Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!

[bro1999]

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?

See, there's respectfully disagreeing (and bringing up valid counterpoints), then there is straight 100% biased bashing, like what SageBush is doing. It is straight, 100% "Ra-ra, Tesla is the best! GM sucks! Goooooooo Elon!!".

I can accept that the Model 3 will be a fine car, it looks way sportier than the Bolt, and will probably outsell the Bolt....whenever it is actually released. But the childish dismissing of the Bolt because "it looks like a dork-mobile" or because "it's a 15k Sonic for 37k with a big battery" is just ridiculous.

 

[SageBrush]

It won't be a great one. I think the Bolt will have higher efficiency at lower speeds and better ingress and egress. Also, it should have better rear cargo utility.

Teslas have very angled A pillars for aerodynamics that makes getting into and out of them a challenge for tall folks and reduces headroom.

I have always bought hatchbacks for their better visibility and utility. In that respect the M3 will be a compromise for me.

 

[diamond.g]

I agree, but Bolt EV has made such a breakthrough for value EVs. It has doubled the battery capacity and range against every other value EV on the market - and at the affordable price, at an impressive date - way ahead of everyone.

We should be congratulating GM for the effort, instead it's being downplayed by a car, that doesn't exist and Tesla's record on keeping up the schedule isn't all that good. 2 years late for Model S, 2 years late for Model X, 1 year late for Chademo adapter.

I also think some of the sting is with how GM has not really pushed BEVs in the past. So it is hard for some to believe GM is doing this because BEV is the future, so much as making sure Tesla doesn't eat into their regular vehicle sales with no answer.

Personally, I think GM is doing a great job expanding the high range BEV manufacturer list (doubled it!!). I also think they should have gone the extra mile for some stuff, like including the DC charge port as standard, not because everyone takes trips longer than 238 miles, but on the chance that you want to you could. Heck even including an EVSE that accepts 240V plug (like Tesla mobile connector) would have been a nice gesture.

 

[bro1999]

I also think some of the sting is with how GM has not really pushed BEVs in the past. So it is hard for some to believe GM is doing this because BEV is the future, so much as making sure Tesla doesn't eat into their regular vehicle sales with no answer.

That's exactly it. SOME people on here can't accept that GM, the behemoth, dinosaur automaker that makes gas-mobiles, is about to release a compelling, 200+ mile BEV for less than $40k....and do it before Tesla (the unchallenged king of EVs up to now) does. They can't accept it, so they bash it instead.

To quote the Wired article about the Bolt from earlier this year:

"Tesla is nimble, innovative, and fun to watch, as companies go. But the Bolt is far more significant than any offering from Tesla ever could be. Why? Think of the old saw about how long it takes to turn an aircraft carrier around: It’s slow, and there’s not much to see at any given moment. But the thing about people who actually manage to turn one around is: They’ve got a freaking aircraft carrier."

How GM Beat Tesla to the First True Mass-Market Electric Car

 

[JY07]

But some people will prefer the Bolt for its practicality (and maybe it's interior space). Teslas have very angled A pillars for aerodynamics that makes getting into and out of them a challenge for tall folks and reduces headroom.
View attachment 194554

Along with this I really wish Tesla wouldn't have focused so much on that lower drag coefficient: the Model S is a sexy car, the Model X and Model 3 look like they got past designing the hood and decided to model the rest of the car after a sideways egg.

A lot of posts in this thread are railing on it being no comparison due to how ugly the Bolt is (well justified), but it's not like the Model 3 is the belle of the ball either

 

[Yuri_G]

I guarantee I will be able to post pics before any Model 3 "reservation holder". And will when I actually get my Bolt. Don't you worry.

As you should, but will you get it this year or a year before Model 3's start to be delivered? I doubt it.

 

[jbcarioca]

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

Excellent article. The point is that the Bolt is excellent, but without superchargers, or supercharger capability it's a rather limited vehicle. The cynic in me wonders if that's not the point. Part of me wonders if GM wants to sell enough to get the ZEV credits, maybe damage Tesla a bit, but not enough to encourage large scale adoption.

This article is the crisp, clear, accurate reporting we've been needing for the Bolt. My only argument: given the positioning of teh Bolt few buyers will be using it for road trips. However, were teh infrastructure to be in plac and teh Bolt reengineered to accept fast charging they probably would. After all, how many people thought that Model S owners would go road trip crazy? Now it is expected, but in 2012 it most certainly was not.

 

[Breezy]

Keep in mind that if the Bolt fails, the Model 3 does too.

Merely being the number one seller in a tiny niche of the automotive market is not the purpose of the Model 3.

So let's try to refrain from spreading mis/disinformation about the Bolt. This is what people often refer to as "spreading FUD."

There is a fast-charging network. It's not just a $37k Sonic. It really does have a 238-mile EPA combined range.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

This article is the crisp, clear, accurate reporting we've been needing for the Bolt. My only argument: given the positioning of teh Bolt few buyers will be using it for road trips. However, were teh infrastructure to be in plac and teh Bolt reengineered to accept fast charging they probably would. After all, how many people thought that Model S owners would go road trip crazy? Now it is expected, but in 2012 it most certainly was not.

Asking for 150kW is unreasonable. It's a 60kW battery and the S60 could only hit around 90kW. If the Bolt's limited to 50kW, we don't know _why_ and we don't know what the _actual_ limit is on the battery, but 2.5C is an unreasonable expectation.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Keep in mind that if the Bolt fails, the Model 3 does too.

Not actually true, but it wouldn't help.

 

[EinSV]

See, there's respectfully disagreeing (and bringing up valid counterpoints), then there is straight 100% biased bashing, like what SageBush is doing. It is straight, 100% "Ra-ra, Tesla is the best! GM sucks! Goooooooo Elon!!".

I can accept that the Model 3 will be a fine car, it looks way sportier than the Bolt, and will probably outsell the Bolt....whenever it is actually released. But the childish dismissing of the Bolt because "it looks like a dork-mobile" or because "it's a 15k Sonic for 37k with a big battery" is just ridiculous.

The problem that I have with the Bolt is that with all of its resources GM could have done much, much better, but is choosing to dabble in EVs instead of making the major investments necessary to make an EV that is competitive with similarly priced ICE cars.

What Tesla has demonstrated is that when you build compelling BEV cars that are better than the ICE competition at the same price, you can outsell the competition. That is true for the Model S, and will be soon for the Model 3. The Bolt falls far short in that department and for that reason is a major disappointment to me and I believe many people.

For about the same price, a customer can buy a BMW X1 or X3, Audi Q1 or Q3 or the like. The Bolt is just not in the same league with those and other comparably priced vehicles, so its customers will largely be limited to people who really want an EV, and have that as their main and perhaps only buying criteria.

My problem with the Bolt is not that Tesla is a better company than GM (although I think it is). My problem is that GM chose not to make the investments in battery and EV technology and EV vehicle design necessary to make the Bolt a compelling choice to customers, while being profitable for the company. Instead, GM projects the Bolt to sell only 30,000 cars in the first year, a laughably small number compared with GM's total sales of 9.8 million vehicles in 2015, and compared to successful vehicles from other manufacturers in the same price range.

I am glad that GM is introducing a long-range BEV -- it is a step in the right direction. I hope its next BEV is much better and I think it can be if GM's management and its Board decide to make it a priority and make the necessary investments. For the good of GM's own employees and shareholders, I hope that GM quits dabbling in the EV game and gets serious about it.

 

[Jeff N]

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.

I think that is too pessimistic. The Bolt gets a 110 MPGe highway rating vs the 30 kWh Nissan LEAF which gets 101 MPGe highway so that implies that the Bolt's powertrain is somewhat more efficient at higher speeds.

If you look at the steady speed range chart produced by Tony Williams for the LEAF and updated for the 30 kWh version you will see that 70 mph implies 95 miles. Double that for the Bolt's 60 kWh pack and you get 190 miles without taking into account that 101 MPGe vs 110 MPGe highway difference between the cars. Even at 75 mph the chart and 30 kWh update implies 87 X 2 or 174 miles before powertrain efficiency adjustments.

Range Chart - My Nissan Leaf Forum

 

[jbcarioca]

Asking for 150kW is unreasonable. It's a 60kW battery and the S60 could only hit around 90kW. If the Bolt's limited to 50kW, we don't know _why_ and we don't know what the _actual_ limit is on the battery, but 2.5C is an unreasonable expectation.

I don't recall asking for that. Still, the CCS infrastructure to support the Europeans will need very fast sources so the 2020 CCS array is quite likely to be capable fo that. Of course, by that time Tesla will probably be even higher...

 

[McRat]

You're missing the general point. The point is that the 238 EPA rating for the Bolt ≠ a 238 EPA rating for a Tesla at normal highway speeds for the Cd reasons stated previously. 150 miles of range is more than adequate... just don't expect a Bolt of have longer range than a Model 3 under normal highway driving conditions. Nothing wrong with the Bolt... it'll do just fine for most people.

What do you call Normal Highway? No Car Company On Earth can make EPA ratings in West Texas. It's 85 mph of rolling hills and no traffic except high speed passing sometimes. But West Texas is off limits to EVs. No charging.

Normal Highway In Southern Car i Fornia is stop and go mixed with 75 mph. That's on a GOOD day.

A 2016 Chevrolet Volt will exceed it's EPA rating on the 91 corridor for commuting on the highway simply because of congestion. The worst the traffic, the better the economy. The regen on Chevrolets is very good. In city driving, the 2016 Volt my son drives will get 20% higher than the EPA number. That's 64mi on 14 kWh.

I expect the more congested the region is, the better numbers Chevrolets will produce. Not so much with the existing Teslas.

 

[diamond.g]

Along with this I really wish Tesla wouldn't have focused so much on that lower drag coefficient: the Model S is a sexy car, the Model X and Model 3 look like they got past designing the hood and decided to model the rest of the car after a sideways egg.

A lot of posts in this thread are railing on it being no comparison due to how ugly the Bolt is (well justified), but it's not like the Model 3 is the belle of the ball either

I suspect they are worried about drag because they figure folks who do high speed highway driving would be more impacted than those that do lower speed driving. That and I think they are looking to compete with BMW and Mercedes Benz, whom vehicles are not (typically) ugly.

 

[diamond.g]

Asking for 150kW is unreasonable. It's a 60kW battery and the S60 could only hit around 90kW. If the Bolt's limited to 50kW, we don't know _why_ and we don't know what the _actual_ limit is on the battery, but 2.5C is an unreasonable expectation.

Why can't it charge at the same rate that it discharges (200 hp ~ 150kW)?

 

[techmaven]

Asking for 150kW is unreasonable. It's a 60kW battery and the S60 could only hit around 90kW. If the Bolt's limited to 50kW, we don't know _why_ and we don't know what the _actual_ limit is on the battery, but 2.5C is an unreasonable expectation.

The Bolt uses NMC chemistry which historically has meant it can tolerate higher charging c-rates. Tesla is using NCA chemistry which doesn't, and adding in silicon to the anode has further kept a lid on charging c-rates. So given historical precedent, I would expect that the Bolt could easily charge at 2C, or 120kW, and possibly even more, so 150 kW is not out of reach. The Kia Soul EV does something around 2.5C.

However, this does still come down to the exact tuning of each chemistry and the tolerance for cycle life damage. Nissan obviously chose to allow significant damage to their battery pack. Each new chemistry tuning is a new ball game and should be reviewed.

 

[Jeff N]

The Cd numbers are out... it's 0.21 for the Model 3 vs 0.32 for the Bolt. That's a HUGE difference. Not that it matters since range isn't important

It's slightly less dramatic than that. Despite what that article says, Tesla has never said that the Model 3 will have a Cd of 0.21, as far as I know. The article, written in April, is just a sloppy rewrite of an Electrek report that it links to which actually says [emphasis added]:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that he expects the Model 3 to achieve an incredibly low 0.21 Cd

Here's the history:

Electrek quotes a friend of a Tesla employee as saying less than 0.20:

Sources: Tesla Model 3 will have extreme aerodynamic design details

Elon Musk says "hopefully 0.21":

Twitter

At that's about it. Tesla has never confirmed that 0.21 was actually achieved.

Also, the 0.32 Cd quote from the GM designer in Korea is odd because GM disclosed an actual Cd of 0.312 to some select media including Car & Driver shortly after the production design reveal at CES in Las Vegas last January. As far as I can tell, 0.312 is still the real official number although it needs to be reconfirmed.

 

[McRat]

Do you think the M3 will be a poor city car ?

No worse than a Vette or any other low car with large rims. Just give yourself more cushion, watch driveways and potholes, and don't park next to cars with dents in them.

Best city cars are ones you don't care about the paint, have a high seating position, haul a lot of groceries, can park in a small spot, can be ID'd at distance in a large parking lot, don't attract police, and have 0-30 punch with no wheelspin.

 

[techmaven]

Why can't it charge at the same rate that it discharges (200 hp ~ 150kW)?

Charging c-rate and discharging c-rate damage is not necessarily symmetrical depending on the battery chemistry, including the exact makeup of the cathode, anode, and electrolyte.