Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)

[JohnSnowNW]

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding that I am arguing for CCS and/or against Superchargers. I'm not taking a position where I need to admit or deny anything. I am just trying to point out that the CCS network exists and it is or may be useful to some people.

Our exchange began after you posted:

That part's accurate as far as it goes. Of course, as of today there are 296 Supercharger locations and 777 SAE stations. CCS stations have doubled since the start of the year.

CCS still trails in number of charging spaces: 1165 to 1957.

That is directly comparing the networks without any of the context you seem to be applying to your position, now.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Seriously? Just a familiar basic vehicle shape?

Buick Encore vs. Bolt
Wheelbase: 100.6" vs 102.4"
Track: 60.6" vs 59.1"
Overall Width: 69.9" vs 69.5"
Overall Height: 65.3" vs 62.8"
Front shoulder room: 54.2" vs 54.6"
Front hip room: 51.6" vs 51.6"
Front headroom: 39.6" vs 39.7"
Rear shoulder room: 52.6" vs 52.8"
Rear hip room: 50.1" vs 50.1"

Both of these are Gamma 2 variants. They did lower the height, lengthen the wheelbase slightly and cut off some from the front overhang. The interior dimensions are way too close to be a coincidence.

Then, look at the side pics:

Yeah, they re-sculpted the nose. You should be able to see the family resemblance between the Buick Encore, Chevy Trax, and Chevy Bolt.

If they weren't constrained by the ICE platform, then they were definitely constrained in their minds. I'm not sure which is worse - I think being constrained in their minds is worse. I'd rather think they were constrained by the existing Gamma 2 platform.

To be fair, this is not based on Gamma 2, but rather likely the G2SC next-generation successor to Gamma 2 (which is not out yet). I wasn't able to find the discussion (below is a similar one), but I believe there was an interview with an Engineer where it was said the Bolt is currently the only vehicle in its platform, but it was phrased in a way that left open the possibly other ICE vehicles would be built on the same platform later on (basically it would be the first vehicle based on the G2SC platform).

Chevrolet Bolt: 55 Pre-Production Cars Made And Exceeding 200 Mile Range Target

 

[MorrisonHiker]

Looks very similar to the Model S when you imagine a housing around it.


Model S also has somewhat similar gears.

I think @the dude was referring to everything else under the hood:

 

[ecarfan]

So when can I order and receive a base Model 3 again? Has anyone even received a base Model X yet? I mean it was only released almost a year ago.
Meanwhile, base Bolts will be delivered this year. People on here seem to be completely ignoring that fact. I bet some people will be able to lease a base Bolt for 36 months AND turn it in before then can get their hands on a base Model 3.

I would not assume that Tesla is going to handle the Model 3 the way they handled the S and the X. The 3 is a mass market vehicle, and Tesla will be delivering the first cars to their employees who have made a reservation. Many of those employees with reservations are likely to select a base version or very close to it, as many of them are not in the higher income brackets that S and X owners are. So I am confident that Tesla will be producing and delivering base Model 3 vehicles to early reservations holders if that is what the buyer wants.

New I think Bolt is someways more usable.

Thanks for posting that cool photo showing an Eames chair in the back of that vehicle. Clearly the Model 3 will not accommodate something of that height in the trunk. The X could though.

 

[scottf200]

I think @the dude was referring to everything else under the hood:

Well there is a significant amount under the Model S and X as well. It is just a bigger space and hood.
Why are people being so naive to see a shroud in the Tesla AND to think there are *not* as many coolant hoses, radiators, electrical components in the Tesla. Tesla is not magical. It is silly.
This example below has been posted but I bet if you took of all the sheet medal (aluminum) you see the same as the Bolt. The showroom versions are simplified on purpose.

 

[stopcrazypp]

1. Only 15% of CCS chargers are 24 kW. Peak charging rate is only part of the story. 145 kW station doesn't charge 3x faster than a 50 kW station. It depends on the charge profile of the vehicle connected.
2. Some CCS infrastructure is strategically placed.
3. Reliability is variable. There are many CCS stations rated 10.0 on PlugShare.

On the subject of CCS infrastructure, I just looked on plugshare at the most common long distance route that a Bolt might travel: SF to LA.
I-5 is completely empty, so not even an option.
US-101 has two legs in between that are single 24kW CCS, which would not be a reasonable wait.
If you take CA-99, there is a huge 180 mile gap after Visalia if you go through I-5 (and the elevation change of the Grapevine) and 230 miles if you take CA-14. Even a Model 3 will likely struggle to make that. A Bolt, I suspect is impossible unless you go at extremely low speeds.

So currently it's not even practical to make such a common trip.

As for charging speed comparison, Bolt has been advertised at 90 miles (unknown if this is EPA) in 30 minutes and 80% (presumably ~160 miles assuming ~200 miles EPA full) in 1 hour. This is at the 50kW peak rating (not a 24kW CCS).

For reference, an S60 hits 90 miles in 20 minutes, 120 in 30 minutes, 160 in 46 minutes, 180 in 1 hour.
Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt
The Model 3 will likely be more efficient and will use a newer chemistry, so will likely improve on that.

 

[Breezy]

On the subject of CCS infrastructure, I just looked on plugshare at the most common long distance route that a Bolt might travel: SF to LA.
I-5 is completely empty, so not even an option.
US-101 has two legs in between that are single 24kW CCS, which would not be a reasonable wait.
If you take CA-99, there is a huge 180 mile gap after Visalia if you go through I-5 (and the elevation change of the Grapevine) and 230 miles if you take CA-14. Even a Model 3 will likely struggle to make that. A Bolt, I suspect is impossible unless you go at extremely low speeds.

So currently it's not even practical to make such a common trip.

I understand. However, the likelihood that I would make a trip from SF to LA in my Bolt is very close to zero. All trips that I have done in California have been by rental car.

 

[ecarfan]

However, the likelihood that I would make a trip from SF to LA in my Bolt is very close to zero. All trips that I have done in California have been by rental car.

So get a CPO Model S and for not much more than a Bolt you have a BEV that can do long distance trips almost anywhere in the US, and it will obviously be a vastly better travel experience than a rental car.

 

[Jeff N]

To be fair, this is not based on Gamma 2, but rather likely the G2SC next-generation successor to Gamma 2 (which is not out yet). I wasn't able to find the discussion (below is a similar one), but I believe there was an interview with an Engineer where it was said the Bolt is currently the only vehicle in its platform, but it was phrased in a way that left open the possibly other ICE vehicles would be built on the same platform later on (basically it would be the first vehicle based on the G2SC platform).

People casually talk about shared platforms between the Bolt and other GM small cars but the reality is that putting a removable skateboard-ish battery pack under the floor and removing the large ICE+transmission results in changes that make the car's platform largely unique from similarly sized family relatives.

Here's an extended quote from a GreenCarReports article quoting the car's chief engineer, Josh Tavel.

First Drive: Chevy Bolt EV 200-Mile Electric Car Development Vehicle

And although it'll be built in the same Orion, Michigan, assembly plant as the next-generation Sonic subcompact, the Bolt EV rides on its own dedicated platform.

Some suspension components may be shared, but the body structure and underpinnings--built around a flat battery pack under the floor--are unique.

The lack of an engine and transmission up front required some innovative crash engineering in the stubby nose, Tavel said, with a lower cradle that holds the traction motor and driveline, and an upper cradle containing the power electronics.

Each is attached at four different points, and both went through multiple design iterations to provide the needed frontal and transverse energy transfer and absorption to allow the car to earn the highest safety ratings--which GM is confident it will.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Well there is a significant amount under the Model S and X as well. It is just a bigger space and hood.
Why are people being so naive to see a shroud in the Tesla AND to think there are as many coolant hoses, radiators, electrical components in the Tesla. Tesla is not magical. It is silly.
This example below has been posted but I bet if you took of all the sheet medal (aluminum) you see the same as the Bolt. The showroom versions are simplified on purpose.

Lack of frunk and a design similar to an ICE car is probably what people are describing. I know early on Nissan noted that they designed the front compartment of the Leaf to look like an ICE's on purpose just so it would be familiar to people. GM probably did the same. The i3 for example is similarly short and has a completely different front compartment from a typical ICE vehicle.

 

[Az_Rael]

Excellent points. Tesla made the 3 significantly smaller on the exterior than the S but very cleverly managed to still offer a great deal of storage capacity (including a frunk, of course a smaller frunk) while maintaining what appears likely to be essentially the same cabin space and perhaps even greater rear seat headroom, yet the 3 doesn't look like a squashed compact car, which in my opinion is what the Bolt looks like.

The Bolt was obviously not designed from scratch as a BEV. It appears to offer decent cabin room for 5 adults, though for the rear seat to accommodate 3 adults they will likely have to be "slender" by modern standards. I will wager that the Bolt trunk will be smaller than the Model 3 trunk and of course the Bolt has no frunk.

GM's decision to go with FWD for the Bolt is...interesting. My guess is that the 0-60 time is slightly constrained by the FWD because the software has to compensate for the torque steer effect. And it seems unlikely that the Bolt is capable of being re-engineered to ever by AWD.

Again, I hope the Bolt is a success for GM. But I am certain that most consumers, when comparing the Bolt to the Model 3, will prefer the Model 3 because it wins on so many counts (in no particular order, and simply based on the data I have so far, my experience with Tesla over the past 3+ years, but without ever having driven either car!):

1. The Model 3 is $2,500 cheaper
2. The Model 3 is in my opinion beautiful and the Bolt is, well, not so much
3. The Model 3 has a longer range
4. Tesla has the Supercharger network
5. The Model 3 will have a higher charger rate in the base model and the Bolt will have optional DC charging that will still be slower than Supercharging
6. The Model 3 has faster acceleration in the base model, and the Performance option will obviously make it crazy quick
7. The Model 3 will have more cargo capacity considering the trunk and the frunk
8. I am confident the Model 3 user interface will be superior even in the base model (and then there is Elon's tweet about "Wait until you see the real steering controls and system for the 3. It feels like a spaceship.")
9. The Model 3 will have the AutoPilot option, which can also be added in the future, I doubt the Bolt will have anything comparable by 2018 or even later
10. I could go on, but my point is made...

Nevertheless, GM will sell Bolts because there are still car buyers with some GM loyalty, because the Bolt apparently will go on sale a year before the 3, and because Tesla already has hundreds of thousands of Model 3 reservations holders so production is already sold out until late 2018 at the earliest.

Sigh. You are aware that we don't have specs on EITHER car, right?

1. The Bolt's price includes the destination fee. We do not know if the Model 3 price does yet. This price differential might be reduced if the Model 3 destination fee is $1200
2. I agree
3. We have no idea if this is true or not. We know the Model 3 will have at least 215 and the Bolt will have at least 200. That is all we know.
4. I agree. Big advantage right now to a Tesla (unless you are trying to use the system in overcrowded CA).
5. We don't know. Supercharging will be an $$ option to activate in the base model. We have zero idea if DC fast charging will be available in the base model
6. True
7. We have no idea about the Model 3 cargo carrying measurements yet. The frunk may only hold a small overnight bag for all we know (since that's all they showed fitting into it at the reveal)
8. This one will probably be very personal. I like physical buttons for some common things so I can reach them without looking. I am a little wary of the full touchscreen design we were shown
9. True

 

[Zoomit]

It's a small car and the stuff has to go somewhere. The i3 motor is in the rear. The Bolt EV motor is in the front.

 

[Breezy]

It's a small car and the stuff has to go somewhere. The i3 motor is in the rear. The Bolt EV motor is in the front.

Yep. That's all there is to it. Doesn't make for a very interesting discussion, though, compared to theories that the designers and engineers were consciously or subconsciously constrained by their ICE-derived schema.

 

[DFibRL8R]

I understand. However, the likelihood that I would make a trip from SF to LA in my Bolt is very close to zero. All trips that I have done in California have been by rental car.

Then I humbly request the "EV enthusiast at-large" be removed from your signature line

 

[Jeff N]

the subject of CCS infrastructure, I just looked on plugshare at the most common long distance route that a Bolt might travel: SF to LA.
I-5 is completely empty, so not even an option.
US-101 has two legs in between that are single 24kW CCS, which would not be a reasonable wait.
If you take CA-99, there is a huge 180 mile gap after Visalia if you go through I-5 (and the elevation change of the Grapevine) and 230 miles if you take CA-14. Even a Model 3 will likely struggle to make that. A Bolt, I suspect is impossible unless you go at extremely low speeds.

Most charging stations have focused so far on 101 near the coast and 99 along the east side of the Central Valley thus leaving the scarcely populated I-5 without charging. This made sense initially but I-5 is now being covered by a new round of state grants:

News Release - Energy Commission Funds Electric Vehicle Chargers along Major State Routes

SACRAMENTO - The California Energy Commission today approved nearly $9 million in grants for the installation of DC fast chargers along major state freeways and highways to allow electric vehicle drivers to travel from San Diego to the Oregon border without worrying about running out of energy.

The grants went to four companies: Chargepoint Inc., EV Connect Inc., NRG EV Services LLC. and Recargo, Inc., which will install 61 DC fast chargers at 41 sites along major routes on Interstate 5, Highway 99 and Highway 101.

Just to put things in context, that $9 million looks pretty small compared to the $800 million that VW has just agreed to pay CARB to help cover EV infrastructure (at least in part) as a result of their diesel problems. I think there will be plenty of CCS charging in California soon.

As for charging speed comparison, Bolt has been advertised at 90 miles (unknown if this is EPA) in 30 minutes and 80% (presumably ~160 miles assuming ~200 miles EPA full) in 1 hour. This is at the 50kW peak rating (not a 24kW CCS).

For reference, an S60 hits 90 miles in 20 minutes, 120 in 30 minutes, 160 in 46 minutes, 180 in 1 hour.
Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt
The Model 3 will likely be more efficient and will use a newer chemistry, so will likely improve on that.

It's worth noting that the existing CCS standard peaks at 100 kW with 500V at 200A although realistic cars would reach a peak rate at around 400V or 80 kW at best. The "50 kW" is the rate that GM gave in their initial announcement in January and, perhaps not coincidentally, it is the typical peak rate of existing CCS chargers since they are mostly chargers with both CHAdeMO and CCS cables and CHAdeMO is spec limited to 125A.

The Model 3 will use a slightly smaller battery than the S60. Meanwhile, GM has hinted that the final production specs for Bolt charging may be upgraded a bit. We will soon find out.

However, the likelihood that I would make a trip from SF to LA in my Bolt is very close to zero. All trips that I have done in California have been by rental car.

The likelihood that I will make occasional round trips in my Bolt from SF to LA is near certainty. I plan to do so soon after getting my car.

Of course, I may have to wait 15 minutes longer at each of the ~2 charging stops along the way than if I was driving an S60. I'm not overly concerned about that. The human time perception between waiting 5 minutes vs 20 minutes is much bigger than waiting 45 minutes vs 30 minutes. If I were driving that route frequently or planning a near-term trip from SF to Denver I would be more concerned.

 

[Jeff N]

The charging networks for a long range BEV are different than a short range BEV or a PHEV. How exactly will they space out the CCS v2 charging network for long distance travel? Appropriate for a Audi Q6 e-tron or a Bolt? Or will the Audi Q6 e-tron be as hobbled as the Bolt? Or other BEVs coming out soon-ish? We will see how that influences the build of the CCS v2 L3 charging network. Ideally, the Bolt will be ignored for the upcoming L3 charging network.

I imagine that the CCS stations along interstate routes will be spaced about the same distance apart as Tesla Supercharger stations. That typically seems to be around 120 miles apart. I see no reason why this would be a problem for Bolt drivers.

 

[techmaven]

There is a big, fundamental difference. The Model 3 has to be designed to travel on the existing Supercharger network. The station spacing is 120 to 140 miles apart. The EPA rating does not matter as much as the real world performance of doing actual Supercharger jumps.

The Bolt, if equipped with a Supercharger compatible inlet, would have a tough time doing the 140 mile jump with 80% battery at highway speeds. Remember, the EPA rating is done at an average speed of 48 mpg and less. If you look at the MPGe ratings of 3 popular EVs:

Model S 60: 94 city, 97 highway, 95 combined
Nissan Leaf: 124 city, 101 highway, 112 combined
BMW i3: 129 city, 106 highway, 118 combined

You would think that the i3 is the most efficient BEV available today, right? But note the trajectory of the ratings... the i3 was 129 MPGe city, then 106 highway, which averages 48 mpg. However, at 70 mph, it is less efficient than a Model S. Note how the Model S' city rating is less than its highway rating. The Idaho National Labs testing results demonstrate this:

Library - Alphabetical | Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity

At 70 mph, the 2013 Leaf gets 359 Wh/mi.
At 70 mph, the i3 uses 313 Wh/mi.
At 70 mph, the Model S 85 kWh gets 301 Wh/mi.

Note that the tested Model S is the least efficient Model S made... the 85 kWh version. The 60 kWh version is more efficient (lower rolling resistance with less weight), as is the dual drive units. The Model 3 is expected to have far less CdA... in the low 5 sq ft, versus 6.2 on the Model S, versus 8.05 on the Bolt. The Bolt will likely be slightly worse than the Leaf at 70 mph with such poor CdA of 8.05 versus 7.8 sq ft.

This is why 200 miles of EPA range in a Bolt is not 200 miles of EPA range in a Model 3... they are not equivalent. It would not be surprising if the Bolt is 25% less efficient at 70 mph.

At 140 miles, a base level Model 3 is likely designed to be on the edge of acceptable... 2 hours of driving @ 70 mph, 45 minutes of charging, starting at 80% SoC and leaving some extra range as a buffer. A Bolt would likely be bare knuckles to make 140 miles at 70 mph. It would likely need 51 kWh in ideal conditions, meaning 90% of 57 kWh (60 kWh - 3 kWh buffer). Throw in some rain, colder weather, elevation changes, or some headwind and it would have a hard time, even at 100% charge depending on the conditions. For a Bolt, a comfortable long distance cadence would mean somewhere closer to 100 miles apart in spacing in order to account for rain, cold, headwind, and/or battery degradation. Again, do we build a CCS L3 charging network around a Bolt?

It would be nice if we had a properly designed profile for building a charging network... the UDDS standard for 200 miles of range to pick up the CARB ZEV credits was not quite properly designed to incentivize the right kind of BEVs. GM picked a design that would likely pick up the 200 miles range ZEV credits, but fail in the real world of long distance BEVs.

As for why Tesla didn't design the Model Y right now, chances are they need yet another iteration of the battery chemistry to tolerate the aerodynamic losses. Another iteration or two may make the Model 3 platform something that could tolerate building a hatchback version, or a compact-SUV/crossover. But not with the current chemistry. Note the Model X shipped with a step up in specific energy over the original Model S in order to get almost the same range (85 kWh versus 90 kWh packs). The Bolt's pack level specific energy is not even quite the original 2012 85 kWh Tesla pack.

 

[PRJIM]

Oh, my gosh...I don't have the words for the decision to make it look like an ICE under the hood. What a mess and lost opportunity to improve front end vehicle safety. Wow - and not in a good way.

Obviously you have not seen what a model s or x looks like when all the vanity panels are removed. A mess of wires, compressors, dc/dc, low voltage etc.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Most charging stations have focused so far on 101 near the coast and 99 along the east side of the Central Valley thus leaving the scarcely populated I-5 without charging. This made sense initially but I-5 is now being covered by a new round of state grants:

News Release - Energy Commission Funds Electric Vehicle Chargers along Major State Routes

Just to put things in context, that $9 million looks pretty small compared to the $800 million that VW has just agreed to pay CARB to help cover EV infrastructure (at least in part) as a result of their diesel problems. I think there will be plenty of CCS charging in California soon.

It's worth noting that the existing CCS standard peaks at 100 kW with 500V at 200A although realistic cars would reach a peak rate at around 400V or 80 kW at best. The "50 kW" is the rate that GM gave in their initial announcement in January and, perhaps not coincidentally, it is the typical peak rate of existing CCS chargers since they are mostly chargers with both CHAdeMO and CCS cables and CHAdeMO is spec limited to 125A.

The Model 3 will use a slightly smaller battery than the S60. Meanwhile, GM has hinted that the final production specs for Bolt charging may be upgraded a bit. We will soon find out.

The likelihood that I will make occasional round trips in my Bolt from SF to LA is near certainty. I plan to do so soon after getting my car.

Of course, I may have to wait 15 minutes longer at each of the ~2 charging stops along the way than if I was driving an S60. I'm not overly concerned about that. The human time perception between waiting 5 minutes vs 20 minutes is much bigger than waiting 45 minutes vs 30 minutes. If I were driving that route frequently or planning a near-term trip from SF to Denver I would be more concerned.

While I applaud that finally California is building our section of the west coast electric highway (I have been calling for something like this for a while), it is worrisome that the government is still taking a stance of installing only 1-2 chargers per station (the average is below two chargers per station). That 15 minutes longer per stop will easily be much longer if you aren't the only person travelling on that road or if one of those legs had a 24kW charger. More chargers per station would alleviate that. Hopefully the VW investment will do something about that.

 

[Jeff N]

The Bolt, if equipped with a Supercharger compatible inlet, would have a tough time doing the 140 mile jump with 80% battery at highway speeds. Remember, the EPA rating is done at an average speed of 48 mpg and less. If you look at the MPGe ratings of 3 popular EVs:

As you noted, the Bolt has a CdA slightly worse than the LEAF. Tony Williams at mynissanleaf.com carefully put together range estimation charts for the LEAF at different speeds for good conditions (70F and no wind). He found that a 30 kWh LEAF has a 100% charge range of 103 miles at 65 mph and 95 miles at 70 mph. Twice the battery would make that 206 and 190. At 65 mph (206 miles) and an 80% charge that would be 165 miles. A 90% charge would be 185 miles.

He didn't give a full chart for the 30 kWh model but if you extrapolate an adjustment based on his full 24 kWh model chart for a 30 kWh LEAF it would give you about 220 miles of range with a 90% charge at 55 mph and 244 miles with a 100% charge at 55 mph.

That gives a pretty comfortable buffer of 104 miles above 140 miles or 74% above 140 miles To accomodate for non-ideal conditions as in cold temperatures with rain and wind where it would be reasonable to drive at 55 mph.

I certainly would not be worried about driving 120-140 miles between charging under most conditions that I would want to drive in and under mild conditions I would have no concern making that hop with an 80% charge with the usual condition that you pay attention to actual range as you drive along and slow down if needed to extend your range.

Of course, we don't yet know the final spec numbers for the Bolt and factors other than CdA can still make a difference to real world range at highway speed.