-
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
So GM / Opel brought the Ampera-E to London and then tells us Brits we can't have it.
Also in the announcement in Paris they said 0-100 km/h in 7.3 seconds. That doesn't tally with previous comments that the Bolt's 0-60 mph is in the 6s.
Also in the announcement in Paris they said 0-100 km/h in 7.3 seconds. That doesn't tally with previous comments that the Bolt's 0-60 mph is in the 6s.
Few passenger cars accelerate just as quickly from 60 to 62 mph as they do 30-32. It's a falling curve. Aero kicks harder and harder as speeds climb, and EV torque mapping is often aimed at lower speeds. Having a car gain at 10-45 mph acceleration is more important than 60 to 70 mph.
And like I said, GM's tendency to under-rate the cars. I do know from personal instrumented tests that the 2016 Chevrolet Volt is both quicker and more powerful than the official specifications.
There was already a similar discrepancy in the earlier announced number for 0-50 km/h (0-31 mph) which was stated by Opel as 3.2 seconds and by Chevrolet as 2.9.
The car's Chief Engineer, Josh Tavel, recently told auto writers at the media drive event in California that the Bolt EV can do 0-60 mph in as quick as 6.5 seconds.
I'm not sure what is going on but there is a partial clue. The GM published 0-60 mph in 2.9 seconds notes that this is when the battery state of charge is above 75%.
It could be that European regulations or legal interpretation requires them to quote performance statistics measured at lower battery charge levels but in the US they quote performance numbers at higher battery levels. Batteries can typically output higher power when closer to full much like they can receive higher recharging power when closer to empty.
That just my initial guess. I don't know. Do similar differences appear in any of Tesla's performance statements between Europe and the US? I don't know.
Last edited:
Could be tires. A FWD with the Bolt's torque is restricted by traction at 0 mph starts. Even the Volt is. Turn off the TC/SC on a Volt and punch it from a light. Too much wheelspin, you need to pedal it slightly to get the best times.
I doubt it. I suspect the GM published numbers in the US do not utilize roll-out to get faster numbers. That's part of why Motor Trend regularly publishes faster numbers than GM and other car maker official numbers -- Motor Trend measures their numbers using roll-out. Car & Driver publishes their results with and without rollout.
Minor nit...I understand C&D publishes their 0-60 numbers without rollout, thus are closer to manufacturer specs. But they also publish Rolling Start (5-60 mph) test results. That test is completely different than 0-60 with rollout.
I don't doubt you. I really need to learn more about the subtleties of measuring these kinds of track results.
Here're some links that might be helpful:
How Does C/D Test Cars? - Info
The Importance of 'Rollout' - Feature
The Rolling Start, A Better EV Performance Metric
How Does C/D Test Cars? - Info
The Importance of 'Rollout' - Feature
The Rolling Start, A Better EV Performance Metric
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
In the past, when asked GM has said they have no plans to add to DC charging infrastructure.
However, according to somebody that attended the recent "Advanced Clean Cars Symposium: The Road Ahead":
Of course we are still missing a lot here. 3x faster than what, and for how long? Time frame to deploy? What do they cost to use? How far apart are the stations? What types of locations will they choose for them? How many units per stations? How will they monitor and repair stations when there are problems? But regardless, it sounds like a major step in the right direction.
However, according to somebody that attended the recent "Advanced Clean Cars Symposium: The Road Ahead":
Was great to hear Britta Gross ofGeneral Motors discussing decreasing DC fast charging time threefold and deploying fast charger corridors from coast-to-coast and border-to-border in anticipation of the 238-mile all-electric #Bolt
Of course we are still missing a lot here. 3x faster than what, and for how long? Time frame to deploy? What do they cost to use? How far apart are the stations? What types of locations will they choose for them? How many units per stations? How will they monitor and repair stations when there are problems? But regardless, it sounds like a major step in the right direction.
This might not mean what everyone assumed. I never took the statement any other way than face value.
One quote attributed to Mary Barra in January? says, “We are not actively working on providing infrastructure.”
This means General Motors is NOT building DC chargers, buying sites, or otherwise competing with existing DCFC startups. GM does NOT make their own EVSE's even, or their wall chargers.
This does NOT mean they are not cooperating with DCFC companies, nor does it mean GM will never "actively work on providing infrastructure". In January, GM was not building DCFC sites, so she answered the question correctly.
In fact GM has been working with the CharIN, and ChargePoint BEFORE Barra's quote to the press. Who else they are working with, (besides Clipper Creek) I do not know.
We will have to see. Right now, GM is using "other people's money" to deal with remote refueling, and putting their own money into their EV production program.
Understand anything Chevrolet puts into the press is always taken in the worst possible context, or edited if it doesn't agree with the preconceived notion that Chevrolet hates EV technology.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
GM uses roll-out when advertising their performance vehicles, as I discovered with the Camaro variants in another thread.
No idea about their BEV specific numbers.
5-60 is very interesting and perhaps most relevant for normal street use. Because the car is already rolling along in gear, ICE cars don't get the big energy dump from dropping the clutch and transitioning a 4000 rpm engine down to 2000 rpm. As a result, they are consistently slower on 5-60 than 0-60.
EVs never did the energy dump, of course, so they are generally just a little faster 5-60 than 0-60 (Tesla's launch mode on the Ludicrous cars might be an exception, since the car doesn't normally go immediately to 100% torque.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
