Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!

[Az_Rael]

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.

Yeah, but what manufacturer is going to do a press test drive event and NOT fix the route to show the car to its best? That's basic marketing 101 and I am pretty sure Tesla did it too: 2012 Tesla Model S

We will find out the true range, etc once the review sites get the car for their own tests.

 

[HookBill]

We will find out the true range, etc once the review sites get the car for their own tests.

Yep. Let's get their true assessment when they try a cross-country trip with it.

 

[bro1999]

I agree the Bolt isn't a Model 3 killer.

A little birdie told me to wait a few months for NAIAS for GM to unveil that one.

The Bolt is only the tip of the iceberg.

I mean imagine the Bolt's battery pack in this thing:

 

[SageBrush]

Yeah, but what manufacturer is going to do a press test drive event and NOT fix the route to show the car to its best?

A manufacturer who wants to give prospective buyers a fair view of the car's range for the middle 50 percentile of intended driving habits on extended commuter distance use, perhaps ? The GM fanboys are going to have to spin, spin, spin when the 275 mile range from the BS show turns into ~ 190 miles of maximum range at 70-75 mph (on a nice day, with no wind, etc.)

But why wait ? The backpedaling has a rich history, and GM and it's fanboys will follow the script:
"Why are you angry at your sub 200 mile range ? GM never said the BS show would mirror your driving. You should know better!"

 

[HookBill]

(Insert any newer EV automaker) fanboys are going to have to spin, spin, spin when the 275 mile range from the BS show turns into ~ 190 miles of maximum range at 70-75 mph (on a nice day, with no wind, etc.)

And just about all Tesla owners are well aware of as been stated over and over on these forums. Unfortunately, my guess is this reality will not be mentioned in earnest until the owners start following similar sites like this one seeking answers to why this is happening.

 

[SageBrush]

And just about all Tesla owners are well aware of as been stated over and over on these forums. Unfortunately, my guess is this reality will not be mentioned in earnest until the owners start following similar sites like this one seeking answers to why this is happening.

Yes indeed, with two differences:

• The Tesla owner had to slow down to make it to the next supercharger. The Bolt owner slows down to get to the destination, period; or is forced to slow-charge.
• The Tesla owner wants to know why his car is not getting 'promised' EPA range while the Bolt owner wants to know why his car is getting 65% of the BS show. On a good day.

 

[bro1999]

Yes indeed, with two differences:

• The Tesla owner had to slow down to make it to the next supercharger. The Bolt owner slows down to get to the destination, period; or is forced to slow-charge.
• The Tesla owner wants to know why his car is not getting 'promised' EPA range while the Bolt owner wants to know why his car is getting 65% of the BS show. On a good day.

And the Model 3 owner wants to know if he can call himself an owner even though his car doesn't exist yet. Lol

Keep up the GM hate, zealot.

 

[S'toon]

The very good Chevy Bolt reviews are in but everyone forgot to ask the most important question

 

[stopcrazypp]

When I first read the title in the first article I read about the Bolt test, I thought it was actually going to be a route resembling common real world speeds, such that it would barely match EPA. But looking at the details (where the max speed was 55mph in practically all of the route and average only 40mph), GM went really safe. Definitely is a bit misleading and doesn't really tell you where the actual match point is to EPA (the original Model S was at 65mph).

It could come back to bite them (if an actual owner was to try the same without keeping in mind their speed), but I guess GM is banking few would be trying to max out the range of the Bolt (esp. given lack of CCS routes).

 

[EinSV]

And the Model 3 owner wants to know if he can call himself an owner even though his car doesn't exist yet. Lol

Keep up the GM hate, zealot.

You seem to like the word "zealot" when you refer to people who like Teslas. But you also seem to be quite passionate in your promotion of GM products and have been quite animated, agitated and prolific in your posts defending the Bolt.

Do you consider yourself a zealot, or is that a word you reserve for other people whose opinions you disagree with?

 

[stopcrazypp]

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...

That's not an accident at all. The goal of the Bolt is clearly to call "first" over Tesla (it's not an accident that GM rushed to release it one year before the Model 3, nor is the 200 mile range target). That combined with the fact that "Tesla killer" headlines helps get more clicks is why that it is a popular narrative.

 

[3Victoria]

And the Model 3 owner wants to know if he can call himself an owner even though his car doesn't exist yet. Lol

Keep up the GM hate, zealot.

Pot calling the kettle black?

 

[nwdiver]

And the Model 3 owner wants to know if he can call himself an owner even though his car doesn't exist yet. Lol

Keep up the GM hate, zealot.

Whoa..... can we all take it down a notch.... let's not forget we're all on the same team here. I couldn't care less if it's a LEAF, BOLT, VOLT, DOLT... whatever. As long as it has a plug.

If someone prefers the Bolt more power to 'em. Same with the Model 3 and anything else that moves without using fools fuel.

Except the Mirai... screw that thing.

 

[EinSV]

That's not an accident at all. The goal of the Bolt is clearly to call "first" over Tesla (it's not an accident that GM rushed to release it one year before the Model 3, nor is the 200 mile range target). That combined with the fact that "Tesla killer" headlines helps get more clicks is why that it is a popular narrative.

This is a great point. Imagine if GM could not call "first" and was forced to compare the Bolt head to head with the Model 3.

It wouldn't be pretty.

 

[trils0n]

Keep up the GM hate, zealot.

It is not about GM hate or GM vs Tesla or anything like that.

Most of us here are experienced EV drivers. We know the relationship between speed and energy consumption and range, and how that relates to the EPA rating.

For example, the Leaf as a very similar frontal area and drag coefficient to the Chevy Bolt. The Leaf gets a better EPA highway rating compared to my Model S. However, when I drive the Leaf at 70mph, it uses 350Wh/mile. The Model S uses 300. At 75mph, the gap widens. So the Model S is more efficient at normal freeway speeds, despite having a lower EPA rating. If you are interested you can look at the Idaho National Lab tests of different EVs and their energy consumption at different speeds. The Model S beats all of the available EVs at 60 and 70mph, despite having a lower highway EPA rating than many of them, such as the i3 and Leaf. Since the Bolt appears to have similar frontal area and drag coefficient to the Leaf, it will probably have the same real world vs EPA test penalty in range at real world highway speeds like Leaf. By selecting a test route that avoids normal speed highways it appears GM was trying to diminish that effect.

The promise of a large battery EV is long range. Most long range driving occurs at freeway speeds. Highly aerodynamic cars are a great way to take advantage of a long range battery. It appears GM decided to not take advantage of that property. Compared to the Leaf, my Model S has almost no freeway speed range penalty. This is thanks to the wonderful aero of the Tesla. This isn't fully captured in the EPA test.

GM appears to have wanted to show that their car handily beats the EPA numbers in the real world. It certainly did in this test. Many drivers had 20+ miles after a route that was equal to the EPA range. What happens when customers who think their car will handily beat the EPA range try the direct route on 101? Instead of getting the 220-245Wh/mile the low speed route used, they will get 330-350Wh/mile, similar to a Leaf due to the similar aero. 60kWh/330Wh/mile = 180 miles. 350Wh and it drops to 170.

 

[nwdiver]

For example, the Leaf as a very similar frontal area and drag coefficient to the Chevy Bolt. The Leaf gets a better EPA highway rating compared to my Model S. However, when I drive the Leaf at 70mph, it uses 350Wh/mile.

Very true... the average speed for the EPA highway rating is ~48mph. And your aerodynamic losses increase as the square of your speed... so your losses at 75 are actually >2x what they are at 48.

 

[SageBrush]

Very true... the average speed for the EPA highway rating is ~48mph. And your aerodynamic losses increase as the square of your speed... so your losses at 75 are actually >2x what they are at 48.

>2x aero losses, yes.

But to expand on your point, the aero losses have to be weighted with fixed energy consumption losses and linear losses like road friction. A not bad rule of thumb guesstimate for most cars is that Wh/mile will increase linearly with speed so driving at e.g. 70 mph consumes 50% more energy than driving at at 47 mph. This rule of thumb though is not as useful for the Model 3 due to that car's remarkably low 0.21 Cd.

 

[nwdiver]

This rule of thumb though is not as useful for the Model 3 due to that car's remarkably low 0.21 Cd.

Well... it's gonna be >2x regardless of Cd... but obviously with the Model 3 you're multiplying a small number... and with the Bolt a much larger one... so the Bolt might have an edge at 48 but it will not at 75.

It becomes obvious pretty quick that at speeds >60 drag is the dominant factor... especially if there's head winds. Anyone who thinks they can drive a Bolt with a fully charged battery 120 miles at 80mph with 20mph head winds ain't gonna be happy. I've been there in my Model S... it wasn't fun.

 

[trils0n]

The difference between real world highway range, and EPA highway range gets larger the less aerodynamic the vehicle is. A highly aerodynamic vehicle will get range at 60 and 70mph much closer to it's EPA range than a less aerodynamic vehicle. This is due to the exponential rise in energy consumption vs speed. Since the EPA highway test is biased toward low speed, it doesn't fully capture the exponential increase in energy requirements of driving faster. A highly aerodynamic car reduces the energy requirements for driving at speed, but doesn't heavily weigh on the EPA number.

 

[nwdiver]

A highly aerodynamic car reduces the energy requirements for driving at speed, but doesn't heavily weigh on the EPA number.

I was shocked that the highway test is performed at an average speed of ~48mph... who averages 48? It'll be interesting to see how far the Bolt can get doing 70... my guess is ~150 miles.