Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!

[Vitold]

Haven't been following those bills since those don't matter here in Europe. But I think I saw one comment somewhere (can't remember where) that the bill would've only allowed Tesla to sell directly while other OEMs would've still been locked in the dealership model? If that's true wouldn't it be better to have a bill where all OEMs can sell directly?

You're too logical bills are crafted in such way to get enough votes to pass -not to make most sense. Allowing all car manufacturers to sell direct would definitively meet strong resistance from dealerships.

 

[jkk_]

The Bolt and Model 3 are the only cars confirmed to be going to production that will be priced under $40k and have at least 200 miles of range (well, basically confirmed. Elon could always change his mind like he did with the Roadster and jack the price up). Comparisons are inevitable, even though one is a utilitarian hatchback and the other a "sporty" sedan.

Same reason the Leaf and Volt 1.0 were compared: they were the only mass produced plug-in vehicles out on the market.

Yeah, that's why I said I understand why they are doing it, it's still silly though

 

[jkk_]

You're too logical bills are crafted in such way to get enough votes to pass -not to make most sense. Allowing all car manufacturers to sell direct would definitively meet strong resistance from dealerships.

Yeah that makes sense. That's pretty much only thing that does make sense in the dealership-model that seems to be used in the USA, at least from my perspective

 

[SageBrush]

The Bolt and Model 3 are the only cars confirmed to be going to production that will be priced under $40k and have at least 200 miles of range. Comparisons are inevitable, even though one is a utilitarian hatchback and the other a "sporty" sedan.

The 200 mile range is relevant to Tesla because of SuperCharger intervals. In the case of the Bolt, I'm not sure even a 300 mile range would be much different than 150 miles. It would still be a commuter car, albeit an extended one.

Which reminds me, why did GM spec the Bolt as a 200+ EV ? Other than making it $5000 more expensive than it has to be, I'm only aware of talking point and CARB credit advantages. Baaad trade-off, since it let Nissan off the hook. Perhaps GM is willing to treat the Bolt as a loss leader in order to sell trucks in the CARB compliant states. As a regulatory vehicle that people take up as a second car with a low monthly lease it makes fair corporate sense. I could resemble that profile if not for the Bolt being a scum-sucking GM product. I keep thinking of the i3 in that context.

 

[techmaven]

Agree, but I think it's stupid for journalists to compare it to the model 3. I mean, I get why they are doing it but it's still stupid. It's like comparing VW Golf to BMW 3-series or something like that. Completely different cars for different segments.

Well, this goes back to how nascent the electrification movement remains. If BEV and ICE vehicles were 50-50 in terms of marketshare, then the comparison between the Bolt and the 3 series wouldn't be made. But we're not even close to that. Further, so few people really understand driving electric, so its natural to not understand the nuances between electric cars. Whereas any number of car enthusiasts can tell you the minute differences between choosing an Audi A4, BMW M3, and Buick Encore. You would never really compare these vehicles head to head.

Further, there is a strong tendency for the automotive industry including the journalists that cover it to think of electric car vehicle buyers as a small addressable market. And if you exclude Tesla, their sales figures bear that out. But we know that this is a very short sighted and quickly changing situation.

 

[Vitold]

Perhaps GM is willing to treat the Bolt as a loss leader in order to sell trucks in the CARB compliant states. As a regulatory vehicle that people take up as a second car with a low monthly lease it makes fair corporate sense. I could resemble that profile if not for the Bolt being a scum-sucking GM product. I keep thinking of the i3 in that context.

Well, you cannot blame GM for bad legislation. They just do what they allowed to get away with while making money (I believe that is their mission statement).

 

[ModelNforNerd]

Elon could always change his mind like he did with the Roadster and jack the price up)

I'll agree with everything you said except the above snippet.


If you thought Elon had PR and Investor issues NOW......imagine him boosting the price on the Model 3. There would be riots.


Which is why I believe they're "decoupling" the price of lifetime supercharging. That's not a cut to the actual build quality of the Model 3 he can make and still keep the cost to the consumer manageable.

 

[Breezy]

a $30k sub-compact, no frills econobox with an ~ 85 mile travel radius is ... ridiculous. .

Well it's not a subcompact, it's not a no-frills econobox, and it isn't limited to an ~85 mile travel radius.

 

[Jeff N]

The 200 mile range is relevant to Tesla because of SuperCharger intervals. In the case of the Bolt, I'm not sure even a 300 mile range would be much different than 150 miles. It would still be a commuter car, albeit an extended one.

I suppose you thought Tesla should have initially built only 100 mile range cars back in 2012 before the first Supercharger was installed and long before they had a pervasive network of locations.

In fact, so few customers expressed early interest in the S40 which had a 140+ mile range that it was quickly cancelled.

Why? Because customers knew that the car itself was perfectly capable of long distance travel even if the charging network hadn't quite yet been built.

The same is true of the Bolt EV although, actually, it already has a usable DC charging network in many areas of the east and west coast where early BEV adopters actually buy more than half of the cars sold. And, as I have pointed out, VW Group is under a legal consent decree that requires them to spend $200 million a year for the next 10 years building out infrastructure for zero emission vehicles and they need a network of high speed EV charging stations so they can sell cars that compete with Tesla.

 

[techmaven]

I suppose you thought Tesla should have initially built only 100 mile range cars back in 2012 before the first Supercharger was installed and long before they had a pervasive network of locations.

In fact, so few customers expressed early interest in the S40 which had a 140+ mile range that it was quickly cancelled.

Why? Because customers knew that the car itself was perfectly capable of long distance travel even if the charging network hadn't quite yet been built.

The same is true of the Bolt EV although, actually, it already has a usable DC charging network in many areas of the east and west coast where early BEV adopters actually buy more than half of the cars sold. And, as I have pointed out, VW Group is under a legal consent decree that requires them to spend $200 million a year for the next 10 years building out infrastructure for zero emission vehicles and they need a network of high speed EV charging stations so they can sell cars that compete with Tesla.

Well, I'm still hoping that the Bolt will ship with some draft standard CCS v2, or that there exists a low cost upgrade path. Still, the CCS v2 L3 charging network won't really start to be built until a year from now, roughly when Model 3 ships.

 

[LargeHamCollider]

I'm going declare ItsNotAboutTheMoney as the actual victor of this nerd fight. The harmonic mean is required to calculate the Combined Fuel Efficiency number. (Page 2: https://www3.epa.gov/fueleconomy/documents/420f14015.pdf) I took the equations and verified that they simplify down to the two simple equations shown below if you want to back out the City Range and Highway Range. You need to have the EPA Combined Range and the respective City and Highway Fuel Economy numbers.

City Range = Combined Range * (City Fuel Economy / Combined Fuel Economy)
Highway Range = Combined Range * (Highway Fuel Economy / Combined Fuel Economy)

For the Bolt EV
City Range: 256 mi <-- (238 * 128 / 119)
Highway Range: 220 mi <-- (238 * 110 / 119)

Like itsNotAboutTheMoney you didn't weight them correctly. 256*.55 + 220*.45 <> 238. Rather it comes out to 240.

 

[MiamiNole]

The way these articles are jumping to conclusions about the Bolt beating out the Model 3 is unreal. Even USAToday is hopping on that hypetrain. If the Bolt was announced as having a 200 mile range, and the actual range is later announced to be 238 miles, then logically one would assume that if the Model 3 was announced as at least 215 miles then one would expect their actual range to be more.

The 2 cars are on completely different development schedules. The discussion should simply be about the Bolt exceeding range expectations based on their EPA testing. Not the Bolt beating out the Model 3 in range, because we don't know that yet. I'm actually glad the Bolt is exceeding expectations regarding range. I want the car to succeed. It's not like we haven't known what the design and price point of the car will be for a while. As for the range, I think 238 miles is significant. That means it basically can be used as a daily driver in pretty much any major metropolitan area. No, it's still not ideal for long distance travel, but we all have known that for a while. It still appears to beat out every EV on the road so far other than a Tesla. Is the Bolt made to appease everyone given the design and price point? No. But knowing that, we should still all be rooting for the Bolt to perform as well as possible.

Because it most likely means that the Model 3 will be that much better.

 

[jbcarioca]

...As for the range, I think 238 miles is significant. That means it basically can be used as a daily driver in pretty much any major metropolitan area.
....

I agree with this completely. ftewr all cars in teh class of the Bolt are rarely used for long distance travel anyway. It happens, just not for a significant volume of vehicles. We all should be happy that GM is actually stepping up the game!

 

[SageBrush]

I suppose you thought Tesla should have initially built only 100 mile range cars back in 2012

I think that 2012 is not 2016. The small group of very committed EV enthusiasts who bought the expensive and fairly impractical early Teslas are not available to GM today. The goalposts have moved --- a lot. The Bolt in 2012 would have been rightly heralded as a break-through EV.

The Model 3 dumps it into the too little, too late category. First and foremost this is true in the context of the Supercharger network and to a lesser degree (but still fairly obvious), a comparison of the two cars. I say the latter as someone who avoids sedans , could not care less about 'performance,' and prefers small cars. I like the look of the Bolt minus the logo.

The Bolt today, if sold in the $20 - $25k range after credits could very well have a bright future. Then it would be a compromise car for two car families.

 

[Zoomit]

Like itsNotAboutTheMoney you didn't weight them correctly. 256*.55 + 220*.45 <> 238. Rather it comes out to 240.

Right, but please let us know why you're using that equation.

According to the bottom of page 2 of my linked document, the relationship is

• FEcomb = (0.55/FEcity + 0.45/FEhwy)^-1.

BUT that's not relevant since we already know those 3 variables.

We know Rcomb, FEcomb, FEcity and FEhwy, so the only equations we need to calculate Rcity and Rhwy are simply:

• Rhwy = Rcomb * FEhwy/FEcomb
• Rcity = Rcomb * FEcity/FEcomb

Both of these equations are simple ratios that assume a linear relationship between range and fuel efficiency. Are these equations not true?

 

[SageBrush]

Right, but please let us know why you're using that equation.

I for one am enjoying this discussion.

I think it comes down to harmonic averages not being equal to weighted averages in cases where the inputs are certain types of ratios.

 

[Cebe]

The most broken thing about GM statements and the way press is covering this is the "Bolt is the Tesla killer" part. Why would anybody want one EV that can replace an ICE car to kill another EV that can replace an ICE car, or even the whole company that makes only EVs? Who actually wins if that happens? Why wouldn't GM market Bolt as "VW Golf" killer or "Ford Focus" killer?

We really are a stupid, self-destructive species...

 

[ecarfan]

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.

Interesting conclusion you make. Please describe for me the Model 3 test drive you took to come to that conclusion. You must have driven a Model 3 because you say the Bolt is easier to park than the 3, and your drive in each of the two cars also allowed you to compare the visibility, headroom, and ease of entry.

 

[ecarfan]

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.

It seems clear to me that GM deliberately picked a route that they knew would make the Bolt range look good, since they made a point of avoiding freeways, and they also chose a time of year and location that they knew would not require the use of cabin heat and likely very little AC. Plus they chose one of the most scenic routes in the world, likely to put the journalist drivers in a good mood. Clever marketing by GM.

 

[SageBrush]

Clever marketing by GM.

Clever, in the same way that conspiracy theories are clever if the target demographic are morons. In the case of the expanding (but still very small) EV community thinking of plunking down $35k for a compromise car ? I don't think it was a smart move and I wish GM heartburn over the presumption.

Our local mole Bro1999 had this to say over on a GM fansite today

The Tesla fanbois will accuse GM of “gaming” the numbers by choosing a lower speed route on a nice, sunny, moderate temp day. Lol

edit: correction – the Tesla fanbois have already started the “that route was fixed!” claims.