PurdueGuy

The biggest telling clue is that when we do a thought experiment where every car and truck available was already fully electric anyways and the Bolt and Tesla were just among two of the new models, would they still be comparable?

 

Absolutely not. 

You would be correct if this were the case. It isn't, and you aren't - the Bolt and base Model 3 DO compete with each other.  Want some proof? I'm seriously considering an all-electric car for my wife's commuter vehicle in a few years, and I'm comparing the Bolt to the base Model 3.  They are competing with each other for my money.  If there were dozens and dozens of options, that would be a different market.  And I fully acknowledge that for some buyers, it's no competition. Whether it's styling, or some specific feature, or RWD vs FWD, or perceived quality, or whatever the reason, for some people one or the other vehicle isn't even a consideration, and they're not competing for that buyer's money.  But for some people, they are competing, and your feelings on it doesn't make that any less true.  

I would agree that there's essentially no competition between the Bolt and a mid-range or loaded Model 3.

Frankly, I'd take this over some of the other designs that try too hard to be sporty. I think it's a classy look that will age well.  It's not my favorite style, but I wouldn't be ashamed to drive it at all.

I think it's a mistake to only call it the "86" and not "GT86". "86" is too easily mistaken for a model year, and the "GT" sound sporty.

I guess I'm not crazy about the styling. It's not offensive, but the proportions feel odd. Tall flat front & rear. Roof slope looks like it may intrude into rear seat passenger head room. Overall, need to see in person to judge better, and reviews will tell if the headroom thing is an issue.

I like the styling too. Looks great. 

300lbs lighter... so about 3,100-3,200 lbs? That's fairly impressive.

I believe my wife has been getting around 35mpg. That's mostly doing 80mph on the interstate at high elevation (~4k ft). Wife commutes 25-30 miles each way daily in it, and only about 3 miles each way isn't interstate, and that's still mostly country road doing 45-55.

Picked the car up about 2 months ago. 2013 with just under 34K miles for $11,345. Zero problems so far, and I was happy with how easy the oil change was on it.  My only complaint is low end power, especially with the AC on. Once you learn to goose it a bit to overcome that, it's not a big deal, but it's easy to nearly stall it from a stop with the AC on if you're not in the right mindset.

My wife drove one of these (not the SR, but a regular base Versa Note with the CVT) when we were shopping for her new-to-her car. She liked it a fair amount, but the drivetrain was where it kind of fell on its face. We would've been looking at a manual trans version if we'd been impressed enough to consider one, and that probably would've helped, but it just could really use a bit more power. It's a good value car, but we ended up with a Chevy Sonic that beats it in comfort & refinement, and with the 1.4T + 6sp manual, beats it handily in giddyup and being fun to drive.  We liked the Versa Note, but we couldn't quite love it.

Part of the fun of the Juke is how much it confuses people. It's different and fun. The back seat isn't terribly usable, so it's not really for families. It's not a hypermile car. It's quirky and fun. The regular Juke is reasonable on gas. It's a great single person runabout, for the single person who wants something different.

Not a fan of the Bolt name. How about instead of Ampera, just Chevy Amp? Or you could really target the competition & call it the Chevy Nikola, but everyone would misspell it. lol

Was this worth bringing back a thread from 2010?

Asking a price for a car does not make it worth that amount.

GM, put a manual trans in it!

My parents have one of these, though I forget the exact year. An excellent value car for someone who doesn't care about "wow factor". Comfortable, smooth, reliable, and good features for money. An excellent appliance car.

Traction much?

Sounds Good as this would be a more real world usable car. Question I have is how much faster will the roads wear down and get nasty due to the increase in weight?

Everything I read is that truck drivers should pay more since their trucks weight causes them to break down faster.

The millions of 3 ton light duty pickups on the roads have done far more road damage than a few electric cars will, I think...

And the Leaf only weighs a bit over 3,300 lbs. Granted, that's 400-500 lbs more than a similar size traditionally fueled economy car, but it's lighter than a lot of other cars, and much lighter than pickups, etc. There are a number of things against electric cars, I don't see weight as being high on the list.

Been quite a while since I posted this, and I see all my images are broken. But I guess an update is in order:

Still own the truck. From what I can recall, I've replaced the water pump, the trans fluid & filter, changed the oil several times, new plugs & wires, air filter, and the tires. I also had a shop hunt down an issue that caused the air conditioning to stop working. (It of course decided to stop working on a trip to Vegas on a 118 degree July 4 weekend a few years ago). They replaced the spiderweb of AC hoses under the hood, as they supposedly detected a leak in a bit that couldn't be replaced by itself. The real issue ended up being a pressure switch.

It's been a super useful, comfortable truck. We used it last summer to haul a friend's raft to go whitewater rafting, and they were so impressed that they're looking for a good cheap used suburban now too. Trouble is, they can't find a deal as good as we got 6 years ago! Suburbans seem to be holding their value very well, or at least the value has a fairly high bottomed out value.

Radar detectors are not illegal devices and they do not cause anyone to speed. Only VA & DC outlaw them entirely. It's no different than selling a 638 HP car that goes 205 MPH in a land where the max in most places is 65.

I'm sorry, but it's completely different. That 638 HP car can be driven within the speed limits. A car with an integrated radar detector can't be legally driven in VA or DC. Not gonna happen.

I really like the tint idea, but it would require clever programming to ensure it too wouldn't fall into the legal snafu category. There may come a time when the tint levels could be adjusted by sensed location and a database of legal limits, but I imagine early iterations would have to do something like not tint below the highest percentage that's legal in the country, except perhaps when in park, and then be able to black out the windows. Rear windows often can be tinted lower, so that may be allowed, though that would mean additional controls & programming.

You know in the first Iron Man movie, when he makes the first suit out of scrap bits? This looks like that kind of idea, only with Batman & the Batmobile... but I can't decide if it's in a good way or a bad way...

An excellent engine for the trucks. For comparison, my dad had a 1992 Sierra base with the old 4.3L V6, and from what I can find it was rated for 160hp & 235 lb ft. It wasn't fast, and probably wouldn't have been any good for any real towing, but my dad would regularly get over 20mpg highway, and haul a truck bed FULL of livestock feed sacks. He got 340,000 miles out of it before it gave him enough issues to move on. If this new engine can get some good fuel economy and prove reliable, it'll make for some great base trucks.

This is mostly a good thing, and something GM should do more of. They do need to have a SMALL buffer of vehicles in place since folks are used to being able to get vehicles quickly, but this may be handled by the dealer network ordering some stock. That's much better than GM building them & incentivising or pushing them to dealers. One huge positive of this is that it puts pressure on GM to be more efficient and nimble, which should help with quality and profits.

I'm trying to decide if that was just mostly, or completely rendered footage. Not sure there was a single real-life photo or video shot in there.

Anyway, it is a beautiful car, and a great progression of the model.

Three "cons" for the Avalanche that I can think of off the top of my head:

1. It's a Chevy (I am a huge GMC enthusiast, and while it may seem odd I would regret not owning a GMC-branded vehicle)

2. Too monochromatic... I like chrome bumpers (trucky) and some separation of color (one of the issues I have with my Envoy - it's too white!)

3. While being a crew cab, it is more SUV than Pickup (not sure this is a strong objection though)

The plan for next year is to order the exact Sierra I've always wanted and keep it for the long haul (right now I'm going on almost 38 months with the CPO'ed '06 Envoy, which outside of my wife's '08 G6 is the longest I've owned a vehicle since I started leasing in May of 1999). This means at least 8 years with my next purchase.

However, I was thinking yesterday that I would at least consider a lease on the Avalanche. This way if I truly pine for a GMC Sierra after they hit the roads in the next couple of months, I know that in 36/39 months I can then consider purchasing one then (2016/2017). Maybe by that time a MCE will be released or a new model. I'm still mulling this over right now.

That was another thought I had - waiting for the 2nd model year. Not sure how much they're changing on the next Sierra, but if it's a lot, it may be good to wait for the 2nd model year if you plan to have it longer term.

Sounds like a neat and rare vehicle.

Both seem like excellent trucks. How long do you plan to have whichever one you buy? If you get the Chevy, are you going to be longing for the GMC once it's out? I personally love the look of the Avalanche (and that blue is fantastic), and it seems like with the midgate down you would technically have more cargo space with it, but if you're just going to be looking at every next gen GMC that drives by wishing you had that instead, you might as well wait. But if you switch vehicles every 2-3 years anyway, it won't be that long of a wait until you can have the GMC if you are longing for it.

I might pay some attention to the SX4 when the time comes. I can believe it does better than the EPA rating, but it would have to do very well to compete with the Sonic & Cruze Eco. And warranty is not my concern, as my ownership will far exceed any warranty. My wife's SC1 has about 150k miles on it and I'm looking to wait another 1-2 years to replace it, with a 50 mile daily commute. So the issue is long-term parts availability, and since the SX4 didn't sell in huge numbers, I question how well the aftermarket companies will pick up on parts supply, and I don't know that I can expect OEM parts availability to be good either.

Saab is the same story, except add on the issue of expensive parts anyway. I've had friends with Saabs, and they've loved them right up until they've had to repair them.

The S-Series has been different. In spite of Saturn being axed, GM is still very much around, and since they were selling 250-350k a year for 11 years (many of the parts are the same across all the years), parts availability has been no problem at all, whether OEM, aftermarket, or used.