HookBill
Member
2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV: Tested in the real world, treated like a real car
CNET's test drive results.
CNET's test drive results.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!
- Thread starter bro1999
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
Chopr147
Active Member
I believe initial plans were 30k cars. I guess it all depends on whether or not it sells. Personally I would wait for the 3 but that's me. There are plenty of customers for EV's and getting more demand each day. I am curious to see how it sells/performs
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
It's probably not more efficient. The Model 3 will either have similar range with a smaller battery or better range with a similarly sized battery, mostly b/c of lower aero drag.
MiamiNole
Member
Just getting to page 8 and seeing that this topic has gone south (I see Bolt enthusiast bro1999 has started with the name calling jabs). The topic DID start off on a good foot with healthy conversation. It was good while it lasted!
Online L.A. Times had an article Can the 2017 Chevy Bolt EV really go 200-plus miles with no recharge? We try it about several demo Bolts being driven from Monterey to Santa Barbara to demonstrate the 238 mile range. They drove Highway 1 through Big Sur and San Marcos Pass to get from Los Olivos to Santa Barbara, thus avoiding the 101 Freeway as much as possible and keeping speed 50mph or lower most of the drive.
But today's front page L.A. Times article had this whopper:
"... 238 miles per charge. That impressive number - enough to travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas without stopping to recharge.."
I posted the following response online:
The L.A. Times feature claims (direct quote here); "238 miles per charge. That impressive number - enough to travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas without stopping to recharge.." which is not credible.
1)Los Angeles to Las Vegas is 270 miles
2)There are 2 climbs of 4,000 feet (Cajon Pass and Baker Grade)
3)Speed limit is 70 and flow of traffic is higher than that.
I have a Tesla users spreadsheet (verified by personal experience) which adjusts required rated range base upon speed and elevation change. At the 70mph speed limit 360 miles of rated range are required to drive from L.A. to Vegas. Even at 45 mph 250 miles rated range are required. It's only 238 miles from Ontario to Las Vegas. You could make that drive in the Bolt if you drove no more than 50mph but you would go stir crazy and be a traffic hazard doing that.
Los Angeles to Las Vegas currently requires about an hour of Tesla charging stops at Barstow and Primm. IF there are DC CHAdeMO chargers available they will take at least twice as long as at a Tesla supercharger, and many CHAdeMO's have lower charging rates. How many people want to add 4-5 hours time to a round trip drive to Vegas?
The online version Chevy Bolt EV range is 238 miles: Prime time for the electric car? of the front page article has been edited to change "Los Angeles" to "Riverside" in the above quote, along with a "For the Record" correction box.
In terms of the big picture hypothesis that the Bolt will be a "Game Changer," I wrote:
I would like to see the Bolt succeed, but it's not a long distance travel car. I am not optimistic about the Bolt being the "game changer" for several reasons.
1) Chevy's Volt has been well reviewed, reliable, has no range anxiety due to its gas engine backup yet is run on pure electric mode 70% of the time by user experience. Nonetheless the Volt has never sold more than 25,000 cars in a year. I find it hard to believe that the Bolt will outsell the second generation Volt with 50 miles electric range plus gas backup.
2) GM has already said they are not capable of selling more than 50,000 Bolts per year due to capacity limits at LG, who build the batteries.
3) Meanwhile Tesla's Gigafactory will soon be capable of producing batteries for 500,000 cars per year. And as we all know they have 370,000 pre-orders for Model 3 now.
I think the Volt (which preceded Tesla Model S by 2 years) should have sold much better than it did. But the marketplace has already spoken in terms of which electric car will have high demand. Tesla's Supercharger network has set the standard for any BEV being considered for long distance travel.
But today's front page L.A. Times article had this whopper:
"... 238 miles per charge. That impressive number - enough to travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas without stopping to recharge.."
I posted the following response online:
The L.A. Times feature claims (direct quote here); "238 miles per charge. That impressive number - enough to travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas without stopping to recharge.." which is not credible.
1)Los Angeles to Las Vegas is 270 miles
2)There are 2 climbs of 4,000 feet (Cajon Pass and Baker Grade)
3)Speed limit is 70 and flow of traffic is higher than that.
I have a Tesla users spreadsheet (verified by personal experience) which adjusts required rated range base upon speed and elevation change. At the 70mph speed limit 360 miles of rated range are required to drive from L.A. to Vegas. Even at 45 mph 250 miles rated range are required. It's only 238 miles from Ontario to Las Vegas. You could make that drive in the Bolt if you drove no more than 50mph but you would go stir crazy and be a traffic hazard doing that.
Los Angeles to Las Vegas currently requires about an hour of Tesla charging stops at Barstow and Primm. IF there are DC CHAdeMO chargers available they will take at least twice as long as at a Tesla supercharger, and many CHAdeMO's have lower charging rates. How many people want to add 4-5 hours time to a round trip drive to Vegas?
The online version Chevy Bolt EV range is 238 miles: Prime time for the electric car? of the front page article has been edited to change "Los Angeles" to "Riverside" in the above quote, along with a "For the Record" correction box.
In terms of the big picture hypothesis that the Bolt will be a "Game Changer," I wrote:
I would like to see the Bolt succeed, but it's not a long distance travel car. I am not optimistic about the Bolt being the "game changer" for several reasons.
1) Chevy's Volt has been well reviewed, reliable, has no range anxiety due to its gas engine backup yet is run on pure electric mode 70% of the time by user experience. Nonetheless the Volt has never sold more than 25,000 cars in a year. I find it hard to believe that the Bolt will outsell the second generation Volt with 50 miles electric range plus gas backup.
2) GM has already said they are not capable of selling more than 50,000 Bolts per year due to capacity limits at LG, who build the batteries.
3) Meanwhile Tesla's Gigafactory will soon be capable of producing batteries for 500,000 cars per year. And as we all know they have 370,000 pre-orders for Model 3 now.
I think the Volt (which preceded Tesla Model S by 2 years) should have sold much better than it did. But the marketplace has already spoken in terms of which electric car will have high demand. Tesla's Supercharger network has set the standard for any BEV being considered for long distance travel.
Last edited:
MiamiNole
Member
I'm typing this in real-time as I catch up on the rest of the topic. I'm deducing that bro1999 and luca are the same person making arguments at opposite ends of the spectrum. Let's see if I'm right... 
How can you say that when no one knows what the M3's highway range is going to be?
The 215 mile goal for range that Tesla is shooting for is also combined EPA range. Granted, that is the minimum they are trying to get to so there is every chance that it will be greater than that, but there is no point bashing the Bolt just because you thinkk it threatens the as yet undisclosed range of the M3.
I've got a M3 reserved and have zero desire to drop it for a Bolt since it's hideous and I'd feel like I needed to dress like a clown when driving it. That doesn't mean that the car wont be as succesful as GM will let it be. Is there a SC network for it for distance travelling? No, but I'll bet there are plenty of people out there that don't care. If I had one it would be fine for me to use every day for probably 355 days a year. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
I'm sure the Bolt will do fine, better than a Tesla? No.
Does it need to be? No.
Will be a perfectly adequate BEV car for a large number of people? Yep.
Does it further Elon's goal? Sure does.
Yuri_G
Member
And moderate speeds. GM chose a route to guarantee no one would get less than 240 miles to a charge. Let's see stop and go traffic, plus highway driving.
Dude, WTF are you yammering on about? We get it, cars should be priced by the inch.
Hasn't anyone ever told you size doesn't matter?
Are you crazy
did you even have a car?
tell me why cruze is expensive than sonic
why corolla is expensive than yaris
why civic is expensive than fit
....
tell me what the sub-compact compact mid full size represent
so stupid government motor worker
sell a sub-compact car starting at 37.5k is most stupid thing in the world
Bolt reportedly has 214 EPA highway range. Model 3 is promised to have minimum of 215 range. Given that current Teslas highway range is higher than city range (unlike any other EV and because of areodynamics) - highway range of Model 3 will be over 215.
Above estimates are just at EPA testing speeds which are 10-20 mph lower than real world highway speeds, making Model 3 highway range advantage even larger.
somnambule
Member
I think we can all nitpick various things, but the Bolt is shaping up to be a very impressive vehicle. Your Tesla spreadsheet may not be applicable to the Bolt at all. Here's a Motor Trend article that documents driving 241.4 miles in a Bolt and finishing with 38mi of range left. Tesla opted to design beautiful cars which many of us appreciate and is in keeping with Tesla's target market, but Chevy may have have optimized the design for aerodynamics/range, which is also a perfectly good decisions for their target market. And it may mean the Bolt goes further with the same amount of "EPA rated" range compared to a Tesla.
It's clear GM did a great job engineering this car, along with their suppliers/partners. This wasn't just a case of putting off-the-shelf parts together and calling it a day. Here's an article where Michelin says they delivered their "best tire ever" in terms of rolling resistance for the Bolt. That's quite the thing to say for a top-tier supplier like Michelin.
I love my MS and may never consider a Bolt. But I honestly don't see why Tesla owners/fans feel the need to put down the Bolt. More EVs are good for all of us; it speeds up the development of infrastructure and an ecosystem that we will all benefit from. I hope the Bolt is a resounding success for GM and they are planning on expanding capacity and producing other products off the platform as soon as is practical.
Note that the route was chosen by Chevrolet and was the California coastal highway, which kept the average speed down (average for the trip was about 40mph) and limited climate control. Hitting EPA in those conditions is to be expected.
I have made a few complimentary comments about the Volt in these forums, including a statement that GM has made far more progress in electric cars than any company other than Tesla.
But the L.A. Times writer had no clue when he made the comment about driving to Las Vegas. Every Tesla owner here knows that you don't get even close to rated range on that kind of road with prevailing speed and 8,000 feet of hill climbing. The Motor Trend comments were based upon the same cherry-picked 50mph driving route as the L.A. Times article. I didn't even mention the Central Coast route rarely needing to use heat or A/C. Plus I didn't assume the Vegas drive would get a further adjustment for temperatures over 90F, which often it will.
The Tesla spreadsheet is absolutely applicable to the Bolt. The speed factors might be bigger since the aerodynamics are quite not as good as Model S.
My questions remain:
1) Why the tepid response to the Volt over the past 6 years? I think it should have sold much better.
2) In view of the above why would anyone expect the Bolt will sell better than the Volt?
These are not necessarily my personal views, but they seem to be the view of the car buying public.
But the L.A. Times writer had no clue when he made the comment about driving to Las Vegas. Every Tesla owner here knows that you don't get even close to rated range on that kind of road with prevailing speed and 8,000 feet of hill climbing. The Motor Trend comments were based upon the same cherry-picked 50mph driving route as the L.A. Times article. I didn't even mention the Central Coast route rarely needing to use heat or A/C. Plus I didn't assume the Vegas drive would get a further adjustment for temperatures over 90F, which often it will.
The Tesla spreadsheet is absolutely applicable to the Bolt. The speed factors might be bigger since the aerodynamics are quite not as good as Model S.
My questions remain:
1) Why the tepid response to the Volt over the past 6 years? I think it should have sold much better.
2) In view of the above why would anyone expect the Bolt will sell better than the Volt?
These are not necessarily my personal views, but they seem to be the view of the car buying public.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
