.svg)
Chevy Offers Loaner Bolt To Couple Who Lost Tesla Model S To Fire
5 H BY ERIC LOVEDAY 66
Chevrolet has graciously stepped forward to offer the owners of that Tesla Model S that recently caught fire while in motion a loaner Chevy Bolt until they secure a new car.
Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. And it’s easy publicity too. Though the automaker notes it’s not intended as burn towards Tesla…hmm.
More Fiery News
First, let’s recap the chain of events.
Back on June 15, actress Mary McCormack posted this on Twitter:
@Tesla This is what happened to my husband and his car today. No accident,out of the blue, in traffic on Santa Monica Blvd. Thank you to the kind couple who flagged him down and told him to pull over. And thank god my three little girls weren’t in the car with him pic.twitter.com/O4tPs5ftVo
— Mary McCormack (@marycmccormack) June 16, 2018
Soon after, another video captured by an onlooker surfaced. Here it is:
We later learned that Tesla was investigating the incident. We’ve yet to receive an update on the progress and/or findings of the investigation though. Tesla stated at the time:
“We offer our support to local authorities and are glad our customer is safe. This is an extraordinarily unusual occurrence, and we are investigating the incident to find out what happened.”
Then, just the other day, General Motors reached out to Mary McCormack via its head storyteller Ray Wert. The exchange took place on Twitter. It’s all embedded below:
In the interim, we’ve offered to loan @marycmccormack a @chevrolet Bolt EV so she has a more dependable electric vehicle to drive.
— Ray Wert (@raywert) June 17, 2018
No burn. The @GM advanced tech Comms team are just big West Wing fans and want to make sure @marycmccormack has some dependable all-electric 238 mile-per-charge transportation.
— Ray Wert (@raywert) June 17, 2018
Also, I’m a fan of Judge @BridgetMaryMc here in Michigan.
— Ray Wert (@raywert) June 17, 2018
The narrative seems to have ended there, with no word as to whether or not Mary McCormack accepted the loaner Bolt.
Source: Jalopnik
Popular
Leave a Reply
66 Comments on "Chevy Offers Loaner Bolt To Couple Who Lost Tesla Model S To Fire"
GM What cut-ups. I think maybe they should have made a similar offer on ignition switches, in their own vehicles..
Talk about being stuck in the past.
While we’re at it, let’s blast Germany again for the whole WWII thing. And the guys that crucified Jesus too. Can’t let them off the hook so easily.
Tell that to the people who are still living with the consequences of GM ignition switch failures, like lost limbs and lost love-ones.
Leave it to the TSLA cultists to troll the comments section and bring up topics not related to the article in question in any way, as usual. Basically doing exactly what they always “claim” I do. Lol, what a bunch of hypocrites. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Way to deflect the simple fact that GM is responsible for more deaths in automobile history due to intentional desire to save a few cents on production.
And what does that have to do with this article again? Speaking of deflecting.
It has to do with the very comment you replied to. Duh. Try to follow the string.
It’s just one big TSLA circle jerk in the comments section these days.
Of course, GM never has car fires, right?
“GM said 1,345 of the cars caught fire after they were previously fixed by dealers. So even car owners who had their vehicles repaired will need to bring them back for another fix. There is no charge to owners for the repairs.”
Or is 2015 too recent for your memory?
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/27/autos/gm-recall-fire/index.html
I guess the difference is that Tesla didn’t take the time to offer those folks a loaner…
Elon is probably convinced they are TSLA shorters and caused the fire on purpose as part of the huge conspiracy against TSLA, so he refused to lend them a loaner.
Heck, you don’t even have to go back that far. Just last month GM had yet another recall for Chevy Cruze car fires. One of a very very long list of GM car fire recalls.
https://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2018/05/2016-2018-chevrolet-cruze-ls-recalled-due-fire-risk.html
Heck, it isn’t even GM’s only fire related recall in May alone. They also recalled a couple hundred thousand vans last month too.
https://www.ncconsumer.org/news-articles/fire-risk-leads-to-recall-of-chevrolet-express-and-gmc-savana-vans.html
You don’t even need to go back to last month. Just TODAY was yet another GM fire-related recall. https://www.carcomplaints.com/news/2018/gm-recalls-vehicles-fuel-pumps-leak.shtml
IEV staff, frankly, this GM carpet bombing by Nix and co is exactly the kind of stuff that gets deleted these days in other articles, isn’t it? What’s up with the double standard letting them do what they always cry about in Tesla articles?
Hell, at least when I leave my tweaks in Tesla articles, it is at least on topic.
The way the press magnifies Tesla problems vs. the quiet back-page coverage of repeated, multiple similar problems with ICE manufactures is very much a real issue worthy of noting in this forum.
Really. You jump on every article about Tesla with your negative crap, and you call out someone trying to support Tesla against GM’s cheap shot? Try to support EVs, rather than dumping on every car that isn’t GM. How about every time you go after Tesla, I quote this:
By Steven Loveday in response to Bro1999:
“Perhaps calm down the blatant negativity and support EV advocacy and adoption? I mean, we understand that there are pro- and anti-Tesla people. But your continual negative, fighting, and moderation-causing comments are making me a crap ton of extra time here. Calm it down and report on your GM positivity and stop all the ridiculous hate, please. You’ve been warned.”
Ford should also offer loaners on those who crashed their Pintos…
“Why? Because it’s the right thing to do.”
Sure, all auto makers, especially the largest ones, are totally altruistic and always do “the right thing” just because it is the right thing.
Oh, wait…
“And it’s easy publicity too.”
There you go.
“Though the automaker notes it’s not intended as burn towards Tesla…”
Like fun, it’s not!
“Sure, all auto makers, especially the largest ones, are totally altruistic…”
I don’t know why you felt a need to mention the “largest ones”. All for-profit organizations are motivated by profit. This is what the shareholders demand. It would be strange to expect anything else. But it certainly benefits corporations to appear altruistic, and GM’s loaner is an example of this.
Having said this, there are some genuinely nice people on the board of many corporations. But their job security depends on whether investors are happy, and investors demand profit (or a promise of future profit).
When Tesla opened up the SW limited 60s to 75s, they got tons of good publicity for something that cost nothing. And they knew they would get good publicity, Elon even proudly tweeted about it.
Was that bad, because it wasn’t totally altruistic?
Sometimes doing a nice thing generates wealth for a company. Isn’t that a good thing for a change?
Better than what usually generates profits, like randomly firing people, lying about emissions, dangerous working conditions, exploiting workforce in cheap labor countries, gambling with other people’s money…
Here is the difference: Tesla actually DID SOMETHING altruistic, and then their good deed came out.
As far as we know, GM hasn’t yet actually provided any Volt to anyone, nor to we have any confirmation that marycmccormack accepted the offer. Frankly, GM should have actually asked marycmccormack if she wanted to get in the middle of this BEFORE going public. There is nothing “altruistic” about dragging a poor third party into your publicity stunt. Especially if marycmccormack as a Tesla owner DOES NOT want her name used in a dig against her own choice of car maker she had already made.
Are you saying GM should already get credit for altruism, by just publicizing the offer, without yet actually doing anything altruistic yet? Even if their use of marycmccormack’s name in their dig ends up being totally against the will of marycmccormack, and as a dig against a company she might still back 100%? Essentially re-victimizing her against her will?
Bolt, Nix, Bolt. I know mixing up the Volt and Bolt can be easy for the uninformed.
My mistake. Indeed I should have typed “Bolt” instead of “Volt”. Same applies to multiple other posts I made. My apologies, I got that detail wrong.
Meanwhile, the actual content of all of my posts still remain the same, by simply reading “Bolt” each time I mistakenly put in “Volt”.
Do you actually support GM abusing somebody who lost their car to fire by using them for a publicity stunt potentially against that person’s will? Yes or No.
Simple answer, YES or NO.
Here here!
“a more dependable electric vehicle to drive.”
Yeah, no burn at all.
“no burn at all”
Or fire. 😀
Taking a GM product hoping there isn’t a fire doesn’t seem like a good plan. GM doesn’t have such a great history on car fires, which they consider acceptable if the open flames hopefully burn out before burning the car down:
“GM knew about an oil leak that would cause a small “pilot flame.” Instead of fixing the leak, GM decided to try and contain the open fire; in the words of their spokesman “trying to remove anything that would allow the flame to spread.”
http://nlpc.org/2016/01/28/gm-and-nhtsa-elude-accountability-failed-fire-risk-recall/
GM Scum Bags!
In the world of twitter etc. that we live in with CEOs dissing each other, this is a fun way to dig the ‘competition’. Am sure Musk will be happy to reciprocate should a GM, Jag, Nissan have an issue.
I am sure of it too.
Veiled digs are so much more elegant than the fire and fury Twitter attacks Elon has been unloading on the media…and pretty much any critical of Tesla lately. 🙂
Agreed. The first thing I thought of when reading this was, “Wow, that sounds like something Musk would do.”
GM is running a risk, though — anyone who owns an S can easily trade it in for a Bolt, yet didn’t. There’s a good chance the owner very strongly prefers the S and might not be shy in saying so after giving back the loaner.
“Never waste a good crisis…”
Or even not so much of a crisis. I wonder if this guy got a free Chevy loaner. A little bit more embarrassing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=46&v=aGD-jj6u8Uc
@ Eric Loveday
This is not the first time that a Tesla Model S has caught and acted like a blow torch or flame thrower. A little over a year ago as reported on InsideEVs, a Model S parked at a SuperCharger in Shanghai, China caught fire and apparently shot flames out like a flame thrower from under one of its front doors. There was minor fire damage to the rocker panel under the door of the flame-thrown Tesla. However another Model S parked 4-feet away adjacent to the burning Tesla had a big honking 3-foot wide hole melted out of its rear door. Apparently the burning Tesla acted like a blow torch to make that big hole in the Tesla parked next to it.
There is no video of this flame thrower fire, only pics of the aftermath. However, commenter Sven provided a good analysis of what happened based on the damage shown in the pics. Of course, Tesla apologists Pushy Troll and James from Seattle personally attacked him without refuting any of his analysis.
Tesla said it would invrstigate the fire. What were the results of Tesla’s investigation? If you don’t know can you please make an inquiry with Tesla?
https://m.imgur.com/Uw1jAoy
https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-fire-supercharger/#comments
Teslas catch fire so often these days it’s almost a non-event now, like the sun rising in the east.
Transport Evolved, about the most level-headed and unbiased pro-EV YT news channel, just did a piece on EV fires today. ICE fires: 1 in 1,100-1,500 (depending on whether you factor in arson); Tesla fires: 1 in 20,000.
Fun fact: if you google Chevy Bolt fatal crash, you won’t find a single headline. The operative word here is “headline.” I found several articles of Bolts involved in fatal crashes, but the model of car was buried in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph, just like any old boring ICE fatality. But google Tesla Fire, and you’ll find about six headlines; one for each Tesla fire there’s been.
(Also, if you google Chevy Bolt High Speed Crash, you won’t find any hits because “Chevy Bolt” and “High Speed” don’t belong in the same sentence).
Please post the links to these articles you claim you found about Bolt (not Volt) fatal crashes. Only one I know of is a Bolt driver that was drunk and drove the wrong way on the highway and hit a car head-on….and survived. The occupants of the other car died however. Otherwise nothing but FUD.
“nothing but FUD,” …sez the guy who claims Tesla fires are common, “like the sun rising in the East.”
Waiting for those links, FUDster Chris.
No they don’t.
Very nice gesture, GM! The Bolt is probably a safer car (since it doesn’t catch fire randomly for no apparent reason).
No, it just dies in the middle of the highway because ONE cell went bad.
^^^ this!
I’m so surprised Ray took the chance with his “dependable” tweet! Running the risk of someone pointing out how the bolt died in the middle of the highway within seconds! Heck Tesla drivers got more warning and time to pull over and leave their vehicles during a fire than the bolt gave its drivers!
Looking at the Volt and Bolt reliability history, then compare it to a Tesla. It’s no contest. (hint: Tesla doesn’t win)
Well, they certainly have enough of them just sitting around…
They had the car available then offered it.
And yet there are still more 2017 Bolts (than 2018s) on lots that GM can’t get rid off. Might as well loan them out. Just hope they have the dealer installed software update to calculate range as they can’t get over the OTA hump. Lol
That’s a very cocky move on GM’s behalf:
“Sorry your Lear Jet had to make an emergency landing; here’s a Cessna to use until you get a new one.”
“Sorry to hear your yacht sprung a leak; here’s a Cabin Cruiser until you get a new one.”
Maybe the caught-on-fire S owner will pull a Woz, ditch the S, and convert to a Bolt. 😀
Say what you will, but that’s some serious shots fired in the marketing wars for EVs.
It’s definitely a burn towards Tesla, but it’s a worthy burn, and beneficial to the growth of EVs. Everyone knows Tesla. Not a lot of people know GM makes a 238 mile Bolt EV (with a less volatile battery chemistry too).
This story is hitting all the main news sites now. GM usually screws up advertising its EVs, but this time they hit a home run. While landing a light jab to Elon’s enlarged head. 🙂
Right. Automakers taking cheap shots at other EV manufacturers is always, “beneficial to the growth of EVs.”
It looks as though Team Mary Bara is reaching out, with a friendly gesture of generosity, to Team Mary McCormack.
Forget about GM and Tesla, and their petty Corporate posturing agendas, Mary n’ Mary, are quite contrary, to watch all EV adoption Grow!
No. a friendly reach-out would be contacting marycmccormack PRIVATELY, and confirming whether or not she is interested in a loaner Volt. Then if marycmccormack accepts the offer, confirming with marycmccormack that it is OK to use her name publicly in a press release about the offer.
Otherwise GM is just abusing marycmccormack as a hapless victim in their publicity stunt without ever giving her a chance to decide for herself whether she wants to get drug into the middle or not.
I see it as sincere offer out of concern for Mary and her family. Plus free publicity never hurts. Elon/Tesla live on that. 😉
You left a major portion of this story out: From GMI…
As reported by Jalopnik, GM saw an opportunity to make hay. In a subsequent tweet, Ray Wert, GM’s “head storyteller” and former Jalopnik Editor-in-Chief, said the automaker was offering a Bolt loaner to McCormack “so she has a more dependable electric vehicle to drive.”
This is the kind of PR automakers dream of. However, GM maintains the offer a one-time occurrence, as Wert is apparently friends with McCormack’s sister.
It’s publicity if the media gives it coverage!!!
If GM really cared about @marycmccormack , and GM had made her offer, and the offer was accepted, that would be one thing.
If @marycmccormack has not accept the Volt, then she is just being used as a helpless pawn in a GM publicity stunt. If that is the case, I’m not so sure they really care at all about @marycmccormack. So posting that they are doing it all out of care would just be a complete sleaze-bag move.
It will be interesting to see if @marycmccormack ends up behind the wheel of a Volt or not.
Where can I sign up to be a helpless pawn and get a free Bolt loaner?
As I said above, she may end up Bolting like The Woz did. 🙂
What a kind gesture by GM. Also good PR so hopefully it will bring a tiny boost in Bolt EV sales, which would be well deserved. Happy day!
Yep, thumbs up GM!
The problem with these types of cheap shots is that they might just come back to haunt you. GM better hope that no Volt or Bolt ever have a car fire. Given GM’s history, the odds of Bolt fire are pretty high. (But at least they use LG batteries, so GM’s historic poor quality shouldn’t be an issue.)
Chevy is cleverly copying what Tesla already does, getting cheap publicity. from loaners. Since Bolts are slow sellers, the dealer probably won’t even notice the car missing from the showroom. With E.V.s, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.”