-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
Nice, that's actually higher than many were predicting due to the aero.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
GM was actually one of only two automakers that sued CARB over the ZEV mandate (the other was Daimler Chrysler).
GM Takes CARB to Court Over ZEV Mandate : EVWORLD.COM
GM under then-chairman Roger Smith had genuine interest in EVs when the Impact concept was developed and that continued into the EV-1 under John Smith. Then under Rick Wagoner, attention shifted to hydrogen cars and thus came the push to end the ZEV mandate.
Best-Kept Secret in Detroit: The Development of GM's Electric Car
The other unique thing GM did that set back EV development was selling of the Nimh patents to Chevron, which encumbered them. And unlike Honda and Toyota, they didn't have a "green" replacement for EVs, like the Prius or Insight.
Sigh.
EPA US06 has only a 48 mph average speed.
Using EPA highway tests to determine BEV long distance range is going to set people up for disappointment. The point is that poor aero will start to show up at 45 to 50 mph, but will really start to hammer at 60+mph. Note how the graph has no flat, 70 mph or 75 mph sections. No straight across lines. It's as if the EPA thinks we don't have cruise control. It's more reflective of moderate traffic in a commute from the suburbs to downtown scenario. Also note that this test has 5 full, to zero mph stops and spends only about half the time over 60 mph. Note the end part that favors light vehicles over heavy ones. The Model S is a long distance highway cruiser. And when you really want to know about range over 150 miles, it's about 70-80 mph steady state driving.
A BMW i3 BEV has a 111 MPGe highway, or 1 higher than the Bolt. And yet, at 70 mph, it is less efficient than the Tesla S85, much less the S60.
Let's see how the Bolt really does at a steady state 70 mph or 78 mph to see what it really does on the highway.
Last edited:
True, although GM developed modern hybrid tech in their R&D labs at the same time as Toyota (actually earlier) and productized it in transit busses instead of passenger cars. Later, they adapted it to pickups and SUVs in 2008 and then finally into the 2011 Volt and the 2nd generation Volt and 2016 Malibu hybrid.
Revenge of the Two-Mode Hybrid - HybridCars.com
The Bolt will likely be around the same at 65 mph as the S60 and worse at higher speeds. Oh well.
The difference doesn't matter that much unless you are straining to reach a distant recharging point. I'm guessing you could still get around 180 miles of range at a constant 75 mph.
Last edited:
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Honda's "Golden Age" from the mid-90's to the early 2000's was followed by years of disappointment.
Why did people grow to hate Honda? Honda let the S2000 roadster wither and die. The Accord went from nimble sedan in 2007 to fat barge in 2008, as did the Acura TSX a year later. Excess weight and outdated powertrains lead to everything from Civic to CR-V being slow. It wasn't until the last few years or so that Honda started to get back on track. The '09 Civic is an 8th Gen, which is actually OK IMO with a stick shift, but utterly, hopelessly sluggish with an automatic.
The Takata mess though has probably cost Honda a lot of customers though. Imagine that you have a Honda and you get a recall letter. Except there are no replacement airbag parts yet. And oh by the way, the car is dangerous to drive or transport a passenger. There's also conveniently a stop-sale order on cars that are under recall but not repaired, so forget about a trade-in. And you will get a loaner if the driver's side is affected, but not necessarily if the passenger side is affected. Or your car may be recalled several times for different airbags or even replacement of the same airbag because it was initially fixed with a part from Takata that turned out to be dangerous. Yeah, I'd say Honda's decision to use cheap and dangerous Takata airbags has been extremely costly to them in terms of customer goodwill and brand reputation.
I think anyone driving an EV at 75 mph or higher on long road trips is going to be setting themselves up for range disappointment vs EPA. Not just Bolt drivers.
There were also shenanigans between GM and Chevron. Texaco bought the patents for NiMH batteries, including a GM patent for NiMH battery packs and shortly after that, Chevron bought Texaco. Chevron then went and forbid anyone make an EV with NiMH batteries. They could be used for hybrids with fairly severe limits on range, but not for a pure EV.
GM used this as one of the excuses to kill the EV-1. I'm sure they had some backroom collusion with Chevron to do it.
Many of those patents have expired, but the patent on EV battery packs with NiMH batteries is still vaild until 2020. But Li-ion are proving to be a better battery for EVs because of better energy density, though NiMH batteries are safer (less fire risk).
Physics is working against you. The faster you go, the worse the drag gets. Though Tesla's are the most aerodynamic EVs out there and their range rolls off on a less steep curve with speed than other EVs.
All of the EVs that get better highway EPA ratings than the Model S use more energy than the Model S during steady state cruising at 60mph or higher. If you're interested, the Idaho National Lab tests EVs at steady state driving at various speeds. Once you hit 60mph, the Model S is the most efficient in terms of Wh/mile, according to those steady state driving tests. For a real world example, my girlfriend has a Leaf that has 102 highway mpge rating vs my Model S at 90 mpge. At 70mph steady state the Leaf uses about 350Wh/mile and the Model S uses about 300Wh/mile. So despite having 10% greater highway mpge, it uses more than 15% more energy at 70mph.
Why is this? Why does a car with a lower highway rating use less energy driving at highway speeds than a car with a better rating? In short, the Model S is very aerodynamic, and the EPA test isn't very representative of highway cruising speeds.
As @techmaven noted, at 45-50mph aero starts to show up. Around 45-50mph, when you break down energy consumption, it is about 50-50 rolling resistance/mechanical losses vs aero. Slightly different for each vehicle. The rolling resistance/mechanical contribution to energy usage rises linearly with speed. Wind resistance rises with the square of speed. So the higher you go above around 50mph, the greater proportion of your energy usage is due to aerodynamics. A lowish speed test like the EPA highway test, with lots of stop and go/congestion type driving allows the Bolt to get a good highway rating because it's low speed efficiency is excellent. EPA probably chose this test to emulate highway driving in busy metro areas, not for long range driving, which often happens on less congested areas at a more steady and high speed pace.
The Bolt has a Cd and frontal area similar to the Leaf. Which means its total drag area (frontal area x Cd) will be >7sq ft. Model S drag area is ~6 sq ft. Model 3 is smaller than Model S, so it will have less frontal area, and it is supposed to be more aerodynamic. But even if you assume the worst case (same size as Model S, and same aero), it is still going to be more efficient than the Bolt at 65+ mph steady state driving due to the lower drag area. More realistic numbers put the Model 3 drag area <6 sq ft.
What does this mean for which is the better EV? The Bolt will probably be more efficient at congested metro area driving than the Model 3, but the Model 3 will be more efficient for road trip type distance driving. Since both cars will have 200+ miles range, it doesn't really matter for daily driving such as a congested metro area commute. Both cars will easily make it through the day and do so without burning gas, and the Bolt will probably be more efficient in that scenario. But for long-range driving, where you can go a steadyish freeway speed, the Model 3 will have an advantage in energy consumption.
Why is this? Why does a car with a lower highway rating use less energy driving at highway speeds than a car with a better rating? In short, the Model S is very aerodynamic, and the EPA test isn't very representative of highway cruising speeds.
As @techmaven noted, at 45-50mph aero starts to show up. Around 45-50mph, when you break down energy consumption, it is about 50-50 rolling resistance/mechanical losses vs aero. Slightly different for each vehicle. The rolling resistance/mechanical contribution to energy usage rises linearly with speed. Wind resistance rises with the square of speed. So the higher you go above around 50mph, the greater proportion of your energy usage is due to aerodynamics. A lowish speed test like the EPA highway test, with lots of stop and go/congestion type driving allows the Bolt to get a good highway rating because it's low speed efficiency is excellent. EPA probably chose this test to emulate highway driving in busy metro areas, not for long range driving, which often happens on less congested areas at a more steady and high speed pace.
The Bolt has a Cd and frontal area similar to the Leaf. Which means its total drag area (frontal area x Cd) will be >7sq ft. Model S drag area is ~6 sq ft. Model 3 is smaller than Model S, so it will have less frontal area, and it is supposed to be more aerodynamic. But even if you assume the worst case (same size as Model S, and same aero), it is still going to be more efficient than the Bolt at 65+ mph steady state driving due to the lower drag area. More realistic numbers put the Model 3 drag area <6 sq ft.
What does this mean for which is the better EV? The Bolt will probably be more efficient at congested metro area driving than the Model 3, but the Model 3 will be more efficient for road trip type distance driving. Since both cars will have 200+ miles range, it doesn't really matter for daily driving such as a congested metro area commute. Both cars will easily make it through the day and do so without burning gas, and the Bolt will probably be more efficient in that scenario. But for long-range driving, where you can go a steadyish freeway speed, the Model 3 will have an advantage in energy consumption.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm well aware of the two-mode hybrid history, but didn't think it was worthwhile to mention, not only because it turned out to be a market failure, but the types of vehicles it supported (full-size SUVs and trucks) were not replacements for the type of vehicles that EV buyers were driving.
My main point was that one of the reasons why there was little backlash against other automakers was because they had other options that served as "replacements".
Yes, it was a failure in the pickup truck and SUV markets because those customers were often ideologically hostile to "green" and efficiency, among other reasons.
It was a market success in the transit bus market and still sells very well there.
It remains to be seen how well it's reintroduction in a variant form in the mainstream market via the mid-size 2016 Malibu hybrid will do. The same Malibu basic hybrid system is used in the 2nd generation 2016 Volt PHEV/EREV. An extension of the system is used in the CT6 PHEV.
Last edited:
Thanks. Clear explanation. So Model 3's efficiency at high speed is due to less drag. Anyone has a guess on where the Bolt's efficiency comes from at low speed? Lower weight than a model 3? Better drivetrain? Different tires?
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
75 MPH is the sweet-spot for a Model S where (super)charging matches driving. i.e. Drive faster and you have to charge longer and arrive later, driver slower and you charge less, but still arrive later.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Elon wanted the legacy OEMs to make and market compelling BEVs not $37,495 econoboxes that have a $15k-$17k premium for being electric.
Mathematically, it should be higher than that, for Supercharging. The balanced optimum driving speed should be close to the average charging rate - which is hundreds of mph.
Of course, that assumes you have no other limitations (traffic, boys in blue,) and that the charge stations are close enough together and always available.
It might also make the trip feel longer, since you'll be spending a lot more time sitting and waiting for charge.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Google for "GM Tesla store bans".
GM is the only OEM that is VERY active in every Statehouse where there is legislation pending that will effect Tesla stores. Ford and FCA were somewhat active in Michigan but I have not heard of them spending dollars on lobbyist on this issue anywhere else.
The Bolt's not going to be an econobox, unless your definition of econobox is "any car without adaptive cruise".
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
Bolt may not be an econobox, but lets keep it real: it looks like a Honda Fit.
Now I love the Honda Fit. It's small on the outside and cavernous on the inside, and it will carry and haul things about as well as a compact CUV, but it's a budget car. Most anyone willing to drop 30k on a car is not going to want to project the image of an econobox buyer. A car is in many ways not much different than clothing in what it communicates about one's status. GM will probably be able to sell Bolts to young green urbanites, but I don't see that it will gain much traction in mainstream America. If GM makes an Equinox-like EV with decent range at that price, it would have much more appeal.
Similar threads
