Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!

[diamond.g]

According to CD the Bolt is more efficient than the i3 in both City and Highway mileage (MPGe). They also stated that up to 40 Miles of the range is due to the regen. Which makes me wonder if they had basically built the car around the EPA test (where Cd doesn't matter as much as weight).

 

[HCK]

In reference to the Cd comments, note Cd is the drag coefficient only. Total drag = Cd * car frontal area.
A car can have a lower drag coefficient, but if it's frontal area is large it may have a higher drag forces than a car with a higher Cd. Cd is a measuremen of aero design efficiency only. So the very small frontal area of a Fiat combined with a higher Cd can ( and probably does ) result in lower drag me hen say the Tesla.

 

[HCK]

Sorry, last sentence in my post should read:

. . . result in lower drag than say the Tesla Model 3.

 

[ModelNforNerd]

That number is fantastic news for us.

If you don't think Elon isn't tweaking numbers right now, you haven't been paying attention long enough.

(and if he's not tweaking numbers....it's because the Model 3 is already positioned to be more efficient, in that case, I picture him in his subterranean lair, stroking a cat)

 

[juanmedina]

That number is fantastic news for us.

If you don't think Elon isn't tweaking numbers right now, you haven't been paying attention long enough.

(and if he's not tweaking numbers....it's because the Model 3 is already positioned to be more efficient, in that case, I picture him in his subterranean lair, stroking a cat)

I agree. I hope he twits something soon about the model 3 range.

 

[jbcarioca]

According to CD the Bolt is more efficient than the i3 in both City and Highway mileage (MPGe). They also stated that up to 40 Miles of the range is due to the regen. Which makes me wonder if they had basically built the car around the EPA test (where Cd doesn't matter as much as weight).

Of course they did. GM understands the EPA cycle as well as anyone and builds to it whenever it so important for marketing and/or fleet economy purposes. The very fact that GM officially states they want nothing to do with charging infrastructure suggests that, when coupled with their CARB state only selling plans further tells the compliance-car story. That does not make it bad by any means, but it does show that GM does not have it's sights set on real EV success, but on positioning with regulators. What else would we expect from GM?

I hope I am incorrect. All that GM says seems to reaffirm that I am not missing anything.

As for efficiency: We only need to drive a Bolt, an i3 and an MS60 at a steady 70 mph to see which is the most efficient at normal Tesla-driver typical use. Aerodynamics DO count in the real world even if one can game the EPA system to make is seem irrelevant.

 

[Cebe]

To be clear, this is longer range, but explicitly the "same" 60kWh battery? They didn't, for example, decide and figure out how to fit a 70kWh battery in the Bolt instead?

 

[jbcarioca]

...
Bolt is no threat for M3, but is an endgame for i3, Leaf and similar punishment cars.

To be fair most Leaf drivers are urban-only, and the vehicle is not a 'punishment' car in that context. Still, the i3 is very, very expensive and not really better than the Leaf. Does that mean the Bolt will screw them both to the wall? Possibly, but remember the practical side; the Leaf works with Chademo, semi-widely available. The i3, well, go look for CCS if you want to use it now anywhere other than purely local.

 

[sandpiper]

It makes sense that the Bolt has a longer range than the base Model 3. GM doesn't give people the option of different sized batteries, which means that for GM, they need to get as high a number as possible, to try to adress as much of the market as possible. On the other hand, the base Model 3 is designed to have the smallest possible range that people still find acceptable. And then for those people who don't think that's sufficient, you always have the upgraded battery with over 300 miles of range.

Just to note, if the Model 3 has 5% lower consumption, and has 55 kWh in the base version and 85 kWh with the largest battery, the base Model 3 will have 230 miles range, and the Model 3 with the largest battery will have 355 miles range.

I don't, for a second, believe that Tesla will put out a battery with less than 60kw. Not if the Bolt has a 60 kw battery. Tesla is sandbagging their numbers for the same reason that GM did; they don't want to prompt the competition to respond until the last possible moment.

I predict that the base model 3 will have a 60 kwh battery and an EPA range of over 250 miles. And while I'm at it, I also predict that the top model 3 will have a 90 kwh battery and range of over 375 miles. And while I'm at it I also predict that the Model S P110D will be the new big dog on the lot by the time that the Model 3 hits the road, with a 2.4 second 0-60, a completely reworked interior and some strong visual cues that clearly differentiate it from the rest of the MS lineup.

 

[bro1999]

Of course they did. GM understands the EPA cycle as well as anyone and builds to it whenever it so important for marketing and/or fleet economy purposes. The very fact that GM officially states they want nothing to do with charging infrastructure suggests that, when coupled with their CARB state only selling plans further tells the compliance-car story. That does not make it bad by any means, but it does show that GM does not have it's sights set on real EV success, but on positioning with regulators. What else would we expect from GM?

I hope I am incorrect. All that GM says seems to reaffirm that I am not missing anything.

As for efficiency: We only need to drive a Bolt, an i3 and an MS60 at a steady 70 mph to see which is the most efficient at normal Tesla-driver typical use. Aerodynamics DO count in the real world even if one can game the EPA system to make is seem irrelevant.

Just like they "gamed" the Volt (Gen 1 and 2) EV range numbers, along with the Spark EV, right? GM's numbers are easily exceeded by real owners in real world driving. I expect no different with the Bolt. This ain't Ford.

 

[Chuq]

I agree. I hope he twits something soon about the model 3 range.

I hope he waits until the day after they release it

 

[mikevbf]

Much lower weight due to much smaller size of the Bolt.

The real question is how is Bolt that much more efficient than similarly shaped i3?
We were to believe the i3 is some engineering marvel, superoptimized and what not... and then comes the GM and beats it to the ground with no fancy shmancy carbon-fiber thermo-plastic materials, but with plane old metal.

Bolt is no threat for M3, but is an endgame for i3, Leaf and similar punishment cars.

The only reason I would consider a Bolt over a M3 is the greater utility of a true hatchback and that there is Chevy service within 5 miles of my house instead of 100! The range is a small factor because as many have pointed out without access to the Super charger network even a 200 mile range M3 is better for road trips. Some reasons I lean toward a M3 is an AWD option and what I believe will be a Superior design for manufacturing and thus reliability somewhat mitigating the service distance argument. If the Model Y was coming out within the year, I would have no question. I agree that the Bolt out competes everything but the Model 3, but I am sure I am not the only one who is cross shopping it against the Model 3.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

MS P100D: 100 kWh battery / 315 mi = .317 kWh/mi
MS 90D: 90 kWh battery / 294 mi = .306 kWh/mi
MS 75: 75 kWh battery / 259 mi = .290 kWh/mi
MS 60: 60 kWh battery / 218 mi = .275 kWh/mi

Bolt: 60 kWh battery / 238 mi = .252 kWh/mi

Why is the bolt battery more efficient? The Cd of the MS is better so aerodynamics can't be the reason.

Overall rated range is based on 55% city/45% highway.
Bolt weighs about 3600lb, S60 was 4464 lbs.

 

[SageBrush]

How did you calculate 304 Wh/mile?

The EPA MPGe and kWh/100 miles numbers include charging overhead.

110 MPGe,
33,400 Wh per gallon equivalent
so (33,400/110) Wh/mile

Addendum:
I'm a little more awake now ... you are right.
I conflated highway MPGe (110) with highway range.

So 110 MPGe = 33,400/110 miles = 304 Wh/mile which includes charging.

 

[jbcarioca]

Just like they "gamed" the Volt (Gen 1 and 2) EV range numbers, along with the Spark EV, right? GM's numbers are easily exceeded by real owners in real world driving. I expect no different with the Bolt. This ain't Ford.

The major difference between Ford and GM probably is that Ford did not go bankrupt. However, unlike the EU standards, the EPA ones can all be exceeded by careful drivers, regardless of which brand is involved. I regularly exceed rated range in my Model S and have handily done so with a Leaf. I personally have not done so with a Volt, but my Bolt-owning friend does so on a daily basis. Another friend has a Ford C-Max Energi with an EPA electric-only range of 19 miles; every day he commutes 23 miles and claims he's never had the engine start on that commute.To beat the EPA is not magic; all that is required is high consistency with steady cruising of, say, 55 mph. Outside of major urban congestion or high speed highway driving we all can beat the EPA.

Despite that, all these compliance cars share serious compromises. Whether the Bolt cures that deficiency seems unlikely given the GM distribution and support plans. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Vitold]

Tesla has invested in charging network and larger battery than what is needed to go from Supercharger to Supercharger is a waste of weight and space. What we still don't know about Bolt is it's real miles in all weather conditions, heater or AC on. Given it's large internal volume - heating it in winter could be a real battery killer.

Also, if GM/LG was optimizing for range they may have compromised on safety. I would wait until crash results are in before considering one.

 

[dsvick]

Sorry, last sentence in my post should read:

. . . result in lower drag than say the Tesla Model 3.

Regardless of what it should say I thought "... drag me hen say the Tesla" was pretty funny

 

[dsvick]

They also stated that up to 40 Miles of the range is due to the regen.

So, someone that does a lot of highway driving would see range somewhere near 200 miles.
How much of the stated range on the MS and MX are based on regen?

 

[techmaven]

It could be that GM sandbagged us on the CdA (frontal area x Cd), that it is much better than the 8.05 sq ft they told car magazines.

Still, the vehicle is almost 1,000 pounds heavier than the i3 33 kWh and gets better efficiency ratings? This is one we'll have to see people test independently. Hopefully the reviewers are up to task.

 

[Xminus6]

I, for one,am happy to see the Bolt with a longer than expected range. It not only ups the competitive bar for Model 3 but it will convince many skeptics in the world to give EVs a try.