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

[techmaven]

Do you know what you're looking at? Tell me what the car is doing from ~1500 seconds to ~1700 seconds. 3 minutes of what?

Out of a 30 minute test, the test cycle has only 3 minutes at highway speeds.

 

[McRat]

Out of a 30 minute test, the test cycle has only 3 minutes at highway speeds.

10% of the time you are at 75mph. That is about right for California. It's not legal, but it's correct.

 

[trils0n]

Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure looks similar to the EPA 5 cycle test. Both of them are certainly tougher than the NEDC, which is kinda useless. A good sign the Bolt does well on the harmonized test. GM has certainly made an efficient car with the Bolt.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

10% of the time you are at 75mph. That is about right for California. It's not legal, but it's correct.

Ummm, no. When commuting off-peak hrs, I'm driving 70mph over 15 minutes of my 25minute commute. 10% is not a good metric to measure highway miles consumption.

Edit: that's not to say the bolt won't work as a commuter, only that YMMV really applies here.

 

[rxlawdude]

That is an assumption. My daughter goes to UCSB and the 101 in that area can suck more than a Dyson. It took us 1 hr to go 20 miles.

If the 101 was hosed, the Bolt would actually have done even better.

EDIT - GM purposely selected a distance that was the EPA distance. Gutsy move.

Are you sure you really want a Tesla? Sounds like you should buy a Bolt.

 

[rxlawdude]

10% of the time you are at 75mph. That is about right for California. It's not legal, but it's correct.

The point is, with a distinctively NON-aerodynamic (drag coefficient >.3), highway speeds will absolutely trash the Bolt's range.

Please report your 45 minute freeway speed energy expenditure when you get yours.

 

[trils0n]

GM purposely selected a distance that was the EPA distance. Gutsy move.

Selecting a route with distance equal to EPA range, but lower average speed/energy consumption than EPA test, is a pretty guaranteed way to beat the test numbers, which they did handily. Strong way to demonstrate range, but I wouldn't call it gutsy.

 

[SageBrush]

Worldwide Harmonized Light-Duty Vehicles Test Procedure looks similar to the EPA 5 cycle test. Both of them are certainly tougher than the NEDC, which is kinda useless. A good sign the Bolt does well on the harmonized test. GM has certainly made an efficient car with the Bolt.

My impression of the test is that it might be a better representation of "real world" fuel economy for turbo ICE cars, since the NEDC rarely forced the turbo on. EVs do not have that issue of being very fuel economy sensitive to the throttle so I don't think the switch from NEDC matters much. The test is still at low average speed and in no way representational of steady state driving at 70+ mph.

In short, the new test is mostly about reigning in the current gaming advantage that turbos enjoy in the NEDC compared to non-turbo ICEs. It was not conceived with useful EV testing in mind.

 

[SageBrush]

The point is, with a distinctively NON-aerodynamic (drag coefficient >.3), highway speeds will absolutely trash the Bolt's range.

Yup -- the "real world" highway range, anyway.

I expect average drivers to settle around 250+ city miles but only 200 highway miles per full charge.

 

[SageBrush]

10% of the time you are at 75mph. That is about right for California. It's not legal, but it's correct.

Perhaps true for commuters, but it is obvious that the Bolt will cover commuting just fine outside of corner cases. Just do not confuse this test result with implying long trip driving suitability -- Wider Los Angeles or otherwise.

 

[wdolson]

All EV makers currently (har) rely heavily on government handouts, in nearly all countries, not just the USA.

It's why some people have the mistaken illusion that an EV drivetrain is just as cheap as ICE. It's not close yet.

The drivetrain on an EV is much cheaper than an ICE. Electric motors are cheaper than gasoline engines, and there is no transmission. However, li-ion batteries are still expensive and to get any decent range, you need a lot of capacity, which costs a lot of money. That's why people talk about the tipping point is about $100/KWh. At that point the fuel system plus drive train of an EV costs about the same as an ICE drive train plus fuel system.

At the moment EVs do cost more, but the Gigafactory will be driving down the cost of batteries a fair bit. That could accelerate the arrival of the tipping point.

The Model 3 will still cost more than an equivalent ICE, but I think the other advantages of an EV will upsell buyers into the more expensive car. This will be critical for Tesla as the Model 3 will likely be the first EV road vehicle (not a conversion) sold in the US without the tax incentive.

That is an assumption. My daughter goes to UCSB and the 101 in that area can suck more than a Dyson. It took us 1 hr to go 20 miles.

If the 101 was hosed, the Bolt would actually have done even better.

EDIT - GM purposely selected a distance that was the EPA distance. Gutsy move.

I suspect GM drove the route with a mule before they ever did any publicity drives.

 

[wdolson]

Ummm, no. When commuting off-peak hrs, I'm driving 70mph over 15 minutes of my 25minute commute. 10% is not a good metric to measure highway miles consumption.

Edit: that's not to say the bolt won't work as a commuter, only that YMMV really applies here.

When most people think of highway driving, they are thinking of running some distance at a constant, high speed. Commuters on urban and many suburban freeways don't see those kinds of speeds, but that is the driving profile on most road trips.

 

[McRat]

When most people think of highway driving, they are thinking of running some distance at a constant, high speed. Commuters on urban and many suburban freeways don't see those kinds of speeds, but that is the driving profile on most road trips.

EV's aren't actually that good at that so far. Sustained high speeds (85+ mph) dramatically affect range both with gas cars and EVs, but gas cars start out with huge amounts of range, and refueling locations everywhere, so it's no biggy to set the cruise control at 90mph in West Texas for hours at a time. Well, except for the deer and the Troopers.

I think there are 2 kinds of "highway" in the West. Interstate (unpopulated) and intrastate (populated). The speed limits for interstate are as high as 85mph posted. Most of the intrastate is 65/70 mph. Huge difference in range.

Normally at the speeds street cars go, Range/MPG reduction from high speeds is constant, regardless of aero.

ie - If a car falls from 30 mpg at 65, to 20 mpg at 85 mph, another car that gets 60mpg falls to 40mpg.

You should lose about 1/3 range from 65 to 85 whether it's an RV or a 2000 Insight.

This is where the comedy about "poor aero" killing off the next gen of EVs occurs. All EVs regardless of CdA are affected aprroximately the same. You don't get to defy physics because a wind tunnel told you a number.

However, drivetrain losses and rolling resistance is linear. There should be a slight advantage at higher speeds for cars with less mechanical losses.

Cliff Notes: Your losses in range are a percent based on speed, no matter what you drive.

 

[3Victoria]

@McRat Your mathematical skills are poor. Drive train and rolling ristant may be linear, but reduction by air resistance is not. It goes up by (at least) the square of speed. So lower CdA makes a larger difference at larger speeds.

Bolts are good for local driving. Choose according to petsonal priorities.

 

[SageBrush]

This is where the comedy about "poor aero" killing off the next gen of EVs occurs. All EVs regardless of CdA are affected approximately the same. You don't get to defy physics because a wind tunnel told you a number.

This is nonsense.
In SI units, result in newtons:

Rolling resistance is tyre_RR * mass * G
Air resistance is 0.5 * Rho * CdA * velocity * velocity

A low Cd vehicle at highway speeds over 65 mph stands out from the crowd. E.g in the case of the M3 and the Bolt, the M3 will have less than 2/3rds the Aero losses of the Bolt at equivalent speeds. At the specs these two cars are expected at, and the differences in quality and quantity of chargers, the Bolt is a road trip dog while the M3 will do fine.

 

[McRat]

@McRat Your mathematical skills are poor. Drive train and rolling ristant may be linear, but reduction by air resistance is not. It goes up by (at least) the square of speed. So lower CdA makes a larger difference at larger speeds.

Bolts are good for local driving. Choose according to petsonal priorities.

No, I'm correct about aero losses. While they increase geometrically, they do not discern between CdA values when it comes to percentages. A dirty car takes more power geometrically, and so does a streamliner.

 

[McRat]

This is nonsense.
In SI units, result in newtons:

Rolling resistance is tyre_RR * mass * G
Air resistance is 0.5 * Rho * CdA * velocity * velocity

A low Cd vehicle at highway speeds over 65 mph stands out from the crowd

You are confusing numerical gains with percentage gains.

It's not CdA². It's velocity². Velocity changes square the power required, not the CdA value.

 

[SageBrush]

You are confusing numerical gains with percentage gains.

It's not CdA². It's velocity². Velocity changes square the power required, not the CdA value.

Read again

 

[McRat]

To clarify, increasing your velocity is a geometrically increasing progression.
Increasing you CdA is a linearly increasing progression.

Percentages are linear. Speed is not.

 

[SageBrush]

To clarify, increasing your velocity is a geometrically increasing progression..

Wrong again.