so the price gets immediately knocked down to $19k.[2] Requires the purchaser be under the new income cap to qualify but that includes over 90% of people.
Theres only two new cars available in 2024 under $19k, the Nissan Versa and Mitsubishi Mirage. If we look at 2023 theres also the Kia Rio. All three are out of date cars with anemic engines (the Mirage literally makes 78hp) and 0-60 times of 10 seconds or more compared to 200hp and 6.8 seconds for the Bolt. None of the base models have Apple CarPlay or Android Auto unlike the Bolt. Same for safety features/creature comforts like lane assist and adaptive cruise control.
Otherwise the next cheapest new car available is the '23 Kia Forte which is a pretty fun car (and can reach highway speed before the heat death of the universe) which is actually in a similar tier to the Bolt and similarly priced at $19.5k.[3]
Theres definitely a lot of people who EVs don't work for logistically (myself included until only very recently), and yes you could buy one of three horrifying cars I would not force on my worst enemy for less, but manufacturers know they won't sell overpriced cars so the upfront cost of an EV aligns quite well nowadays with comparable ICE vehicles.
Bolt can absolutely fast charge, I've done it myself — the feature has to be added when purchasing, and it's limited to 55kW (~80% in an hour depending on conditions). The slower rate is partially how they kept the price down AFAIK.
Thankfully, DCFC is now standard! The rate isn't phenomenal, just as you pointed out, but this car competes with Civics. Many of those are purely commuter cars that might only very rarely do 300-400 miles.
IMO, having such a slow charge rate (Yes, 55 kW is slow) is extremely detrimental to EV adoption because it feeds into the narrative that it takes 45+ minutes to charge the car which just simply isn't true for any decent EV.
This is what frustrates me about EV makers that aren't Tesla. They frequently half-ass their EV and then get all Surprised Pikachu when they don't sell, and then they incorrectly just say "Huh people don't actually want EVs".
I'm not trying to sound like a Tesla fanboy (I own one, but I'm not a fanboy), but the Model 3 is the standard upon which any EV is going to be compared. If you don't support 250 kW charging with at least 250 miles of range, you're making a shitty EV that nobody will want. Sure, you can probably forgo the self-driving features, and the huge touch-screen interface is a bug more than a feature, but you cannot skimp on range and charging capabilities.
Yeah, I remember when Chevrolet bragged a lot about beating the Model 3 to market and how great it was. But it had optional fast charging of only ~50kw!
Their management really could not understand the idea that the prime consumer for this would be middle-class people in suburban homes, and that they'd want to occasionally road trip their nearly $40k EV. They'd imagine only people in urban areas would want them and then imagine this huge catch-22 around urban charging. Their early forays into charging partnerships all reflected that, with chatter about building lower speed urban locations.
Reality was so much different.
Having said that, prices have come down a _lot_ since that introduction. I think there are a lot of people who'd find it usable, given prices that are lower than a Civic with the current incentives.
I typically need to fast charge ~5 times per year. I'm in Portland, and my father-in-law takes us to Oregon Ducks football games in Eugene 3-5 times per season, and it's about a 220 mile round trip. In the early season while it's still warm, I can do that round trip without charging with no problem. But in the later, colder season, running the heat drains the battery more and I have to charge on the way back. We'll also visit my wife's best friend in Seattle once or twice a year.
For daily driving...well...I work from home, so I could certainly get away with the 110 outlet. Though when I got my car, I had a commute 30 miles each way. I could have probably still gotten away with a 110, but I got a 220 anyways. I can completely charge overnight, and that's good enough.
But like...charging time for road trips is blown way out of proportion. I've driven from Portland to Santa Clara and back. I think people hit Google Maps, it tells them a drive is 10 hours, then they hit ABRP or their Tesla's nav, and it reports 12 hours, and they think "wtf driving an EV is adding 2 hours", but they ignore the fact that the Google Maps estimate doesn't include any stopping. No restrooms, food, or gas. I found that during the entire road trip, only ~20 minutes total was spent actually just standing around waiting for the car to charge.
I had a guy on a Tesla forum one time that told me that an EV would be totally impractical for him. His reason was because he'd need to stop for so long to charge on a little trip of ~500 miles (maybe a little less) and there might not be chargers.
It turned out, he that little trip was along major interstates in California to Disneyland. They were already stopping 3 times for at least 15 minutes each in their gas car.
He still didn't want a Tesla. That's fine, of course. Horses for courses. :)
I never did figure out why he was on a Tesla owner's forum.
Look at Tesla, EVGo, ChargeAmerica, or just check out abetterrouteplanner.com to get a more complete picture of the charging network.
Chargepoint was the first to get a large charging network, but that gives them the disadvantage that a lot of their chargers are using the very oldest tech.
Sure, but we don't have to look past them to get to 50% market share. The market can grow by 5x without moving past them.
The problem in the US is that you have to have really large market share to start convincing property owners that they should install chargers. Thankfully, we are seeing this, with widespread installations at hotels this year. I'm guessing apartments won't be too far behind that in metropolitan areas.
More than that. My brother has a bolt and is looking at a road trip next week - 3 hour+ charge cycles are required to make the trip. If it could be 3 20 minute charges he would be much happier. (6 10 minute charges would be better). Most of the time he is happy with that car - he rarely goes on trips so far that he needs to stop, and when he does he planned to take the ICE minivan, but this time his wife needs the minivan so he is stuck.
Yeah, I wouldn't really get one if I had to go >350 miles on anything but extraordinarily rare occasions. But I have owned cars that fit that usage model really well.
I used to have a "second" car that was used as a commuter. It would only very rarely go on trips, and even then only up to ~300 miles.
If it had been an EV, it would likely have been more like a primary car, but the gas car would have been the backup for long trips.
