2018 Bolt Availability and Realistic Options/Changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeremyK
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 41
  • Views Views 18K
JeremyK

JeremyK

New Member
I'm ready to pull the trigger on a Bolt but the logical side of me wants to hold out to see what changes might be in-store for the 2018 model. The even more logical side of me says that I should just keep driving my 2011 for another 12-24 months...but I digress.

My guess is that there will be more color options and and the trim levels might be broken into three options instead of just LT and Premier. Beyond that, I don't see many changes. I don't even know if they would have had time to adjust the "seat issue" that many people talk about.

Latest buzz is that 2018 won't be available until mid-Dec.

Not looking for wish-list ideas for future Bolts (i.e AWD, Homelink, etc). Just realistic speculation or hard facts on changes for 2018.
 
Other than maybe other color options, I don't see any changes for 2018. Optimistically, I would like to see adaptive cruise control and updated front seats. That would satisfy the majority of complaints.
 
Good point. Adaptive cruise was one of the things I was going to list. I suspect that WILL be an option for 2018, just to stay competitive with Nissan and Tesla's offerings. I think some of the other safety options will become standard or optional on the base trim.
 
I certainly hope they change the front seats for the 2018 model. I find it surprising that GM would drop the ball so badly on something fairly basic. I also think it's questionable they didn't make the DCFC charge option standard equipment, but I've seen reports that most Bolt EVs are made with that installed, so perhaps it's not that much of an issue.
 
They might have software update. Maybe heat pump and adaptive cruise in 2019? Unlikely for 2018...

I would definitly assume 2017 is good enough, unless you are ready to wait 24 months, and in that case, you might be looking at another EV make and model
 
Light dash can cause glare both day and night so they may axe that option...I could see making DCFC standard, but think it would be a mistake to increase the MSRP...Beyond new color options or wheels, no major updates...Could it be the ZEV/CARB credits?
 
JeremyK said:
Not looking for wish-list ideas for future Bolts (i.e AWD, Homelink, etc).
Click to expand...

No option for Homelink on the Bolt!?! I am dumbfounded both that it wasn’t included (Volt does right?) but that I also didn’t know that.

Is there any other GM vehicle sold in the US without Homelink option?
 
Josh Bryant said:
No option for Homelink on the Bolt!?! I am dumbfounded both that it wasn’t included (Volt does right?) but that I also didn’t know that.

Is there any other GM vehicle sold in the US without Homelink option?
Click to expand...

GM doesn't license "homelink" anymore, what is now offered is "Universal Home Remote" and is now seemingly always located in a overhead console instead of mirror...Perhaps that's because homelink has some sort of patent or it has something to do with the OnStar mirror; if anyone knows please post...GM has four brands, with Caddy it appears to be 100% standard on all model including base trims (pure base ATS offers it standard)...Buick offers it on the higher trims for all models except for their convertible, the Cascada...GMC the same as Buick, offered on higher trims for all vehicles except the Canyon...The Canyon's twin the Colorado, also doesn't offer it, yet the surprising thing is that the premium trim "Denali" doesn't offer it...Chevy omits it from all of their smaller vehicles for some reason, Spark/Sonic/Cruze/Volt/Bolt/Colorado...

It really is a glaring omission especially when they're offering "teen driver technology", carplay, wifi, etc...
 
I think ACC or Supercruise is a likely upcoming option. Either on the 2018 or 2019 model. Rumors are that the 2018 model year will be a short MY similar to the 2016 Volt. The 2016 Volt had no Adaptive Cruise... but the 2017 did.

If there were no interesting updates coming, why would they wait this long to announce the model year? My guess is they have a feature they want for the 2018 MY but waited to see if it would be ready in time. If not, it will be pushed to the 2019 model.

I would at least wait until December to see what is announced. If the features that are announced are worth waiting for, just put off buying until next year.

If the new features don't interest you but are important to others, you might be able to pick up a 2017 for cheaper.
 
God said:
GM doesn't license "homelink" anymore, what is now offered is "Universal Home Remote" and is now seemingly always located in a overhead console instead of mirror...Perhaps that's because homelink has some sort of patent or it has something to do with the OnStar mirror; if anyone knows please post...GM has four brands, with Caddy it appears to be 100% standard on all model including base trims (pure base ATS offers it standard)...Buick offers it on the higher trims for all models except for their convertible, the Cascada...GMC the same as Buick, offered on higher trims for all vehicles except the Canyon...The Canyon's twin the Colorado, also doesn't offer it, yet the surprising thing is that the premium trim "Denali" doesn't offer it...Chevy omits it from all of their smaller vehicles for some reason, Spark/Sonic/Cruze/Volt/Bolt/Colorado...

It really is a glaring omission especially when they're offering "teen driver technology", carplay, wifi, etc...
Click to expand...

Thanks for that awesome summary of the situation. Homelink always seems to be on the upper packages, so I just assumed it was expensive to license for the OEMs. So it sounds like GM has their own Universal Home Remote that has the same functionality. That is fine with me.

But you are saying the UHR isn’t offered on Bolt or Volt? That would be terrible. I rented a 2017 Volt on vacation earlier this year, but didn’t even notice since I was away from home. Apple CarPlay was nice though.
 
Has anybody seen that commercial for the Lincoln showing the seat and all of its adjustments and movements? That's the seat I want to install in my Bolt!
 
Pushmi-Pullyu said:
I certainly hope they change the front seats for the 2018 model. I find it surprising that GM would drop the ball so badly on something fairly basic. I also think it's questionable they didn't make the DCFC charge option standard equipment, but I've seen reports that most Bolt EVs are made with that installed, so perhaps it's not that much of an issue.
Click to expand...

Since Korea was in charge of leading the vehicle design of the Bolt, I have to think the seat comfort must have missed a US-based focus group or something. Either that, or GM was aware of the issue and were willing to take some risks in the design of the seats with the goal of maximizing interior space and minimizing weight.
Since this is an issue that came up early, GM may have had time to address it for the 2018 model year, but these things take a long time to push through: redesign, make process changes, revalidate, re-evaluate...etc

I still support GM's decision to not include DCFC as standard, though maybe it should be standard on the Premium package. There is a significant portion of the buying population that are very price sensitive and there are many people that know they will never need DCFC. Resale is not an issue to those people as those are also the same people that hold onto a car for 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Josh Bryant said:
But you are saying the UHR isn’t offered on Bolt or Volt? That would be terrible. I rented a 2017 Volt on vacation earlier this year, but didn’t even notice since I was away from home. Apple CarPlay was nice though.
Click to expand...

Correct, and with the Volt, they've had three model years to fix the problem and haven't...The big issue for me, I live in coastal California where a lot of younger folks live in complexes with gated under parking...My friends do not mind letting me store their garage door openers signals into my homelink/UHR but they're not going to let me hold onto their physical device...There was a conspiracy theory that GM was being "courageous" with omitting it and apps or something would eventually be available but that would make zero sense since GM deploys it's innovative features on the Cadillac first...

JeremyK said:
Since Korea was in charge of leading the vehicle design of the Bolt, I have to think the seat comfort must have missed a US-based focus group or something. Either that, or GM was aware of the issue and were willing to take some risks in the design of the seats with the goal of maximizing interior space and minimizing weight.
Since this is an issue that came up early, GM may have had time to address it for the 2018 model year, but these things take a long time to push through: redesign, make process changes, revalidate, re-evaluate...etc

I still support GM's decision to not include DCFC as standard, though maybe it should be standard on the Premium package. There is a significant portion of the buying population that are very price sensitive and there are many people that know they will never need DCFC. Resale is not an issue to those people as those are also the same people that hold onto a car for 10 years.
Click to expand...

If you read the Bolt forums, there are people claiming you can sit in two different Bolts with the same MSRP and have two different experiences when sitting in the seats...Some seem to pinch more than others...Furthermore, it's reported that this suspension seat design was first deployed years ago the Buick Encore...

Most people believe it costs GM near nothing to add DCFC so they're expecting the MSRP to not increase...If you care about resale value one should not get a Volt or a Bolt...
 
God said:
If you read the Bolt forums, there are people claiming you can sit in two different Bolts with the same MSRP and have two different experiences when sitting in the seats...Some seem to pinch more than others...
Click to expand...

Yes, it's amazing to read reports from people who say they sit in one seat and it's fine, but they sit in another and it pinches. I can only guess that GM used two different sources for the (presumably) foam rubber padding in the seat, and one of the suppliers didn't supply foam that's sufficiently firm.

It's not all about us Americans having fat arses. :p
 
Very rare for GM to use multiple suppliers for parts. It's a huge headache from traceability standpoint, should a quality issue arise. Also tends to cost more because each supplier has a smaller piece of the pie and therefore their costs are spread over fewer parts.

The only time multiple suppliers are used, in my experience, is if there is a parts shortage. I doubt, with Bolt volumes, that there are any issues supplying parts to support 20-30K vehicles sales this year.

Could just be variability in build quality, fitment/placement of the foam, etc. Seats are likely delivered as complete assemblies, so could require working with a Tier 1 supplier to come up with a solution. I bet there is a "fix" for 2018 since this issue seems to get a lot of traction.

I personally have not sat in a Bolt yet. Had a chance at last year's NAIAS but didn't feel like waiting for the guy to get out that was hogging up all the seat time.

Since posting, I've decided to keep my 2011 Volt for another year. It's paid for and still drives like new. Just needs tires and will be at least another year before it needs an oil change. The practical side of me won out this time. Damn it!
 
re: Bolt seats. I believe Adient (formerly Johnson Controls automotive seat division) makes the Bolt's seats - they have a special line called "Comfort-thin" that GM probably specified for the Bolt. This was a decision to maximize internal width and leg-room with minimal vehicle width and length. GM and a lot of other manufacturers use Adient for their seats. Adient claims to make the seats for 25 million new cars each year.

http://www.adient.com/products/complete-seats
 
JeremyK said:
Very rare for GM to use multiple suppliers for parts.
Click to expand...

I understand that in the recent past, auto makers have moved toward using single suppliers for parts, rather than multiple suppliers as was more common in the past. So that's certainly less common than it used to be. But still I think it's an exaggeration to say it's "very rare" for GM to use multiple suppliers for a given part, especially for common parts such as foam rubber padding.

But hey, if you can come up with a more likely scenario to explain why we've seen multiple reports that a given person finds the front seats in one Bolt EV to be comfortable, but uncomfortable in another Bolt EV, despite having the same seats, then go for it!
 
"But still I think it's an exaggeration to say it's "very rare" for GM to use multiple suppliers for a given part, especially for common parts such as foam rubber padding."
This is not an exaggeration at all. The only times that GM would use multiple suppliers is if (1) a supplier can't meet the volumes quoted, (2) the vehicle is built in more than one region and the supply base is different to support regional builds...and various other scenarios which would be increasingly rare.

I suspect that if there are differences in seat to seat comfort, it's related to variability in the manufacturing/assembly process at the Tier 1 seat supplier (such as Adient) as listed above. Even if there were two foam suppliers, they would be supplying foam to a specific material specification, which would require each supplier to provide material that is identical in every functional way.
 
JeremyK said:
The only times that GM would use multiple suppliers is if (1) a supplier can't meet the volumes quoted, (2) the vehicle is built in more than one region and the supply base is different to support regional builds...and various other scenarios which would be increasingly rare.
Click to expand...

Jeremy, you're getting pretty close to me needing to invoke the following rule:

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” -- Mark Twain

There are advantages and disadvantages to both single-sourcing and multiple sourcing of auto parts. Among the advantages of multiple sourcing is competitive bidding from suppliers, and flexibility. For example, Volkswagen has had problems with single sourcing when that single source was a factory which had a worker strike, shutting down production.

If you're actually interested in the subject -- rather than just stubbornly refusing to admit you're wrong on this point -- then you can educate yourself by looking at the following links:

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20160830/ANE/160839999/vw-reviews-its-procurement-strategy

http://www.scdigest.com/ontarget/12-03-07-2.php?cid=5576

http://waset.org/publications/1714/single-and-multiple-sourcing-in-the-auto-manufacturing-industry

* * * * *

However, to return to the actual debate: There is an alternative scenario to explain why one seat would be comfortable while the next apparently identical seat was not, to the same person sitting in them. The alternative scenario: Perhaps there is only a single supplier for the seat padding, but perhaps that one supplier ran low on one density of foam rubber, and substituted another which was not firm enough for the application.
 
Pushi - As an engineer, for a large OEM, I'm speaking from a position of first hand knowledge on the subject so I'd use caution when throwing around the term "fool" (if I were you). Some people might be offended by that.

I went back and re-read your post and I agree that it's possible that that could be more than one foam supplier but still insist that they have to provide the foam to meet a certain identical material specification. I assume there is no disagreement on this point.

My argument was that OEMs try very hard to stay away from having more than one "Tier 1" supplier, i.e. they would not want to have more than one seat supplier. In the case of these articles, they're mainly referring to Tier 2 suppliers, something OEMs have little control over.

Those articles (the first two...third was blocked by my firewall but I'm sure it was a credible source) were talking about lowering risk by having parts made at more than one geographic location (same manufacturer, same process, same part number). This is an understandable contingency, but it is not the low cost, or primary path used by purchasing/supply chain.

"There are advantages and disadvantages to both single-sourcing and multiple sourcing of auto parts. Among the advantages of multiple sourcing is competitive bidding from suppliers..."
BTW - Competitive bidding between suppliers takes place BEFORE the business is awarded. Not after.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top