Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!

[Breezy]

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

Not actually true, but it wouldn't help.

I thought the emblematic nature of my statement was obvious. Lesson learned. Literally, the failure of the Bolt does not mean the failure of the Model 3's mission, as other vehicles may fill the void.

 

[Jeff N]

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.

Some of the power characteristics are also due to cell construction details such as the thickness of the copper and aluminum collector foils. In any case, I agree that it's very likely that the Bolt EV cells themselves are capable of well over 50 kW.

 

[techmaven]

I do think EPA range should be re-done for long range BEVs - using EPA combined range doesn't make much sense. If you understand the make-up of the EPA tests, you'd soon realize that what they test for is not when range for a BEV matters. Therefore, we're really talking about the divergence between the EPA range and the real world range and how much divergence people see when range matters.

Simply, for long range BEVs, the primary reason why range matters is to make highway jumps. That's 65 to 80 mph, steady state, through some hills. At over 150 miles, I'm not so concerned about testing for bumper to bumper traffic or stop lights. If you look at the current EPA tests, it tests for a lot of that. The only times I've really bumped into range anxiety in my Tesla is making the long jumps on the highway. I expect that to be true in a Bolt too. Therefore, a test that doesn't really run a steady state 70 or 75 mph for an hour+, or over 90% of the trip isn't representative of the kind of trips where the overall range really matters.

A bigger the downside divergence from the EPA range from real world range, the nastier the surprise for the owner. Up until now, long range BEV's as meant only Tesla's which are optimized for Supercharger jumps. We'll see how this 238 EPA range on the Bolt really holds up in the real world.

In 2012, Tesla launched the Model S as an ICE replacement. A big battery pack, low drag, and the promise of a L3 charging network that will make a realistic 2 hour highway driving, 30 minute cadence a reality at some point. Tesla has followed through on that. The Bolt... well, the Bolt is definitely an ICE replacement for many cases. It has a big battery pack, but not low drag, and no promise of SAE L3 charging (yet).

 

[McRat]

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.

Cooling also comes into play with cars. 12v electric fans are terrible at pushing air for cooling. Driving 25 mph is wildly more effective.
Charging is done at 0 mph with the fans running. So the thermal dissipation just ain't there.

I will venture a guess it will be cooling that will be the issue. GM has demonstrated they can engineer a pack that hits 4C charging rate (early Volts). But you don't test a bicycle in 200mph windtunnel. GM has a target for the peak charge, and all they have to do is exceed it, they don't have to make a Bolt with 240kW charging ability, although they could, just like Tesla is not charging the P100D at 400kW.

 

[Jeff N]

When I first read the title in the first article I read about the Bolt test, I thought it was actually going to be a route resembling common real world speeds, such that it would barely match EPA. But looking at the details (where the max speed was 55mph in practically all of the route and average only 40mph), GM went really safe. Definitely is a bit misleading and doesn't really tell you where the actual match point is to EPA (the original Model S was at 65mph).

It could come back to bite them (if an actual owner was to try the same without keeping in mind their speed), but I guess GM is banking few would be trying to max out the range of the Bolt (esp. given lack of CCS routes).

Its typical for "first drive" media events like this to have standard routes that drive through a variety of pretty scenery in coastal areas no matter what model the car is. That isn't unique to the Bolt EV drive nor is it unusual for car models focused on efficiency to encourage the test drivers to compete for the best efficiency. Nothing new or unusual here for standard car maker and automotive writer protocols.

GM clearly plotted to ensure the test drivers would likely arrive at their destination with some extra miles left. But, let's not forget that about an hour of the drive was spent on US-101 going about 70 mph and the drive included a substantial 2,000 elevation change through a coastal mountain pass. It's not like the entire trip was at 55 mph on a flat highway.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Let's remember that the actual EPA test cycle results are pessimized by 30-something percent to make them consistent with the faster speeds that people actually drive at. In a LEAF, which has similar aerodynamics to the Bolt EV, the achievable EV range goes up roughly 9.3% for every 5 mph that you slow down. So, the EPA's pessimizer adjustment sort of allows you to drive 10-15 mph faster than the actual test cycle speeds while getting the window sticker range. Something like that. The highway test cycle may average just under 50 mph but the pessimistic window sticker number means you will probably get the roughly 217 miles of EPA highway range if you drive a steady 65 mph or so.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/EPA test procedure for EVs-PHEVs-7-5-2012.pdf

40 CFR 600.210-12 - Calculation of fuel economy and CO 2 emission values for labeling.

The 0.7 multiplier is used to adjust _2-cycle data_. (The EPA uses the 0.7 rule to adjust pre-2008 results on fueleconomy.gov).
5-cycle data does not use the large adjustment, because, supposedly, the additional cycles take care of what's needed. Except that it doesn't.

 

[McRat]

I do think EPA range should be re-done for long range BEVs - using EPA combined range doesn't make much sense. ...

So the EPA should set up their testing for the 5% that commute long distances, not the typical car owner?

Americans drive more miles than any other people on earth, and last I checked it's 13,476 per year. Even the highest demographic (35-54 year old male) is only 18,858 miles. That makes the worst demographic in the worst case a 76 mile a day commuter, who drives nowhere but work, works only 5 days, and takes 2 weeks every year. Now you know why companies built cheap 80 mile range EVs; demographics, not limits of the technology.

Heck, I've driven that much in a MONTH. Well, until I got smart that is. I drive 5 miles a day commuting when I don't bicycle, walk, ride an MC, or carpool with wifey. I moved my house and my business close together in a better location. That is Being Green when it comes to transportation. The best MPG is always the MPG you don't do.

And let's consider ICE EPA Testing. I tow a lot. So do some other folk. I want all EPA testing to be with a 13,000lb race trailer because that's the number I need for long trips. Who gives a rat's fanny about mileage through the plains in a car with 2 people in it? Pointless. They sell plane tickets today, even on the interwebbythingy. Only somebody who's time has no value uses a 70mph car to replace a 550mph jetliner.

 

[SageBrush]

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 money. Tesla will always build cars that have 200+ mile highway range to match the supercharger network intervals. Lower Cd means less minimum battery size required. Since the battery remains a huge part of the manufacturer cost to make the car, it is a central consideration.

 

[bro1999]

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]:


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.

PLUS a 0.32 Cd figure issued by GM does in no way mean it is the same as a 0.32 Cd figure issued by Tesla or another manufacturer. Each manufacturer have their own set of conditions they test vehicles for aero numbers. A .32 from GM doesn't mean it is the same as a .32 from Toyota.

Sure, the Model 3 will have to have better aero numbers than the Bolt, but just how much better is still up in the air. And aero isn't everything. The Spark EV has the worst Cd among itself, Leaf, i-miev, and Fiat 500e, yet its EPA MPGe numbers are better than all of them.

 

[SageBrush]

So the EPA should set up their testing for the 5% that commute long distances, not the typical car owner?

That is missing the point. The large majority of American car buyers want a car that is able to drive long distances (way over 200 miles) without significant hassle.

Hassle varies by person but it usually means

• Don't have to take public transport
• Don't have to get a rental
• Don't have to spend hours more per day on the trip than a conventional ICE

The main caveat to this consumer preference could be in multi-car families. For reasons I don't really understand (or share, for that matter,) the majority of consumers want each car to have long distance capability. Although for $30k, I expect it too.

 

[bro1999]

Its typical for "first drive" media events like this to have standard routes that drive through a variety of pretty scenery in coastal areas no matter what model the car is. That isn't unique to the Bolt EV drive nor is it unusual for car models focused on efficiency to encourage the test drivers to compete for the best efficiency. Nothing new or unusual here for standard car maker and automotive writer protocols.

GM clearly plotted to ensure the test drivers would likely arrive at their destination with some extra miles left. But, let's not forget that about an hour of the drive was spent on US-101 going about 70 mph and the drive included a substantial 2,000 elevation change through a coastal mountain pass. It's not like the entire trip was at 55 mph on a flat highway.

Yeah, what manufacturer wants another Broder report?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?_r=0

 

[SageBrush]

I was thinking a little more about my guess that the GM Bolt is going to be a failure, selling under 5,000 cars a year.
I stand by it for the US, but Europe may well turn out different since they are much more a hatchback culture, overall drive shorter distances, and are much more inclined to use trains for 200 - 500 mile trips. I've also never gotten the impression that Europeans hate GM-Europe.

 

[diamond.g]

Yeah, what manufacturer wants another Broder report?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?_r=0

I do look forward to the cold weather reviews of the Bolt.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

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...

To be clear: it wasn't you. I was referring to the article.

 

[techmaven]

So the EPA should set up their testing for the 5% that commute long distances, not the typical car owner?

Americans drive more miles than any other people on earth, and last I checked it's 13,476 per year. Even the highest demographic (35-54 year old male) is only 18,858 miles. That makes the worst demographic in the worst case a 76 mile a day commuter, who drives nowhere but work, works only 5 days, and takes 2 weeks every year. Now you know why companies built cheap 80 mile range EVs; demographics, not limits of the technology.

You still have EPA city, highway, and combined efficiency ratings. There's a reason why gas cars don't typically show EPA range on the Monroney sticker, and the first question people usually ask about a BEV is the range. The questions these people have about range isn't about putzing around in city traffic. They want to know what it means to hop between cities. Can it really replace an ICE vehicle, and in what situations can it not?

Therefore, it makes sense to have EPA range reflect the primary use case that people want to know about for BEVs. Otherwise, both Tesla owners and Bolt owners have more than enough range when they wake up on the vast majority of days. But that's also true of the 30+kWh BEVs too. Note that people do have nasty reactions when they find out the real world range of their BEVs. Quite a few people were pissed when they found out just what range their Leafs can do in real world conditions. Tesla's also suffer from this, but the shock isn't the same. Again, the further the divergence, the nastier the shock.

 

[trils0n]

One thing I've learned after many years of driving EVs is to think of the EPA test as range reasoned by analogy. Real world range is range reasoned by first principals.

Of those first principals, aerodynamics is super important, even if it isn't quite reflected in the EPA test. Up to 45 or 50 mph or so the Leaf is more efficient, but after that the gap disappears and the Model S becomes more efficient. So why does the Leaf get a 101 highway MPGe and the Model S 97MPGe? At 60mph steady state driving, the Model S is more efficient, at 70mph the Model S is more efficient by a larger margin, at 75 the margin is even larger in favor of the Model S.

I expect the Bolt will be an exceptional day to day car and meet the needs of most people. They will probably sell as many as they make, as a large battery EV is inherently pretty great, and it looks like they did a good job with the packaging/interior room, and making exceptionally efficient drivetrain. There is a lot to like about the Bolt.

But I feel it is a lost opportunity by GM to not focus a bit more on aero. A large battery really shines when paired with an aerodynamic vehicle, and makes the vehicle more versatile (and reduces the shock of seeing your range drop at normal (65+mph) freeway speeds). Put a similar battery/drivetrain in an aerodynamic vehicle like the Prius, and you'd have an excellent vehicle. hint hint Toyota. GM's design choice was a roomy functional interior vs aero. This is a fine design choice, but makes the use case of the vehicle slightly different. Tesla made a similar choice with the Model X, but they chose an aerodynamic form vs the traditional boxy back end that maximizes interior room in SUV/CUV. Whether those design choices work for you depends on what you want out of your vehicle.

(When I do my calculations of highway range for the Bolt, I assume a .30 Cd, just to be conservative, and it still comes out with a drag area greater than 7sqft. Model S and Prius for example are 6.2 sq ft. This accounts for the relative ease at which the Prius and Model S can get close to their EPA highway range at real world highway speeds. When I calculate the drag area for Model 3, I assume .23 Cd (again to be conservative), and all my numbers come out <6sq ft. It will be exceptionally efficient at highway speed)

 

[bro1999]

One thing I've learned after many years of driving EVs is to think of the EPA test as range reasoned by analogy. Real world range is range reasoned by first principals.

Of those first principals, aerodynamics is super important, even if it isn't quite reflected in the EPA test. Up to 45 or 50 mph or so the Leaf is more efficient, but after that the gap disappears and the Model S becomes more efficient. So why does the Leaf get a 101 highway MPGe and the Model S 97MPGe? At 60mph steady state driving, the Model S is more efficient, at 70mph the Model S is more efficient by a larger margin, at 75 the margin is even larger in favor of the Model S.

I expect the Bolt will be an exceptional day to day car and meet the needs of most people. They will probably sell as many as they make, as a large battery EV is inherently pretty great, and it looks like they did a good job with the packaging/interior room, and making exceptionally efficient drivetrain. There is a lot to like about the Bolt.

But I feel it is a lost opportunity by GM to not focus a bit more on aero. A large battery really shines when paired with an aerodynamic vehicle, and makes the vehicle more versatile (and reduces the shock of seeing your range drop at normal (65+mph) freeway speeds). Put a similar battery/drivetrain in an aerodynamic vehicle like the Prius, and you'd have an excellent vehicle. hint hint Toyota. GM's design choice was a roomy functional interior vs aero. This is a fine design choice, but makes the use case of the vehicle slightly different. Tesla made a similar choice with the Model X, but they chose an aerodynamic form vs the traditional boxy back end that maximizes interior room in SUV/CUV. Whether those design choices work for you depends on what you want out of your vehicle.

(When I do my calculations of highway range for the Bolt, I assume a .30 Cd, just to be conservative, and it still comes out with a drag area greater than 7sqft. Model S and Prius for example are 6.2 sq ft. This accounts for the relative ease at which the Prius and Model S can get close to their EPA highway range at real world highway speeds. When I calculate the drag area for Model 3, I assume .23 Cd (again to be conservative), and all my numbers come out <6sq ft. It will be exceptionally efficient at highway speed)

Fairly confident that the Bolt isn't the end of GM's electrification push...rather the tip of the iceberg. No one really believes GM spent hundreds of millions (perhaps even billions) of dollars to develop the Bolt and set up all new supplier relationships just to produce 1 vehicle to meet compliance requirements, do they?

The Bolt's powertrain/battery is destined for other GM vehicles. I am looking forward to NAIAS 2017 to see what GM unveils.

If only GM would put the Bolt's battery in this! Forget Model 3 killer, this would be a Model S killer! Of course GM probably won't do that, but we can always dream...

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The Spark EV has the worst Cd among itself, Leaf, i-miev, and Fiat 500e, yet its EPA MPGe numbers are better than all of them.

However, it's not the _EPA numbers_ that are the big question here. The numbers that are out are a great base and the Bolt's going to be a good long-range BEV. What we want to know now is whether it can be a good _long-distance_ BEV. We don't have the information to answer that yet. Prognosis on the charging isn't good; and we need to wait and see on the Interstate driving.

 

[trils0n]

Fairly confident that the Bolt isn't the end of GM's electrification push...rather the tip of the iceberg. No one really believes GM spent hundreds of millions (perhaps even billions) of dollars to develop the Bolt and set up all new supplier relationships just to produce 1 vehicle to meet compliance requirements, do they?

Nope, and I don't think anyone said that. But it is possibly a risk for their first real EV. Especially one as important as the first long range EV from a manufacturer other than Tesla, and the first long range affordable EV. Long range EV's are no longer the domain of an eccentric billionaire -- they are now mainstream. What happens if customers get disappointed in the highway range of the Bolt and their reputation for EVs is they don't do well on the highway? Does that slow down GM's Bolt sales and other electrification efforts? I see an aerodynamic vehicle as a way of hedging against that risk. I care more about electrification of transport than I do about Tesla, so this kinda stuff rolls around my head. It could be that the Bolt program and EV programs in general are still too small to make much of a difference in the way people think of EVs, so maybe it is all moot.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

If only GM would put the Bolt's battery in this! Forget Model 3 killer, this would be a Model S killer! Of course GM probably won't do that, but we can always dream...

Careful about assumptions like that. The Bolt has a relatively tall ratio for an electric car. With the same battery and motor, to get the same performance in a larger, heavier car they'd need to shorten the ratio, and the efficiency would take a hit. Then the motor would be working harder, and efficiency takes a further hit.

I'd rather GM work on an electric AWD system.