Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt

[Jeff N]

just going with the initial PR where it says the EV mode will lock it in EV operation:
"It even has one driving detail that will please plug-in enthusiasts right off the bat: The Prius Prime will, in its EV Mode, entirely lock in electric operation—even when you floor the accelerator."
2016 Toyota Prius Prime: details on 120 MPGe plug-in hybrid, all-electric mode

Of course we will see when the user manual comes out (I tried to search, but couldn't find it either).

All this is a small software feature anyways since essentially this is just a software speed limiter similar to valet mode, (seems kind of silly to let that be a designation of a car category, which is why I guess the SAE never accepted GM's EREV definition/terminology).

You're reading too much into that article. It does not say the Prime is speed-limited to 84 mph in EV mode. It says:

That’s allowed Toyota to raise the maximum all-electric speed from 62 mph to 84 mph

That's entirely consistent with my information which came directly from Toyota, as quoted in my earlier post, that the engine automatically switches on if you drive faster than 84 mph in EV mode.

Also note that this was a very early article and sometimes immediate articles get details wrong, make bad assumptions, or lack clarity because of ambiguous information provided by sources.

 

[Jeff N]

In other news to elicit a yawn, GM chooses an 'EREV' definition that only includes the Volt.

Who wudda thunk ?!

Now if only anyone cared, I could at least understand the five posts dedicated to the question.

GM's definition would clearly include the BMW i3 REx. It might also be considered to include the Ford Energi models when put into their "EVNow" mode which, as I understand it, is persistent across restarts and does not start the engine automatically due to acceleration or speed.

 

[EVNow]

GM's definition would clearly include the BMW i3 REx. It might also be considered to include the Ford Energi models when put into their "EVNow" mode which, as I understand it, is persistent across restarts and does not start the engine automatically due to acceleration or speed.

I should have trademarked my forum name - I could have sued Ford.

 

[KZKZ]

While the blended brakes explanation was not a valid explanation for why adaptive cruise control was left out of the Bolt (neither the i3 nor the Model S has blended brakes and they have adaptive cruise control), the answer was pretty clear that there won't be adaptive cruise control in the Bolt (while blended brakes was just a side point):
"No. Adaptive cruise control – no, you would need the blended brakes to do that and we didn’t want to do that with this car. However, all the standard side blind zones, rear cross traffic alert, ten air bags, all that’s there. What’s new is the optional Rear Camera Mirror."
Exclusive: Inside The Chevrolet Bolt With Its Chief Engineer - New Details

I would venture to guess the chief engineer would have the same definition of adaptive cruise control as most people, although what he meant with "blended brakes" may have mixed interpretations.

It's pretty short sighted if they wouldn't offer ACC. It doesn't really make a difference to me because I can't get past the econo-car looks of the Bolt. Nothing about it says $35K car to me.

 

[diamond.g]

It's pretty short sighted if they wouldn't offer ACC. It doesn't really make a difference to me because I can't get past the econo-car looks of the Bolt. Nothing about it says $35K car to me.

Good thing it is only $30k, right?

 

[Topher]

Good thing it is only $30k, right?

Actually it is a $37,500 car. Since it seems likely that there will be 3 times as many Model ≡s sold which are eligible for the tax credit as Bolts, one really should use the list price for both.

Thank you kindly.

 

[diamond.g]

Actually it is a $37,500 car. Since it seems likely that there will be 3 times as many Model ≡s sold which are eligible for the tax credit as Bolts, one really should use the list price for both.

Thank you kindly.

I know. That is what was for.

The Model 3 is cheaper (list) than the Bolt.

 

[KZKZ]

and 10x better looking !

 

[raysspl]

A very thoughtful analysis. The only thing the Volt / Bolt has is the delivery schedule. Everything else is undeniably the Model 3.

 

[McRat]

Actually it is a $37,500 car. Since it seems likely that there will be 3 times as many Model ≡s sold which are eligible for the tax credit as Bolts, one really should use the list price for both.

Thank you kindly.

If true out-the-door pricing is used on EV's, don't expect EV sales to rise. They are still past the mean sale price for new cars, and significantly higher of similar ICE cars. $35,000 buys a lot of sedan today.

The price is significantly higher than similar cars, and the EV aspect will never pay for itself.

The assumption that the Model 3 will be sold for $35,000 + Dest, isn't based on historical Tesla price announcements for new model more than 1 year out. The idea that Chevy won't have factory incentitives on the Volt/Bolt/SparkEV is also a poor bet based on history.

The biggest advantage a Model 3 has in the way of pricing apples/apples is that the tech is getting cheaper. The later release of the 3 will give it production cost advantages. However, it will be competing in an unknown field of 2018/2019 EV's including Chevy.

 

[McRat]

A very thoughtful analysis. The only thing the Volt / Bolt has is the delivery schedule. Everything else is undeniably the Model 3.

What is the true miles per kWh for the Model 3?
What will be it's services stats/costs after 300,000 miles?
Will there be a true nationwide (full coverage) DCFC network for Tesla or any other EV in 2019?
What will be the average service center radius for Tesla in 2019?

Today, the Volt actually does get it's claimed EV miles or more, with very little drop in battery capacity or service costs after nearly 7 years. So many Volts are over 100,000 miles now, that the reliability and service network is well know.
And obviously, a Volt can go anywhere a normal car can go with no waiting to charge.

The Bolt will probably be like the Silverado, Cruze, Volt, Corvette, et al. Odds are it will exceed marketing claims in the real world measured by real owners under real conditions. Chevy is one of the few automakers who deliberately understates their specification during the pre-release marketing.

Assuming Tesla will do a full 180° in their marketing since 2009 by next year is not realistic. As an early pre-order Model 3 buyer, I do not expect the early marketing figures to be attained. That is OK. Some companies have different marketing strategies, but that does not actually change the finished product mechanically. I'm buying a finished retail car, not a 2 year premature brochure.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I realize your own individual definition of "EREV", as you have stated previously, prohibits use of the gas engine for cabin heating in cold winter conditions and thus you think the Volt is not an "EREV" since it starts the engine at temperatures under 15F.

I was assuming GM's definition which only requires the engine not be started due to vehicle speed or torque requirements. Thus, cabin heating is largely irrelevant to EREV battery sizing.

The Prime starts the engine at vehicle speeds over 85 mph and thus is not an EREV under GM's definition.

E-REV: “A vehicle that functions as full-performance battery electric vehicle when energy is available from an onboard RESS [rechargeable energy storage system] and having an auxiliary energy supply that is only engaged when the RESS energy is not available.”

GM's definition isn't the definition, and for good reason. To limit cold engine starts to trips beyond the range available from the battery, you need sufficient electric capability in three areas: power, torque and heating. GM's definition doesn't satisfy one of those needs. It's not sufficient to say that it's OK most of the time or in most places any more than the 84mph EV limitation of the Prime (which I hadn't seen when I last posted), is OK because 85mph is only legal in a few places.

Given that based on the Gen 1 Volt and the Gen 2 Volt we know that the Gen 2 Volt could have had a smaller battery, and more than enough performance, and given that the Prime's has the same heating limitation as the Volt, and given that the i3 REx forwent the heat pump when they put the engine in, there's a pretty obvious good-enough attitude to the heating system.

For BEVs there's no waste engine heat to fall back on. As we get beyond CARB ZEV era, I expect more innovative engineering work to be done on effective automotive electric heating systems.

 

[Jayc]

I expect Tesla to better their claims. EM very unlikely to promise and not deliver especially mileage and performance figures.

However, I am doubtful Tesla can achieve a 0.21 Cd with the production car but EM only stated that as being their goal but otherwise I have full confidence in the figures. Remember EM made it a point to say that base M3 will do at least 215 miles on everyday driving conditions rather than just test cycles.

 

[Topher]

Remember EM made it a point to say that base M3 will do at least 215 miles on everyday driving conditions rather than just test cycles.

Where did he say that? In the reveal he said "EPA rated miles"

Thank you kindly.

 

[vjason]

Let me preface this by saying I was one of the many in line at 3AM to put down my deposit, and I have zero interest in a Volt/Bolt. That being said.....

What Chevy also has is a robust dealer network (ok some of them are rather shady) and a somewhat decent history with regard to initial build quality. While the car may be uninspiring, even if they had a bunch of issues you know you could probably get it in for service very fast.

Let us hope that Tesla nails the defects early on in the ramp up process because if they don't getting service will be difficult. I realize a 3 is nothing like an X, but some of the things I read on the X board about issues at delivery aren't exactly reassuring. I'm not talking about the infamous door latches; I'm talking about panel gaps, loose molding, whistling noise, and so on. These are simple things that should have been addressed prior to shipping. Especially given what most of those folks are spending.

My 2 cents. And like I said I'm still getting a 3 (when I can, being an east coast non owner and all).

A very thoughtful analysis. The only thing the Volt / Bolt has is the delivery schedule. Everything else is undeniably the Model 3.

 

[dsvick]

The price is significantly higher than similar cars, and the EV aspect will never pay for itself.

There are way too many variables involved to be able to make a sweeping statement like that. Several of the reasons are:
As you said later in your post the tech is getting cheaper, so the cost of the EV part of it will come down.
As gas prices increase the savings will increase.
As more people purchase EVs the price will come down as more companies get involved and there is more competition.

So, while there may be something of a premium for an EV right now, that can hardly be expected to last.

Assuming Tesla will do a full 180° in their marketing since 2009 by next year is not realistic. As an early pre-order Model 3 buyer, I do not expect the early marketing figures to be attained.

What figures don't you expect to be attained? Range? Cost? Production date?

 

[Jeff N]

E-REV: “A vehicle that functions as full-performance battery electric vehicle when energy is available from an onboard RESS [rechargeable energy storage system] and having an auxiliary energy supply that is only engaged when the RESS energy is not available.”

GM's definition isn't the definition, and for good reason. To limit cold engine starts to trips beyond the range available from the battery, you need sufficient electric capability in three areas: power, torque and heating. GM's definition doesn't satisfy one of those needs.

Just to be clear, your E-REV quote is taken from one part of GM's definition. That definition, in a 2008 SAE paper written by GM engineers involved in developing the Volt, does not raise or discuss cabin heating or climate controls at all. It's entirely focused on the propulsion requirements. They obviously intended the definition to apply to the Volt.

You believe that cabin climate controls should become an additional requirement in any E-REV (or EREV) definition.

I think your view has merit as does GM's published definition. Since no standards body has adopted an official EREV definition there is no "the definition" although I think GM's definition is a reasonable default for public discussion since they popularized the term first.

I was just trying to be clear that you were describing and promoting your own EREV definition rather than attempting to describe some standards-based definition or GM's definition which popularized the acronym when the Volt was first introduced as a concept car beginning in 2007.

In any case, this is the wrong thread for extended EREV discussions.

 

[RiverBrick]

The idea that Chevy won't have factory incentitives on the Volt/Bolt/SparkEV is also a poor bet based on history.

Unless you're limiting discussion to CARB-ZEV states, that's a very debatable statement.

 

[Topher]

hey obviously intended the definition to apply to the Volt.

And it doesn't, ironically enough.

Thank you kindly.

 

[melindav]

What Chevy also has is a robust dealer network (ok some of them are rather shady) and a somewhat decent history with regard to initial build quality. While the car may be uninspiring, even if they had a bunch of issues you know you could probably get it in for service very fast.

Speaking as someone with a GM currently sitting at a Chevy dealership for an emergency mechanical repair, I'm not so sure that either the dealership network or "decent build quality" (which I've had more quality issues with the GM I currently drive than any of my other cars combined) are great selling points.
IE, my car went in Monday with no coolant/engine fan. Repair quote was $850+tax for the dead fan module and labor - plus the suggestion that a number of other items needed immediate maintenance (each for about another $200), including fluid changes that have recently been done, belts that had recently been looked over, brakes that had been recently done, etc. In other words, suggestions in addition to the hefty repair bill that were not needed but presented in a way that someone unknowing would believe needed to be done before they drove away. Not to mention, the part to be replaced can be purchased for about $300 less than the GM parts MSRP and am sure it's full price is included in the quote.
Even if Tesla's have a few quality issues, there are endless stories of people surprised by the generosity of Tesla's service. Often going in for a minor issue, and other parts replace because the service crew noticed an issue the owner had not. I would much rather be surprised by extra work being included at no charge than being pushed for repair costs that are not required.