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

[Saghost]

Oh, ok. I never heard someone refer to it as "DCFC jump" before and I wasn't thinking it was related to charging. Thanks!

I've never seen those exact words before, but they are quite appropriate to the phenomenon.

I think I've used the phrase Supercharger Hop to describe the same concept before (Tesla specific, of course - but for now anyone who has done it was in a Tesla. That's about to change, though.)

 

[Cyclone]

I've never seen those exact words before, but they are quite appropriate to the phenomenon.

I think I've used the phrase Supercharger Hop to describe the same concept before (Tesla specific, of course - but for now anyone who has done it was in a Tesla. That's about to change, though.)

Yeah, Charging Hop would have clicked for me, maybe even DCFC Hop. But using jump instead put me on a different course

 

[bro1999]

Bill Nye the science guy gets a Bolt too!

 

[wycolo]

Every jump in operating altitude will decrease your cd, no doubt introducing new and exciting non-linearities into the equation. Above 7000 ft could drop you below 0.20 easily. An EV with locked power output could ~accurately perform this test whereas ICEs never could.
--

 

[scaesare]

Every jump in operating altitude will decrease your cd, no doubt introducing new and exciting non-linearities into the equation. Above 7000 ft could drop you below 0.20 easily. An EV with locked power output could ~accurately perform this test whereas ICEs never could.
--

Well, technically it will reduce the drag on your vehicle, but the coefficient value stays the same.

 

[Zoomit]

Every jump in operating altitude will decrease your cd, no doubt introducing new and exciting non-linearities into the equation. Above 7000 ft could drop you below 0.20 easily. An EV with locked power output could ~accurately perform this test whereas ICEs never could.
--

More accurately, atmospheric density reduces with increasing altitude. Since the aerodynamic drag force is 1/2*rho*v^2*Cd*A that reduction in density (rho) results in a similar reduction in aero drag. (Density is also affected by temperature but the inverse. A higher temperature will lower density but let's assume a constant temperature.)

Atmospheric density at sea level and 59F is: 0.0764 lbm/ft^3. The density at 7000' and 59F is 0.0620 lbm/ft^3.

But while the aero drag reduction is 19% at that altitude, aero drag only represents a portion of the losses. For a Bolt EV at a constant 70 mph, it works out to about a 15% increase in range at 7000'/59F versus sea level/59F. A Model S would see about an 11% increase in range in the same conditions. This difference is due to the S's lower aero drag relative to other losses.

 

[wycolo]

> But while the aero drag reduction is 19% at that altitude, aero drag only represents a portion of the losses. [Zoomit]

I was thinking 'cd equivalent' but alas . . .

Thank you for the computation; I will definitely accept your 19% reduction estimation! But the other losses likely are not elevation related.

I know by the time I get down to eastern KS/NE that tall trailer I've been pulling really starts to become a noticeable load.
--

 

[Jeff N]

GreenCarReports just published the Bolt EV US rollout schedule:

 

[JohnSnowNW]

GreenCarReports just published the Bolt EV US rollout schedule:

View attachment 210807

Much later than I expected, and compared tot he Gen 2 Volt rollout.

 

[RiverBrick]

For a laugh, there's a Canadian columnist (and diesel + hydrogen fan) that says the Bolt would be improved across the board if they'd just replace the electric drive-train by a diesel one. (OK, he did say there's one advantage to electric, less noise, but he insists diesel would be better for the environment.)

Chevrolet’s Bolt EV is fully charged | Toronto Star

 

[scaesare]

I know most folks think of diesels as the ultimate evil amongst ICE vehicles, but if you are speaking of greenhouse gas emissions, they are actually less polluting than gasoline counterparts for the most part.

The particulates on diesels are what are far worse than gasoline, and they are contributors to smog. So it's a tradeoff.

That having been said, there's a reasonable argument to be made that, given the superior MPG of a typical diesel engine combined with it's lesser emissions per mile of greenhouse gases, the global-warming part of climate change would be less of a problem if more cars were diesels rather than gasoline.

That having been said, BEV's are in a position to be even better yet, obviously...

 

[scaesare]

(ON EDIT: This was in response to a post from @jgs claiming that diesel contained less energy than gasoline, which was deleted while I was composing this reply)

Are you sure of that?

According to energy.gov:

 

[jgs]

(ON EDIT: This was in response to a post from @jgs claiming that diesel contained less energy than gasoline, which was deleted while I was composing this reply)

Are you sure of that?

According to energy.gov:

View attachment 210814

Yeah, I wrote it exactly backward and then realized it right away so deleted pending correction. Here's the corrected version:

Possibly you know this already, but a lot of people don't realize diesel has greater energy -- and greater carbon -- content per liter than gasoline does, so simply comparing miles per gallon doesn't give a true picture of the CO2 advantage. I'm not an expert on this, but this paper puts the advantage at about 15 to 25%: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es034928d

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

(ON EDIT: This was in response to a post from @jgs claiming that diesel contained less energy than gasoline, which was deleted while I was composing this reply)

Are you sure of that?

According to energy.gov:

Well, it used to be the case that diesel required less energy in the refinery, which closed the gap on the well-to-tank energy per gallon, but sulfur removal added additional energy requirements.

 

[jgs]

Point being, diesel's CO2 advantage is less than you might be led to believe if you look at mpg comparisons.

 

[scaesare]

Yeah, I wrote it exactly backward and then realized it right away so deleted pending correction. Here's the corrected version:

Possibly you know this already, but a lot of people don't realize diesel has greater energy -- and greater carbon -- content per liter than gasoline does, so simply comparing miles per gallon doesn't give a true picture of the CO2 advantage. I'm not an expert on this, but this paper puts the advantage at about 15 to 25%: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es034928d

That argument has never made sense.

The number of miles driven is determined by need, not the type of fuel you have in your tank.

My reply was primarily in response to:

For a laugh, there's a Canadian columnist (and diesel + hydrogen fan) that says the Bolt would be improved across the board if they'd just replace the electric drive-train by a diesel one.

I'd actually bet that, for CO, CO2, NOx and total hydrocarbons, that that laughable Canadian columnist is correct. But I'd bet the particulates wouldn't be able to meet the spec for light passenger vehicles without some additional equipment (although I do wonder how close it might get, as it could be optimized for largely single-RPM usage).

 

[stopcrazypp]

That argument has never made sense.

The number of miles driven is determined by need, not the type of fuel you have in your tank.

My reply was primarily in response to:


I'd actually bet that, for CO, CO2, NOx and total hydrocarbons, that that laughable Canadian columnist is correct. But I'd bet the particulates wouldn't be able to meet the spec for light passenger vehicles without some additional equipment (although I do wonder how close it might get, as it could be optimized for largely single-RPM usage).

This is getting further off topic, but I think the point is moot given VW ruined diesel's reputation in North America (and likely even Europe too).

 

[scaesare]

This is getting further off topic, but I think the point is moot given VW ruined diesel's reputation in North America (and likely even Europe too).

True on both counts. And throw in Chrysler/Fiat, and it may very well be game over.

Apologies for the deviation.

 

[McRat]

This is getting further off topic, but I think the point is moot given VW ruined diesel's reputation in North America (and likely even Europe too).

For 15 years, the CARB has wanted a good reason to ban diesels. VW and now Fiat have given them a good reason.

 

[jgs]

That argument has never made sense.

I'm not sure what "argument" you think I'm making and you think you're responding to. It must not be the point I thought I'd made because this:

The number of miles driven is determined by need, not the type of fuel you have in your tank.

Is a complete non-sequitur. (My point was simply that although diesels do admittedly produce somewhat less CO2 per mile driven, the effect is less than people tend to assume.)

Anyway, I'm happy to move this to a more appropriate thread (which?) or just drop it.