2004 Chevrolet Express on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy admits there's confusion over Bolt and Volt names

Offering the possibility of 200 miles of driving range and the potential for a price of about $30,000, the Chevrolet Bolt is an incredibly enticing vehicle, and it has an opportunity to be a big player in the EV world. However, the hatchback has been plagued by one problem since the moment it debuted – the name. Bolt sounds very similar to Volt, Chevy's extended-range plug-in, and they can be easy to confuse in a conversation. That's not the best quality to have when trying to get a new vehicle's name out there among customers, and General Motors North America president Alan Batey told the Detroit Free Press that the company is aware of the problem. While the EV is definitely going into production, the model might be wearing a different moniker when it hits showrooms. "We're still in the decision phase. It could go either way," Batey said to the Free Press. He indicated the automaker still has about a year before a final decision is necessary. The Bolt will be built at GM's Orion Assembly plant in Michigan and will likely go on sale around 2017. That will put the Chevy on the market at roughly the same time as the 200-mile Tesla Model 3. Batey didn't seem too concerned, though. "Unlike Tesla, we can spread the cost over a whole lineup," he said to the Free Press. The future doesn't look quite so bright for the Spark EV, though. Batey suggested that it might not last once the longer-range Bolt fills that niche in the lineup. Related Video:

A conversation with GM's Mark Reuss on MPG, aluminum and Corvettes

There was plenty to talk about when General Motors hosted its annual mid-December holiday media reception a few months ago. GM had just decided to pull its global Chevrolet brand out of major European markets, where Chevys have competed directly with GM Europe Opel and Vauxhall vehicles, and the US government had sold its last remaining shares of GM stock. But most important was the company's just-reshuffled leadership. Post-bankruptcy CEO Dan Akerson had announced that he would step aside and that 52-year-old Mary Barra would replace him on January 15. Not only would she be the first woman to lead a major automaker, she would also be GM's first engineer CEO since Bob Stempel in the early 1990s. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors" - Mark Reuss Replacing her as executive VP for global product development (and purchasing and supply chain) would be 49-year-old Mark Reuss, who had served a stellar four years as North American president, and elevated to corporate president (from executive VP and CFO) would be 42-year-old Dan Amman. All three are relatively young auto enthusiasts who are liked and respected inside and outside the company, and their collective talents and experience are highly complementary. I've interviewed Barra and found her smart, personable and knowledgeable, though she carefully walks the corporate line in speaking and answering questions. I met and chatted with Ammann for the first time at that holiday reception, and he made a good first impression. But I've known Reuss for some time as a genuinely good guy and a highly capable and inspiring leader, and I believe he is exactly the right person for the global product responsibility once famously held by the outspoken, oft-controversial Bob Lutz. So I jumped at an opportunity to join a group interview of Reuss (with mostly business reporters) at the Detroit Auto Show in January. It was an interesting session of mostly good questions, which he answered with refreshing candor and humor. "I look at 2013 and 2014, as the retooling of General Motors," Reuss said. "We've taken down almost every plant in North America, converted and turned it this last year, and to do that with award-winning vehicles and pretty flawless launches is key. We have to keep the train rolling on great product, because the rest won't happen without the best product, period." A reporter asked whether GM was pushing big trucks, SUVs and Corvettes again because gas is cheap. "No," Reuss said.

GM does not have to turn over its ignition switch documents

In June the lawyer representing plaintiffs suing General Motors over faulty ignition switches accused GM and its firm King & Spalding of working together to cover up the malfunction. Bob Hilliard said that certain communication between GM and King & Spalding from 2010 to 2013, mainly focused on three Chevrolet Cobalt crashes, would reveal that they conspired in "burying what they knew" concerning the defect, and furthermore that the law firm broke rules of professional conduct once it found out about "ongoing fraudulent concealment" at GM. Hilliard filed a motion in a Manhattan court to force GM and King to hand over the memos, which were protected by attorney-client privilege. Hilliard said that the alleged ongoing fraud should trump attorney-client privilege, a GM spokesman said at the time that the issues in question had already been discussed previously, and that plantiffs already had much of the communication Hilliard's motion sought. US District Judge Jesse Furman ruled in favor of GM and King, refusing to order the release of the communication. In spite of finding probable cause that GM was engaging in a crime or fraud by not revealing the ignition switch defect, Furman did not find cause to believe that GM and King's discussions at the time were centered around continuing that potential crime or fraud. Saying also that plantiffs already had many of the disputed documents, attorney-client privilege should hold sway over the remainder. The class action case goes to trial in January 2016.