Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

No,

Highway is weighted 45% and city 55% so we can calculate exactly what highway EPA range is with the 128 city, 110 highway and 119 average.

.55city + .45highway = 238miles
Highway = 110/128*city
City = 128/110*highway

Solving the above system:

Highway Range = 218miles
City Range = 254miles

Good numbers, Chevy should be proud of them, the Bolt is clearly the best non-Tesla EV and the best EV under 40K. But to me, highway range is much more important than city, and I often exceed 90mph when passing, still waiting for M3.

Edit: in the above post ItsNotAboutTheMoney didn't weight the numbers in his last calculation which is why they are slightly off.

You aren't using an harmonic mean. Range is proportional to mpge, but average has to be an harmonic mean.
Extreme example: say it has 60kWh available and uses 0.06kWh per mile city, and 60kWh/mile highway.
Then city range is 1000 miles and highway range is 1 mile.
According to your calculation, overall range is 0.55x1000+0.45×1=551.
However, imagine the car travels 1 mile, 0.55 city and 0.45 highway. How much energy would it use?
0.55 x 0.06 + 0.45 × 60 = 0.033 + 27 = 27.033kWh. That is, in 1 mile it'd have almost used half the battery, so its range must be a bit over 2 miles.
The harmonic mean takes care of the problem by inverting the distance/unit consumption to give consumption/unit distance, which you weight to give overalll consumption/unit distance, and then invert to give the overall distance per unit consumption. If assuming range simply proportional to mpge (its actualky based on exhaustion in repeated cycles), then in your system of equations you need:
0.55/city+0.45/highway =1/238.

 

[trils0n]

I think the Bolt is a wake up call to BMW, Nissan, Hyundai, and even Toyota...and will help spur these companies to produce better BEVs (or in the case of Toyota...some). I think Tesla is incredibly happy to welcome another company into the proper BEV fold, and will only benefit from the success of the Bolt.

I was kind of hoping to see Tesla or Elon tweet something to the effect of: "Welcome to the rEVolution @chevrolet! Who's next @nissanusa @bmwusa @mbusa ?"

 

[Alketi]

... Tesla is winning ... the goal was to prompt more EVs ... seems to starting ... hurray!

And, BMW's management is skipping the upcoming Paris Motor show to discuss the company's future EV strategy.

Board rooms are shaking, confronting the fact that all their IP in engine tuning and performance may disappear if they decide to heavily pursue EVs. Hopefully, for BMW's sake, they choose ... wisely.

BMW Execs to skip Paris Motor Show to discuss electric car strategies
Exclusive: BMW bosses to skip Paris show to thrash out electric car strategy

 

[McRat]

I checked -- about 25 feet net elevation change, so about 1 foot a mile.

I agree that the route would have made the NEDC proud but there was enough description in one article to make it obvious that this was a slow route. I was tempted to put all the hints of route used into a Google Maps to get an expected travel time but I'm too lazy.

Not as I remember it. It's mostly just highway in rolling hills. Kinda of nice, the 5 sucks. Google says the average speed limit is 62mph for 237 miles.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San...9d84a3d5e!2m2!1d-121.8946761!2d36.6002378!3e0

 

[trils0n]

Not as I remember it. It's mostly just highway in rolling hills. Kinda of nice, the 5 sucks. Google says the average speed limit is 62mph for 237 miles.

That link shows 101 the whole way.

Here is their route, as I constructed from the LA Times first drive article.

Monterey to Cambria: On the Pacific Coast Highway 1, Lunch at Cambria
Cambria to San Luis Obispo: 1
San Luis Obispo to Pismo Beach: 101 (Maybe 10-14 miles if I remember correctly)
Pismo To Los Alamos: 1/135
Los Alamos to Los Olivios: 101 (Maybe 10 miles)
Los Olivios to Just outside Santa Barbara: 154
Final Strech to Santa Barbara: 101 (Maybe 5 miles?)

1, 135, 154 are all much slower than 101, often 55 mph or less. Most of the trip was on those roads, only brief sprints to real freeway speeds on 101. Looks like maybe 30-35 miles on 101.

 

[ebwb]

My father's Volt lease ends this November. This looks mighty compelling; perhaps he'll lease one for three years and buy a Model 3 after that. By then, any first- or second-year production bugs with Model 3 should have been worked out.

That said, my father is a very practical sort of person who doesn't care about brand cachet. Bolt EV has a lot going for it -- high roof, low floor, and large doors for ease of entry; large greenhouse for good visibility and headroom; and compact dimensions for ease of parking. These are all aspects Bolt EV excels over Model 3. Ninety-nine percent of his driving is suburban, and he doesn't do cross-country road trips, so the Supercharger network isn't a benefit to him.

What really would be cool is Model Y, a more spacious SUV based on Model 3. I don't think it'll be out in three years, though.

Edit: Here's a pretty good picture of Bolt EV. Its styling is growing on me. It's not a sleek, Coke bottle-shaped car or a masc SUV with chunky wheelwells and large overhangs, but rather a very rational, form follows function kind of design. I respect this practicality-first approach to engineering, very Hondaesque. (Just occurred to me that every car I've owned has been a hatchback or a wagon, never a notchback...)

 

[3Victoria]

The Y should be a pretty fast adaptation of the 3's skateboard... Might be sooner than we think.

 

[SageBrush]

Here is their route, as I constructed from the LA Times first drive article.

Thanks for that, here is the reconstructed map courtesy of Google



232 miles, 5 hours 6 min estimated drive time.
Works out to an average speed of about 47 mph

 

[somnambule]

I am quite disappointed by a number of these reviewers... their articles make them sound like GM shills. No stats on elevation change, no average speed, and a number of the comments are hilariously charitable.

To be fair, that's how a lot of Tesla reviews read as well (especially the early ones). And I don't think that's unreasonable. A lot of people couldn't care less about elevation changes and average speeds etc. and their eyes would glaze over if an article got into that sort of detail.

 

[trils0n]

232 miles, 5 hours 6 min estimated drive time.
Works out to an average speed of about 47 mph

Yup, fits with Green Car Reports as well. They said their trip took 6hrs, so factor in lunch and that fits perfectly.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

You aren't using an harmonic mean. Range is proportional to mpge, but average has to be an harmonic mean.
Extreme example: say it has 60kWh available and uses 0.06kWh per mile city, and 60kWh/mile highway.
Then city range is 1000 miles and highway range is 1 mile.
According to your calculation, overall range is 0.55x1000+0.45×1=551.
However, imagine the car travels 1 mile, 0.55 city and 0.45 highway. How much energy would it use?
0.55 x 0.06 + 0.45 × 60 = 0.033 + 27 = 27.033kWh. That is, in 1 mile it'd have almost used half the battery, so its range must be a bit over 2 miles.
The harmonic mean takes care of the problem by inverting the distance/unit consumption to give consumption/unit distance, which you weight to give overalll consumption/unit distance, and then invert to give the overall distance per unit consumption. If assuming range simply proportional to mpge (its actualky based on exhaustion in repeated cycles), then in your system of equations you need:
0.55/city+0.45/highway =1/238.

Either system of equations will work if you weight the numbers properly, your numbers were not weighted properly, if you want to check it substitute your calculated range numbers into the equation .55*city +.45*highway and see what you get, it will be close to but not exactly 238.

I rounded to avoid a false appearance of precision in the last post but the correct numbers, assuming unrealistic precision in the given data, are:

Bolt Highway Range = 218.3486miles
Bolt City Range = 254.0784miles

Plug those into the above equation and you will get 238.0000miles

/nerd fight

It's interesting to note that the 90D has almost the same highway efficiency as the 1000lbs lighter and much smaller Bolt, 107MPGe vs. 110MPGe.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

Yup, fits with Green Car Reports as well. They said their trip took 6hrs, so factor in lunch and that fits perfectly.

This is much less impressive for the bolt then, I'd assumed average speed of 55mph or so, for comparison, at 50mph the 60D gets 301miles range at 70 degrees F, 271miles if you crank the A/C.

 

[trils0n]

This is much less impressive for the bolt then, I'd assumed average speed of 55mph or so, for comparison, at 50mph the 60D gets 301miles range at 70 degrees F, 271miles if you crank the A/C.

The more I look at the route they took, the more I am convinced they did everything they could to stay off a normal, 65 mph freeway. 101 flow of traffic is usually 70+
They only hopped on to 101 when it was necessary to transfer to different small highways. Some of these back roads are the type of road you get stuck behind a tractor that is moving between fields/orchards. The journalists must have know something was up when they were avoiding the major/normal freeway. 1 is kinda aggravatingly slow (but a classic, beautiful drive, so I'll let that slide). One of the Chevy people was even noted in one of these drive reports as saying Highway 1 was frustrating.

Anyway, GM proved that you can get really good efficiency numbers when you drive slower than the EPA test. Plus It makes it look like your car is handily beating the EPA numbers (you are, in a way). First impressions are important, and GM nailed this one, with some of the test drivers arriving with 20+ miles left. Plus they got perfect weather (very little climate control needed, GCR showed 99% driving, 1% climate energy usage screen) Every little bit helps.

 

[Takumi]

Perhaps the same places the Roadster and early Model S users did? Do you think that CCS chargers are not going to be built? They are popping up here in MN. Once more CCS cars are on the road someone will build them. Will they be free? No. But I don't think any charging should be free as it encourages abuse.

93% of my driving on my 40 mile range Volt has been all EV so I am pretty sure it will work for me. That being said I do have a reservation on the M3 so it is nice to have a choice.

There's a problem with that. The current CCS chargers I know of (usually only one) are already sharing space with CHAdeMO users. So the wait time may be more than 30 min.

Yes, it's happened to me more than 3 times and the Bolt isn't even out yet!

 

[Jeff N]

Anyway, GM proved that you can get really good efficiency numbers when you drive slower than the EPA test.

They also proved they can get really good efficiency numbers on the actual EPA test.

 

[trils0n]

They also proved they can get really good efficiency numbers on the actual EPA test.

That is true. Their numbers are impressive. Which is a good thing. And probably why this bugs me. They already did it, they got great EPA numbers, no need for a below EPA test speed route to make it look extra super efficient. The Bolt already is impressively efficient. Guess it just irks me that the journalists were so impressed that it beat the EPA range, "look at all the miles we had left" but they were driving a route that is more efficient than the test, so that makes perfect sense.

If Tesla arranged an average 47mph test route and said look at how great we perform, they'd probably (rightly) get skewered for such a stunt. This is a contrast to the early press drives in the Model S (like Broder, and MT driving through the desert to Vegas at 55mph with the AC off sweating their butts off just barely making the trip). Tesla ones were seat of their pants, will-we-make-it-or-not style drives. GM's was a carefully planned route to maximize impact of achieving EPA range with many miles to spare. Certainly a smart move by GM.

 

[3Victoria]

Someone needs to do that same route in a 60.

 

[SageBrush]

Anyway, GM proved that you can get really good efficiency numbers when you drive slower than the EPA test.

I would feel more charitable if the journalists had upfront reported their average drive speeds and remarked on the effect such a slow route would have on energy use. As it is, I see more typical GM spin: they do not typically lie, but they sure go out of their way to bullshit the audience.

The said irony is that the uniformed reader will applaud the "real world result" instead of a dyno result from the EPA.

 

[trils0n]

Someone needs to do that same route in a 60.

EVTripplanner says it would take 205 Rated Miles @ 244Wh/mile to do the route in a 60 with 19inch wheels (all default settings). 57.4 kWh needed. Those numbers are very similar to the numbers nearly all the Bolt press drivers got.

 

[SageBrush]

They also proved they can get really good efficiency numbers on the actual EPA test.

Pretty good on the city portion but less than the i3; a rather middling 110 MPGe on the highway, where it matters most.