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

[Topher]

In fact, the likelihood that the battery will reach empty just as you pull into home is vanishingly small.

Actually no. The probability is that you will run out of gas extremely close to home. This is the sum of a (potentially infinite) diminishing series. In fact, if the gauge was accurate, you would be guaranteed to run out in your driveway (doing donuts).

Please don't try this at home.

Right.

Thank you kindly.

 

[3Victoria]

Up Bolt! Up Model 3! Ra-ra-ra! The more the merrier!

 

[Jeff N]

The Bolt EV's coefficient of drag is actually .308 rather than the .32 that has been widely reported.

2017 Chevy Bolt EV Is Less of a Drag Than Originally Believed - HybridCars.com

 

[stopcrazypp]

The Bolt EV's coefficient of drag is actually .308 rather than the .32 that has been widely reported.

2017 Chevy Bolt EV Is Less of a Drag Than Originally Believed - HybridCars.com

Thanks for this. 0.308 makes more sense. I may have already deleted my efficiency model, but I remember plugging in 0.32 and it not making any sense given the EPA range numbers.

 

[bro1999]

The Bolt EV's coefficient of drag is actually .308 rather than the .32 that has been widely reported.

2017 Chevy Bolt EV Is Less of a Drag Than Originally Believed - HybridCars.com

Not quite the "aero brick" lots of people were clamoring about. And no freakish looking headlights (Leaf) or other bizarre exterior design to achieve those CoD gains.

 

[McRat]

The Bolt EV's coefficient of drag is actually .308 rather than the .32 that has been widely reported.

2017 Chevy Bolt EV Is Less of a Drag Than Originally Believed - HybridCars.com

It is fairly routine for Chevrolet to exceed their published claims.

In any case, with a car or truck or motorcycle, aero is only one factor, no more or less important than others. It is a factor you balance against other engineering goals.

But Cd is not aero drag. Never has been. Most the cars you think of as being seriously fast up top (nobody under 175mph needs to apply) do not have .2x Cd numbers. Many are over .35 including Ferraris.

Here's a .35 Cd shape that might look oddly familiar, the 2002 Aston Martin Vanquish (190mph):


As the weather warms and more serious gearheads get behind the wheels of Bolts, I think we are going to see some great range numbers out of it.

 

[scaesare]

It is fairly routine for Chevrolet to exceed their published claims.

In any case, with a car or truck or motorcycle, aero is only one factor, no more or less important than others. It is a factor you balance against other engineering goals.

But Cd is not aero drag. Never has been. Most the cars you think of as being seriously fast up top (nobody under 175mph needs to apply) do not have .2x Cd numbers. Many are over .35 including Ferraris.

Here's a .35 Cd shape that might look oddly familiar, the 2002 Aston Martin Vanquish (190mph):
View attachment 212565

As the weather warms and more serious gearheads get behind the wheels of Bolts, I think we are going to see some great range numbers out of it.

I haven't seen anybody questioning speed claims based on Cd, but rather energy usage.

Physics dictate that those Ferarris and Aston-Martins are using more power per mile with their .35 Cd's than they would with a lesser coefficient value. The owners just don't care.

 

[Topher]

aero is only one factor, no more or less important than others.

What? Of course it is more important than some factors, and less important than others.

But Cd is not aero drag. Never has been. Most the cars you think of as being seriously fast up top (nobody under 175mph needs to apply) do not have .2x Cd numbers. Many are over .35 including Ferraris.

Aerodynamic drag is Cd * Frontal Area.

'Fast' cars are not necessarily mostly concerned with aerodynamic drag. Power is far more important, and down force trumps aerodynamics.

But since we are talking about Range, aerodynamic drag is of supreme importance, and hypermilers trying to achieve record breaking range will be looking for ways to improve it.

Thank you kindly.

 

[McRat]

I haven't seen anybody questioning speed claims based on Cd, but rather energy usage.

Physics dictate that those Ferarris and Aston-Martins are using more power per mile with their .35 Cd's than they would with a lesser coefficient value. The owners just don't care.

Doesn't that 15 year old Aston Martin remind you of anything?

Sexy beetch no?

 

[McRat]

What? Of course it is more important than some factors, and less important than others.

Aerodynamic drag is Cd * Frontal Area.

'Fast' cars are not necessarily mostly concerned with aerodynamic drag. Power is far more important, and down force trumps aerodynamics.

But since we are talking about Range, aerodynamic drag is of supreme importance, and hypermilers trying to achieve record breaking range will be looking for ways to improve it.

Thank you kindly.

The Bolt EV exceeded it's range target significantly, with good head room, cost control, low exterior envelope. Call it a flying brick if you like, but it goes further on a charge than a Model S 60. So I'm not convinced it's a brick.

Could Chevrolet actually produce a retail car that was extremely slippery? Absolutely. At a cost. 3.95 CdA is their record. Honda did much the same. Neither car sold for crap.

Nobody is going to beat VW however in a street legal car. 3.05 CdA for the XL1.

 

[bro1999]

According to the TFCL guy, GM said the Bolt could travel 170 miles on a full charge at WOT (Wide Open Throttle @ 92 mph).

 

[McRat]

According to the TFCL guy, GM said the Bolt could travel 170 miles on a full charge at WOT (Wide Open Throttle @ 92 mph).

I don't think that will hold water. I think it's misquoted. Best guess from me is 170 km at 92mph against the limiter.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't think that will hold water. I think it's misquoted. Best guess from me is 170 km at 92mph against the limiter.

Right, considering C&D got 190 miles at 75 mph (which is a pretty good result already), 170 miles at 92 mph seems unlikely (unless there was a tailwind or some kind of elevation advantage).

 

[Topher]

Call it a flying brick if you like

I didn't, and don't. I just addressed your misconceptions.

Thank you kindly.

 

[wycolo]

The only source for that 0.308 v 0.32 is a write-up that also gives the range figure of 217 instead of the usual 238? So GM does not state an official cd for the Bolt?
--

 

[stopcrazypp]

The only source for that 0.308 v 0.32 is a write-up that also gives the range figure of 217 instead of the usual 238? So GM does not state an official cd for the Bolt?
--

As someone who had played around with the data, 0.308 makes more sense than 0.32. The EPA 217 highway was just a side point, it's largely irrelevant to the discussion of high speed range (given how short the high speed sections are in that test cycle).

The 190 miles at 75 mph is more relevant and easy to calculate with. 0.32 does not make sense given that context.

 

[McRat]

The only source for that 0.308 v 0.32 is a write-up that also gives the range figure of 217 instead of the usual 238? So GM does not state an official cd for the Bolt?
--

Shhh... Don't confuse the issue with facts. Conjecture is far more informative.

What we do know is the Bolt EV gets 4mi/kWh on the EPA Combined cycle. A record for any car with 200mi EV range, regardless of aero marketing numbers.

GM does not necessarily give out correct Cd numbers, if at all. Usually they understate specs.

 

[SageBrush]

As someone who had played around with the data, 0.308.

Gives 296 Wh/mile for combined road and air losses; but not including drivetrain, accessories or electronics.

My WAG is 330 Wh/mile total, so range at 75 mph would be around 59.5 kWh / (0.33 mile/kwh) = 180 miles.

 

[Jeff N]

The only source for that 0.308 v 0.32 is a write-up that also gives the range figure of 217 instead of the usual 238? So GM does not state an official cd for the Bolt?
--

As the article states:

When the Chevrolet Bolt’s 217-mile highway range estimate....

The Bolt EV's EPA estimates are 255 city, 217 highway, and 238 miles combined.

The .308 Cd number that I reported in that article came directly from Stuart Norris when I did a 1:1 interview with him last Friday at a GM Bolt EV media event near Palo Alto, CA. He is the same guy who was interviewed in the Automotive News article last summer that was the original source of the .32 number.

As far as I'm aware, GM does not routinely publish drag coefficients as part of their vehicle specifications online.

I probably should have mentioned by way of contrast in the article that the Spark EV's Cd was .326.

 

[SageBrush]

Does the Bolt display a Wh/mile real time result ?