• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV To Start At $37,495


    • How much will the upcoming Bolt set you back?


    When Chevrolet announced the 2017 Bolt's range last week, they hinted that the model would have a price tag of under $37,500 and would qualify for the maximum $7,500 tax credit. Today, Chevrolet announced the starting price for the Bolt will be $37,495 when it arrives at dealers later this year. The company is quick to point out that the price drops to $29,995 once you add in the $7,500 federal tax credit. But we need to stress that this tax credit cannot be used during the purchase of the Bolt, so you're still paying the $37,495.

    The base Bolt LT will come equipped with a regen-on-demand steering wheel paddle, 10.2-inch touchscreen, backup camera, and more. Premier models feature leather upholstery, heated front and rear seats, surround view camera, and the rear camera mirror. Chevrolet hasn't announced pricing for Premier at this time.

    Source: Chevrolet
    Press Release is on Page 2


    DETROIT – The Chevrolet Bolt EV set the range benchmark for an affordable EV capable of going the distance by offering an EPA-rated 238 miles on a full charge. Now, Chevrolet is keeping its promise to offer the Bolt EV at an affordable price by confirming a base Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price of $37,495 including destination charge. Depending on individual tax situations, customers may receive an available federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for a net value of $29,995.

    “Value is a hallmark for Chevrolet and the pricing of the Bolt EV proves we’re serious about delivering the first affordable EV with plenty of range for our customers,” said Alan Batey, president of GM North America and leader of Global Chevrolet. “We have kept our promise yet again, first on range and now on price.”

    Bolt EV buyers will find range, cargo space, technology and safety features standard in a great vehicle with crossover proportions. The thrill of driving an EV, along with the sales and service support of a nationwide network of Bolt EV certified Chevrolet dealers, makes the Bolt EV a smart buy for any customer.

    The well-equipped LT trim starts at $37,495 and comes with standard features that include, among others, Regen on Demand™ steering wheel paddle, rear vision camera, 10.2-inch diagonal color touch screen and MICHELIN™ Self-sealing tires (in certain circumstances). The top trim Premier includes all LT equipment plus additional standard features such as leather-appointed seats, front and rear heated seats, surround camera and rear camera mirror. Pricing includes destination and freight charges and excludes tax, title, license and dealer fees. The Bolt EV will be available at select dealerships in late 2016.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback




    Based on other packages on other Chevy auto's, makes one think that this will end up at about $3,000 more for the next level up.

    So were looking at about $40,495, unless Chevy wants to make sure to be able to advertise a fully loaded BOLT at under $40K, then I would say $39,995 makes sense for a fully loaded BOLT.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Biggest hurdle GM needs to overcome is not pricing but its backwards dealer network if it wants to sell these. Went into the local Chevy dealer to look at a new Volt, bought a truck there awhile back, good people.  Salesman said they "didn't bother to learn anything about it because people who wanted them had already done their own research."  He then suggested I would be happier with a Cruze or a Malibu.

    Friend of mine was dead set on buying a Volt, Chevrolet dealership was so backwards in selling the car he went out and bought a Prius instead.

    I love GM's new direction, but it needs to do some work with its dealers IMHO.

    That being said, the Bolt drive train in a small sedan would be a no brainier for me if they got the details right.  I am very excited about this new development from GM.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    13 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Base is an LT?  That means they really aren't selling "base" models of the Bolt yet, if ever.  Other Chevy cars come in L and LS trims below LT. 

    As I posted in the Mileage thread, they have the LT and Premier packages, so would this Premier package not be equal to the LTZ packages of other similar sized auto's?

    That is my thinking on why I figure the cost would be about $3K more or so. Bolt LT & Premier packaged auto's would be equal to similar equipped LT & LTZ auto's.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As models get refreshed, LTZ goes away and is replaced by Premier.   So for example, the 2016 Sonic has an LTZ trim, but the refreshed 2017 does not and has Premier instead. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    4 minutes ago, Frisky Dingo said:

    This will be a sales flop.

     A base $29k LEAF with a smaller battery and no quick charge only has a range of 84 miles. The Bolt can travel 2.8 times further on a single charge.

    The LEAF with the larger battery and quick charge (which still isn't Level 3 charging like the Bolt) is $35k. The Bolt can travel 2.2 times further on a single charge.

    For an EV buyer, spending an extra $2,500 to get more than double the range and the ability to have level three charging (plus all of the extras the Bolt gets you like CarPlay and AndroidAuto) is a no-brainer. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

     A base $29k LEAF with a smaller battery and no quick charge only has a range of 84 miles. The Bolt can travel 2.8 times further on a single charge.

    The LEAF with the larger battery and quick charge (which still isn't Level 3 charging like the Bolt) is $35k. The Bolt can travel 2.2 times further on a single charge.

    For an EV buyer, spending an extra $2,500 to get more than double the range and the ability to have level three charging (plus all of the extras the Bolt gets you like CarPlay and AndroidAuto) is a no-brainer. 

    Nissan also doesn't have a Volt for their Leaf has to contend with. Also, a large portion of Leaf buyers lease. I don't foresee GM having a 13K incentive on Bolt. In reality, the Leaf will be much, much cheaper to buy. I don't think many people are going to see enough merit in the extended range to buy a car that is so at odds with the packaging and look most consumers at large are attracted to. Nothing against the car, just what I anticipate.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    EV buyers and hybrid buyers, for the moment, are a different breed of car buyer.   To you and I, the Bolt may not look very attractive (though I think it's probably the best looking of models that aren't Tesla)..  But when you look at cars like the Pruis, which not only looks terrible, but also has a terrible quality interior, and drives like utter crap.... EV and Hybrid buyers obviously don't care about these traits. They care about not using gasoline.  

    GM is the first to offer an EV that truly can be a family's primary car if needed, and at a relatively affordable price.  That's a pretty big deal. 

    4

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Tesla getting over 400K reservations in such a short period of time has gotten everyone’s attention.  But what pushed that number more, the brand label or the range?  Obviously a little of both, but I think label has more to do with it.  People don’t care if an Apple product is the fastest or has the best battery.  They simply want the label and they don’t want to read research all the particulars.  They can also brag to all their friends after making the purchase.  Same with Tesla.  Go count how many Tesla S owners currently also drive large gas sucking vehicles, or jet set around the world.  The Tesla allows them to cast an image, however false it is.  And while the Bolt appears to be an excellent product, it is lacking the brand label.  But maybe people do cling to the range number and will use that as justification for their purchase.  These are much different times, and who knows which direction the consumer will go.  In fact, not knowing is what Ford bases their electrification strategy on….letting the customer decide for them.  Their strategy is to offer gas or EV or PHEV or Hybrid, all in the same vehicle.  The business case they make is obviously lower costs. They are also dead serious about it, investing $4.5B and introducing 13 additional electrification vehicles to market by 2020. Ford also stated that they would match any range of vehicle sold, which is little more than battery sizing.  And it’s not that they could not have made a battery fit their Focus EV to raise it from 117 mile range, but it is at the end of it’s life cycle.  And there is a compelling option to undercut the Bolt price significantly, perhaps under $30K.  And while that might not be enough to steal a lot of market share, it is cheap to do with great ROI.

     

    There is no doubt we are living in a bold new automotive world.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Watching to see how many BOLTS sell in the first 30-90 days and how it affects the Leaf, Focus EV, etc. will tend to tell how the market accepts these auto's. 

    I wonder how the Ioniq will do as their battery pack is half of the bolt. I just do not see anyone wanting to spend 30K on a 100 mile EV when you can get 238 miles in a 30K CUV.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 minute ago, Wings4Life said:

     

     

    Tesla getting over 400K reservations in such a short period of time has gotten everyone’s attention.  But what pushed that number more, the brand label or the range?  Obviously a little of both, but I think label has more to do with it.  People don’t care if an Apple product is the fastest or has the best battery.  They simply want the label and they don’t want to read research all the particulars.  They can also brag to all their friends after making the purchase.  Same with Tesla.  Go count how many Tesla S owners currently also drive large gas sucking vehicles, or jet set around the world.  The Tesla allows them to cast an image, however false it is.  And while the Bolt appears to be an excellent product, it is lacking the brand label.  But maybe people do cling to the range number and will use that as justification for their purchase.  These are much different times, and who knows which direction the consumer will go.  In fact, not knowing is what Ford bases their electrification strategy on….letting the customer decide for them.  Their strategy is to offer gas or EV or PHEV or Hybrid, all in the same vehicle.  The business case they make is obviously lower costs. They are also dead serious about it, investing $4.5B and introducing 13 additional electrification vehicles to market by 2020. Ford also stated that they would match any range of vehicle sold, which is little more than battery sizing.  And it’s not that they could not have made a battery fit their Focus EV to raise it from 117 mile range, but it is at the end of it’s life cycle.  And there is a compelling option to undercut the Bolt price significantly, perhaps under $30K.  And while that might not be enough to steal a lot of market share, it is cheap to do with great ROI.

     

     

     

    There is no doubt we are living in a bold new automotive world.

     

    One of the things I keep reading is that it is easier and cheaper to engineer a car to be an EV from the start rather than try to convert an existing gas-powered platform to EV.  I don't know how true it is, but it seems to make sense.  In the Bolt and the Teslas, the battery helps to provide torsional rigidity.  On a Focus EV or Spark EV, the battery doesn't really contribute to the rigidity, thus the overall weight of the car is higher than it could be.  Also on the Bolt and Telsa, the wheels can moved forward... on an EV built off a gasoline based platform, engineers have to make things fit hardpoints that aren't as ideal for an EV.   Even the Nissan LEAF is an extremely modified variant of the older Versa platform and as such has all the baggage related to that.  A more recent example of this limitation is the Hyundai Ioniq, which was purpose built to be both a hybrid and EV.... in EV form, it too only has 110 miles of range like the Focus EV. 

    So, while yes companies can convert a gas-powered platform to EV, a purpose built EV will nearly always be better.  

    2 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Watching to see how many BOLTS sell in the first 30-90 days and how it affects the Leaf, Focus EV, etc. will tend to tell how the market accepts these auto's. 

    I wonder how the Ioniq will do as their battery pack is half of the bolt. I just do not see anyone wanting to spend 30K on a 100 mile EV when you can get 238 miles in a 30K CUV.

    I won't be looking at initial sales volumes as GM has already said they will be doing a slow roll-out of the car.  What I'm interested in is how long those cars sit on the lots or if they are sold before the truck even brings them in. 

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    4 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    EV buyers and hybrid buyers, for the moment, are a different breed of car buyer.   To you and I, the Bolt may not look very attractive (though I think it's probably the best looking of models that aren't Tesla)..  But when you look at cars like the Pruis, which not only looks terrible, but also has a terrible quality interior, and drives like utter crap.... EV and Hybrid buyers obviously don't care about these traits. They care about not using gasoline.  

    GM is the first to offer an EV that truly can be a family's primary car if needed, and at a relatively affordable price.  That's a pretty big deal. 

    Although the current Generation Prius is a gigantic leap forward in the styling and interior department.  Also, drives much better than previous generations.  Still...GM needs to work harder to market the Volt and the Bolt, methinks.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    1 minute ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    Although the current Generation Prius is a gigantic leap forward in the styling and interior department.  Also, drives much better than previous generations.  Still...GM needs to work harder to market the Volt and the Bolt, methinks.

    Different strokes... I think the newest Prius is the ugliest in a long line of ugly. 

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    7 minutes ago, dfelt said:

    Watching to see how many BOLTS sell in the first 30-90 days and how it affects the Leaf, Focus EV, etc. will tend to tell how the market accepts these auto's. 

    I wonder how the Ioniq will do as their battery pack is half of the bolt. I just do not see anyone wanting to spend 30K on a 100 mile EV when you can get 238 miles in a 30K CUV.

    Pretty much this....the Bolt is an order of magnitude better than the Leaf, which has horrible crash test ratings, a short range, battery issues, and looks like a vacuum cleaner on wheels.

     

    Domestics are very good at taking an idea put forth by imports and taking it forward for the win.  Remember the Genesis 4 cyl Turbo coupe and how it was going to be the car of the century according to all of the automotive writers? In the mean time, Mustang has the ecoboost and Camaro has a Turbo 4.  Meanwhile, the Genesis coupe is DOA.

    1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Different strokes... I think the newest Prius is the ugliest in a long line of ugly. 

    I actually kind of like it.  as one of my friends put it....something like a bunch of 1960's Citroen designers woudl do given LSD and a room full of Pokemon....in a good sort of way.

    9 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    One of the things I keep reading is that it is easier and cheaper to engineer a car to be an EV from the start rather than try to convert an existing gas-powered platform to EV.  I don't know how true it is, but it seems to make sense.  In the Bolt and the Teslas, the battery helps to provide torsional rigidity.  On a Focus EV or Spark EV, the battery doesn't really contribute to the rigidity, thus the overall weight of the car is higher than it could be.  Also on the Bolt and Telsa, the wheels can moved forward... on an EV built off a gasoline based platform, engineers have to make things fit hardpoints that aren't as ideal for an EV.   Even the Nissan LEAF is an extremely modified variant of the older Versa platform and as such has all the baggage related to that.  A more recent example of this limitation is the Hyundai Ioniq, which was purpose built to be both a hybrid and EV.... in EV form, it too only has 110 miles of range like the Focus EV. 

    So, while yes companies can convert a gas-powered platform to EV, a purpose built EV will nearly always be better.  

    I won't be looking at initial sales volumes as GM has already said they will be doing a slow roll-out of the car.  What I'm interested in is how long those cars sit on the lots or if they are sold before the truck even brings them in. 

    One can hope they sell.  I think given proper marketing, that can happen.  I also think being two or three years old with few issues will help their cause.  The VW scandal has left a lot of "green car" buyers high and dry, this car is coming out at a good time....

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    20 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    I actually kind of like it.  as one of my friends put it....something like a bunch of 1960's Citroen designers woudl do given LSD and a room full of Pokemon....in a good sort of way.

    That is at once the most accurate and horrifying description of the car I have heard to date. I may be stealing it if/when I review one.

    2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Drew,

    If one were to just compare engineering and manufacturing costs for a Focus BEV to a Bolt, there would surely be a minor cost delta.  Focus platform costs however are spread out huge, where GM would have to carry and engineer and build an exclusive small car to fill the gas customer. So it’s the total costs that have to be tallied, obviously.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

    That is at once the accurate and horrifying description of the car I have heard to date. I may be stealing it if/when I review one.

    You are more than welcome to do so. I did get 76 MPG tooling around Columbus for an evening in said friends Prius. Fuelly has them at about a 55 MPG average, vs about 44-48 for the previous car.

    Still I am thinking of something performance oriented when I turn in the Jetta TDI. BRZ/FRS or the like.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think there are a lot assumptions about buyers of both the Bolt and Tesla. That is the biggest hinderance as to understanding why or why not said car succeeds. If someone owns an expensive CUV/SUV and a Tesla, that doesn't mean anything other than the fact that one is for highway traveling while the other is perfectly suited to city and short range highway drives. Unless someone here has actually talked to these particular Tesla owners, it's pretty silly to assume anything else than what it's intended purpose is. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    13 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

     

     

    Drew,

     

    If one were to just compare engineering and manufacturing costs for a Focus BEV to a Bolt, there would surely be a minor cost delta.  Focus platform costs however are spread out huge, where GM would have to carry and engineer and build an exclusive small car to fill the gas customer. So it’s the total costs that have to be tallied, obviously.

     

    Oh, I'm sure that the Focus EV cost less to develop than the Bolt... and its costs are spread over a broader sales base as well.

    However, I don't think Ford would have been able to produce a car with the room and range the Bolt has by using a gasoline powered platform. One only has to look at where the battery is mounted in the Focus EV for that.  It partially is in the trunk area and adds nothing to the platform strength, so that adds weight.   Because the battery can't be mounted under the Focus, in order to get a 238 mile range, Ford would have needed to stuff the doors and seats with batteries.... and then it becomes a race with weight... trying to get enough batteries in there to increase range while fighting against weight creep due to the increased number of batteries. 

    The Bolt is a lot more spacious inside than other cars with that exterior size.

     

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    4 minutes ago, Wings4Life said:

     

     

    Drew,

     

    If one were to just compare engineering and manufacturing costs for a Focus BEV to a Bolt, there would surely be a minor cost delta.  Focus platform costs however are spread out huge, where GM would have to carry and engineer and build an exclusive small car to fill the gas customer. So it’s the total costs that have to be tallied, obviously.

     

    The value is in having an established EV market and proven technology as a move to alternate proportion systems foes forward. Even though PC type computers are easy to use, something Apple established when they first came out....Apple still has a huge fanatical following.  IF GM plays this right....IF....they will have a huge loyal following for electrics.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    53 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Oh, I'm sure that the Focus EV cost less to develop than the Bolt... and its costs are spread over a broader sales base as well.

    However, I don't think Ford would have been able to produce a car with the room and range the Bolt has by using a gasoline powered platform. One only has to look at where the battery is mounted in the Focus EV for that.  It partially is in the trunk area and adds nothing to the platform strength, so that adds weight.   Because the battery can't be mounted under the Focus, in order to get a 238 mile range, Ford would have needed to stuff the doors and seats with batteries.... and then it becomes a race with weight... trying to get enough batteries in there to increase range while fighting against weight creep due to the increased number of batteries. 

    The Bolt is a lot more spacious inside than other cars with that exterior size.

     

    Space and packaging is an entirely different subject, and yes, it certainly favors the Bolt.

    55 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    The value is in having an established EV market and proven technology as a move to alternate proportion systems foes forward. Even though PC type computers are easy to use, something Apple established when they first came out....Apple still has a huge fanatical following.  IF GM plays this right....IF....they will have a huge loyal following for electrics.

    It's a bigger risk for GM for sure, but Ford must feel that at this time, the added reward is not worth the risk.  It's not like they have not done pretty well with electrification to this point, for years being second to only Toyota.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Space and packaging are key to the rest of the vehicle's abilities.  In the Bolt, they moved the front wheels further forward than would normally be possible on a front wheel drive car.  By packaging a flat battery carried under the car instead of in the trunk and former gas tank location, that certainly opens up more space.  By doing this, GM was able to make the Bolt larger inside than would normally be possible with a gas powered car.  That cuts down on weight and increases range.

    I think where we are getting off track is this;  I am saying that it is easier to make a purpose built EV of this size interior go 238 miles on a charge than it is to convert an existing gasoline platform.... if it's possible at all to do at all.  There have been a number of tries, and as of yet, not one has broken 110 mile EPA range. (Spark EV, Focus EV, Fiat 500e, Kia Soul EV, Hyundai Ioniq, Mercedes B-Class ED, Nissan LEAF, Smart ED, VW E-Golf).   The only vehicles to break the 110 mile EPA range are purpose built EVs like the Bolt and Teslas.  (it would be best for all involved, including Mitsubishi, if we just ignore Mitsubishi for now).

    Could Ford or any of these manufacturers build a version of a gas car that goes 238 miles?  Probably, but it would also mean converting a sedan into a 2-seater and filling the second row with batteries.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 94commo
      94commo
      (50 years old)
    2. Aerodynamic
      Aerodynamic
      (30 years old)
    3. LPE427Fbird
      LPE427Fbird
      (42 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      2017 GMC Acadia - Denali or All-Terrain, what would you choose?
      As I have spent time with my son looking at various CUV models, I cam across the new Acadia and learned they had a monochromatic version that I think is very sharp looking. GMC has built a very nice profitable line by offering Denali on every model they make. Yet not everyone likes Chrome all over. So this brings up the desire to see what people think. I configured up two near identical CUVs with the only difference being the All-Terrain package on an SLT2 equipped Acadia and the Denali package on an SLT2 equipped Acadia.
      What are your thoughts?
      Review the two listing autos below and sound off on what you think of monochromatic off road or chromed on road CUV!
      2017 GMC Acadia Denali



      2017 GMC Acadia All-Terrain



    • By William Maley
      When I last reviewed the Acura MDX back in 2014, I mentioned that it and the RDX crossover made up a majority of the brand’s sales. That’s still true in 2017 as both models currently make up 63.8 percent of Acura’s sales through the end of March. In closing my review, I said Acura focused on fixing the issues that hurt the MDX before and left other things well alone, creating a balanced luxury crossover. But does that still hold up in a field that has become very competitive in the past couple of years? It seemed a revisit was in order.
      Acura did a significant refresh for the 2017 MDX with the biggest change being the design. Up front, Acura has swapped the shield grille for a larger pentagonal grille from the 2016 Precision Concept. While the shield was considered by many to a bit polarizing and a turn-off, I find the new grille to be a bit cartoonish. It doesn’t really work with the rest of the MDX’s design. At least certain traits such as the ‘Jewel Eye’ headlights and sloping roofline are still here and still work. The interior hasn’t changed much since our last test and that’s both a good and bad thing. The good is the MDX’s material quality is towards the top of the class with a fair amount of leather and wood trim used throughout. Although considering the price tag of just over $59,000, it would have been nice if Acura added some more luxury touches. Those sitting up front or in the second-row will find plenty of room and a set of supportive seats. The MDX is one of the few models in the class that offers a third-row as standard, but it is best reserved for small kids or being folded into the floor to increase cargo space. The bad mostly deals with the AcuraLink infotainment system. This dual screen setup brings more headaches than any other system I have used. A perfect example is when you want to switch from music to a podcast on your USB device. You need to use the top screen and a control knob to go through the various menus to find the show you want to listen to. Not only is this pain, but it also creates a distraction when driving as your eyes are taken off from the road. I wish Acura would scrap this system and start back from square one. Power still comes from a 3.5L V6 offering 290 horsepower and 267 pound-feet of torque. A nine-speed automatic routes power to either the front-wheels or all four-wheels via Acura’s super-handling all-wheel drive (SH-AWD). Advanced models like ours come standard with a stop-start system.  The V6 in the MDX is such an impressive motor. Power delivery is quite strong throughout the rev band and the engine doesn’t make much noise during acceleration. However, the stop-start is a bit of a mess. It takes a few seconds for the system to realize that you took your foot off the brake before it restarts the engine. The system can be turned off which we recommend doing. The nine-speed automatic needs a bit work as well as we found shifts to be somewhat clunky at low speeds. Also, the transmission is slow to downshift when you need to make a pass. At least paddle shifters mounted on the steering wheel solves this issue somewhat as you can do it yourself. EPA fuel economy figures stand at 19 City/26 Highway/22 Combined when the MDX is equipped with SH-AWD. I got none too shabby 23 MPG average for the week. One area we’re glad to see Acura not messing with the MDX refresh is the suspension tuning. The MDX has stuck the right balance of comfort and handling. Some of this is credited to the Integrated Dynamics System (IDS) that alters various settings for the suspension, steering, and a few other items. This means the MDX can be tailored to deliver a sporty ride when driving down a curvy road and ironing out road imperfections when commuting. There is one big issue for the MDX, price. Our MDX Advance & Entertainment tester came with an as-tested price of $59,475 with destination. Considering what you get for the price and compare against other models, the MDX is a bit of a poor value. Stick with one of the lower trims. The Acura MDX stands in a bit of an odd middle ground, where it is above the mainstream, but below luxury competitors. It remains a very competent crossover that seems to do most things right. But we can’t help but wonder if Acura was given a bit more time to mess with the stop-start system and automatic transmission, along with making it slightly more luxurious, it could take it a bit further from the middle ground the MDX currently sits in. Disclaimer: Acura Provided the MDX, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2017
      Make: Acura
      Model: MDX
      Trim: Advanced Entertainment SH-AWD
      Engine: 3.5L 24-Valve SOHC i-VTEC V6
      Driveline: Nine-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 290 @ 6,200
      Torque @ RPM: 267 @ 4,700
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 19/26/22
      Curb Weight: 4,292 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Lincoln, AL
      Base Price: $58,500
      As Tested Price: $59,475 (Includes $975.00 Destination Charge)
      Options: N/A

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When I last reviewed the Acura MDX back in 2014, I mentioned that it and the RDX crossover made up a majority of the brand’s sales. That’s still true in 2017 as both models currently make up 63.8 percent of Acura’s sales through the end of March. In closing my review, I said Acura focused on fixing the issues that hurt the MDX before and left other things well alone, creating a balanced luxury crossover. But does that still hold up in a field that has become very competitive in the past couple of years? It seemed a revisit was in order.
      Acura did a significant refresh for the 2017 MDX with the biggest change being the design. Up front, Acura has swapped the shield grille for a larger pentagonal grille from the 2016 Precision Concept. While the shield was considered by many to a bit polarizing and a turn-off, I find the new grille to be a bit cartoonish. It doesn’t really work with the rest of the MDX’s design. At least certain traits such as the ‘Jewel Eye’ headlights and sloping roofline are still here and still work. The interior hasn’t changed much since our last test and that’s both a good and bad thing. The good is the MDX’s material quality is towards the top of the class with a fair amount of leather and wood trim used throughout. Although considering the price tag of just over $59,000, it would have been nice if Acura added some more luxury touches. Those sitting up front or in the second-row will find plenty of room and a set of supportive seats. The MDX is one of the few models in the class that offers a third-row as standard, but it is best reserved for small kids or being folded into the floor to increase cargo space. The bad mostly deals with the AcuraLink infotainment system. This dual screen setup brings more headaches than any other system I have used. A perfect example is when you want to switch from music to a podcast on your USB device. You need to use the top screen and a control knob to go through the various menus to find the show you want to listen to. Not only is this pain, but it also creates a distraction when driving as your eyes are taken off from the road. I wish Acura would scrap this system and start back from square one. Power still comes from a 3.5L V6 offering 290 horsepower and 267 pound-feet of torque. A nine-speed automatic routes power to either the front-wheels or all four-wheels via Acura’s super-handling all-wheel drive (SH-AWD). Advanced models like ours come standard with a stop-start system.  The V6 in the MDX is such an impressive motor. Power delivery is quite strong throughout the rev band and the engine doesn’t make much noise during acceleration. However, the stop-start is a bit of a mess. It takes a few seconds for the system to realize that you took your foot off the brake before it restarts the engine. The system can be turned off which we recommend doing. The nine-speed automatic needs a bit work as well as we found shifts to be somewhat clunky at low speeds. Also, the transmission is slow to downshift when you need to make a pass. At least paddle shifters mounted on the steering wheel solves this issue somewhat as you can do it yourself. EPA fuel economy figures stand at 19 City/26 Highway/22 Combined when the MDX is equipped with SH-AWD. I got none too shabby 23 MPG average for the week. One area we’re glad to see Acura not messing with the MDX refresh is the suspension tuning. The MDX has stuck the right balance of comfort and handling. Some of this is credited to the Integrated Dynamics System (IDS) that alters various settings for the suspension, steering, and a few other items. This means the MDX can be tailored to deliver a sporty ride when driving down a curvy road and ironing out road imperfections when commuting. There is one big issue for the MDX, price. Our MDX Advance & Entertainment tester came with an as-tested price of $59,475 with destination. Considering what you get for the price and compare against other models, the MDX is a bit of a poor value. Stick with one of the lower trims. The Acura MDX stands in a bit of an odd middle ground, where it is above the mainstream, but below luxury competitors. It remains a very competent crossover that seems to do most things right. But we can’t help but wonder if Acura was given a bit more time to mess with the stop-start system and automatic transmission, along with making it slightly more luxurious, it could take it a bit further from the middle ground the MDX currently sits in. Disclaimer: Acura Provided the MDX, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2017
      Make: Acura
      Model: MDX
      Trim: Advanced Entertainment SH-AWD
      Engine: 3.5L 24-Valve SOHC i-VTEC V6
      Driveline: Nine-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 290 @ 6,200
      Torque @ RPM: 267 @ 4,700
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 19/26/22
      Curb Weight: 4,292 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Lincoln, AL
      Base Price: $58,500
      As Tested Price: $59,475 (Includes $975.00 Destination Charge)
      Options: N/A
    • By William Maley
      The rivalry of the Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang has been going for ages in the U.S. But now this fight has expanded into China.
      Automotive News reports that a growing group of Chinese buyers are being drawn towards to these models as the exude the no-apologies Americana attitude.
      "We're seeing the beginning of a muscle car culture here. Something that is uniquely American appeals to the Chinese consumer. The image that it relays to the automotive public is very positive," said James Chao, a China market auto analyst with IHS Markit.
      Sales of both models are small with Chevrolet only moving 2,000 Camaros since its launch 2011. Ford is doing slightly better with 6,200 Mustangs sold since its launch in 2015. In the first quarter, Mustang sales saw a 90 percent increase to 963 vehicles. Part of the reason for the slow sales comes down to the price. The Camaro starts about 399,900 yuan (about $58,000) - more than double of the base price of $26,900 in the U.S. The Mustang isn't that far behind, costing about $15 dollars less. Prices are increased due to a 25 percent import tariff on U.S. made vehicles, homologation and shipping fees, and Chinese buyers trending to splurge on higher-time models.
      But despite the low sales, the Camaro and Mustang are bringing buyers to dealers. These models act as eye candy to help draw shoppers into showrooms with the hope they'll purchase a vehicle, where it be the eye candy or something a little less exciting.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The rivalry of the Chevrolet Camaro and Ford Mustang has been going for ages in the U.S. But now this fight has expanded into China.
      Automotive News reports that a growing group of Chinese buyers are being drawn towards to these models as the exude the no-apologies Americana attitude.
      "We're seeing the beginning of a muscle car culture here. Something that is uniquely American appeals to the Chinese consumer. The image that it relays to the automotive public is very positive," said James Chao, a China market auto analyst with IHS Markit.
      Sales of both models are small with Chevrolet only moving 2,000 Camaros since its launch 2011. Ford is doing slightly better with 6,200 Mustangs sold since its launch in 2015. In the first quarter, Mustang sales saw a 90 percent increase to 963 vehicles. Part of the reason for the slow sales comes down to the price. The Camaro starts about 399,900 yuan (about $58,000) - more than double of the base price of $26,900 in the U.S. The Mustang isn't that far behind, costing about $15 dollars less. Prices are increased due to a 25 percent import tariff on U.S. made vehicles, homologation and shipping fees, and Chinese buyers trending to splurge on higher-time models.
      But despite the low sales, the Camaro and Mustang are bringing buyers to dealers. These models act as eye candy to help draw shoppers into showrooms with the hope they'll purchase a vehicle, where it be the eye candy or something a little less exciting.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)