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

[stopcrazypp]

You are making faulty assumptions that GM rigs tests. We know other brands rig tests, like overstating HP, doing 0-60 mph from a rolling start, using their 'EV range' as a fixed number instead of based on driving data, having factory drivers do the driving,

Doesn't have to be rigged. It's just common sense GM will not pick out a route where journalists would run out of range. The route was obviously picked specifically so that the range can be achieved relatively easily.

 

[McRat]

Doesn't have to be rigged. It's just common sense GM will not pick out a route where journalists would run out of range. The route was obviously picked specifically so that the range can be achieved relatively easily.

So you're saying the EPA test loop for combined mileage is too easy to attain for non-EV folk on real highways?

It's ...

'We said it has a 60kWh battery'
'We said you can find it for $29,995 after rebates'
'We said it will go 238 miles'

And they sort of proved it beyond doubt.

 

[Az_Rael]

This person said they are averaging 200w/mile with their Bolt vs 290 on their S. That is pretty darn efficient, although we don't know if that's highway or city miles. For that kind of gain, I suspect the EPA rating the car in D theory is true. Brilliant move by GM, actually - gives people more range than they expect if they just drive in L.

Did the Bolt ruin it for me? At least a little?

 

[stopcrazypp]

So you're saying the EPA test loop for combined mileage is too easy to attain for non-EV folk on real highways?

It's ...

'We said it has a 60kWh battery'
'We said you can find it for $29,995 after rebates'
'We said it will go 238 miles'

And they sort of proved it beyond doubt.

I'm saying they picked a route that car would easily make when driven with the flow of traffic. It's that simple.

For example, if they picked another 23x mile trip like Stockton to Bakersfield (either on 5 or 99) where traffic speeds are a bit higher, it would have actually been a challenge (but good luck keeping up with traffic and still making it).

 

[bro1999]

I took my family of 4 on a road trip to Shenandoah National Park in March. The 260 mile r/t drive included a 3,000 foot climb up a mountain and highway speeds of 55-60 mph. I was really disappointed I didn't achieve the range the journalists in CA got.

260 miles on 54 kWh. Could have gone over 290 miles if I used up the other 6 kWh. GM sure fluffed that 238 mile EPA range. Lol

 

[anticitizen13.7]

For the Bjorn video I assumed because in part of the video it was raining, that it was raining in part of the drive. I saw the pavement was soaked. Watch the video. Perhaps he didn't consider that wet ground yields lower efficiency. The car display says 8°C which affects range.

The only conclusion that anyone can draw from this ridiculous statement is that you are either (1) incredibly inattentive or (2) a liar.

Mr. Nyland specifically states at 56 minutes and 37 seconds that there was no rain.

The pavement was wet at about 45 minutes and 16 seconds into the video: when the Bolt was exiting a harbor freight area where the ferry they took had docked. This is a short, almost insignificant part of the drive. It's pretty obvious once they move out onto the public roads that the pavement is dry. Water tracked from cargo trucks exiting the same pavement area fades out almost immediately.
Furthermore, it is extremely obvious from watching the entire video that conditions were very good: mostly sunny and dry. The temperature was not very cold during the entire trip, varying from 8-12C, or about 47-53F at different times of the day. This is well above the freezing mark. The center display of the vehicle showed that the Bolt did not have to expend any energy conditioning the battery.

Consider how many times he said the car had no NAV system. What he meant was it doesn't have a Tesla NAV system. It will NAV through your webphones or OnStar. OnStar is what I use. Truly hands free NAV; everything else is less than.

The reason Bjorn kept saying this was because he was unfamiliar with the roads and was concerned about getting lost if they did not manage to keep up with another car from GM that they were supposed to follow. Additionally, he seemed mildly annoyed and concerned by the chatter coming from the iPhone's navigation app, probably because it was interfering with the recording of his own commentary on the car. He asked the Korean translator several times to mute the phone.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "a Tesla NAV system".

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Gotta admire somebody who would use a club ghetto dyno day with SAE turned on for an argument. No matter, let's just say informal dyno sessions are like a box of chocolates Forrest. Especially during Amateur Hour.

But that has very little to do with accusing Chevrolet of rigging tests as you claim. Somebody miscorrecting a cheesepuff dyno doesn't mean Chevrolet is a bunch of liars as you imply, over, and over, and over, ad nauseam.

(1) The video and data I cited were collected by Hondata, a company in Torrence, CA, that has been developing and selling firmware hacks for Honda ECUs for the last 2 decades. Your assertions of "club ghetto" are nothing more than a pathetic attempt at an ad hominem attack.

(2) I posted the data on the Honda L15 turbo engine specifically to refute your incorrect assertion that GM is the only company that sells products that exceed their specifications. Honda specifies that the L15 turbo makes 174 horsepower and 167 lb-ft of torque, but independent tests show that it punches well above that spec.

 

[bro1999]

Doesn't have to be rigged. It's just common sense GM will not pick out a route where journalists would run out of range. The route was obviously picked specifically so that the range can be achieved relatively easily.

Because it makes sense for GM to pick a route where the journalists would run out of charge and get a tow of shame. What exactly is the beef with GM choosing that route?

Here's what happens when you let journalists pick their own routes and then write about the hair-raising experience. Perhaps GM read this piece as an example of "How not to handle press drives" and charted out that route for the Bolt test drives.

World Exclusive! 2012 Tesla Model S Test and Range Verification - Motor Trend
"The total range — adding the unused 4 miles, would be 238. Yes, 238 is 11 percent short of 265. Moreover, it was done while being very stingy with performance (for the most part). Is that 265 actually valid? If you drive predominately at highway speeds, then probably not. But were we to have included more medium-speed roads (long stretches at 45-50 mph) well, possibly."

Compare the above debacle to Motortrend's Bolt range test drive:
2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV Review - Range Test
"About a half hour or so later, the little Chevy Bolt and I rolled into the restaurant parking lot. I parked at a Level 3 fast charger and plugged in. Without particularly trying, I’d covered 241.4 miles, averaging 4.6 miles/kW-hr with an estimated 38 miles of range left. According to a screen I can’t specifically talk about, I’d used 51.9 kW-hrs of the battery’s 60-kW-hr capacity. Chevy says the Bolt, supported by Level 3 chargers like the one I’d plugged into, can gain 90 miles worth of range in 30 minutes, 160 miles worth in 60 minutes, and a full 238 miles of range in about two hours.

If this seems rather anti-climactic, well, it’s because it was. The most impressive part of driving the Chevy Bolt across California is how little actually happened. Covering those 240 miles wasn’t particularly challenging, and aside from the low-range warning I received as I hit the top of the mountain, there was nothing about the Bolt that made me think even once that I wouldn’t make it."

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Because it makes sense for GM to pick a route where the journalists would run out of charge and get a tow of shame.
I believe Tesla chose the exact same route for when they were letting journalists take the S for their first drives. What exactly is the beef with GM choosing that route?

The "beef" isn't with GM.

The problem is with McRat. Specifically, it is that he is using the example of GM's chosen routes as evidence that the Bolt generally exceeds EPA estimates. He also grossly misrepresented the course conditions and ambient weather. Bjorn's video is there for anyone to watch. There was no "heavy rain", as McRat claims in post #5526, nor was the drive very mountainous. Bjorn actually stated that there was no rain at all.

Almost any car, regardless of manufacturer, can be demonstrated to beat EPA estimates by using a specific test case.

 

[Saghost]

Because it makes sense for GM to pick a route where the journalists would run out of charge and get a tow of shame.
I believe Tesla chose the exact same route for when they were letting journalists take the S for their first drives. What exactly is the beef with GM choosing that route?

I don't think anyone has an issue with GM choosing that route - from the descriptions I've seen, it sounds like a great route for showcasing a new EV.

The issues come from people looking at the results of a scenic, relatively slow, carefully chosen route and assuming they apply to other drives that are very different - which the media reports I saw did by commenting on how their results from this drive relate to the EPA rating without commenting on how the terrain and temperature and speeds would be expected to affect performance vs EPA rating.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Here's what happens when you let journalists pick their own routes and then write about the hair-raising experience. Perhaps GM read this piece as an example of "How not to handle press drives" and charted out that route for the Bolt test drives.

World Exclusive! 2012 Tesla Model S Test and Range Verification - Motor Trend
"The total range — adding the unused 4 miles, would be 238. Yes, 238 is 11 percent short of 265. Moreover, it was done while being very stingy with performance (for the most part). Is that 265 actually valid? If you drive predominately at highway speeds, then probably not. But were we to have included more medium-speed roads (long stretches at 45-50 mph) well, possibly."

I don't think anyone has an issue with GM choosing that route - from the descriptions I've seen, it sounds like a great route for showcasing a new EV.

The issues come from people looking at the results of a scenic, relatively slow, carefully chosen route and assuming they apply to other drives that are very different - which the media reports I saw did by commenting on how their results from this drive relate to the EPA rating without commenting on how the terrain and temperature and speeds would be expected to affect performance vs EPA rating.

Motortrend actually has the most insightful and realistic commentary on real-world range of EVs: Visiting Las Vegas in the Tesla Model S - Motor Trend

"Kim and Benson’s 233.7 mile journey to San Diego left roughly 4 miles of range available and consumed 78.2 kWhrs of electricity. That’s the energy equivalent of 2.32 gallons of gas or 100.7 mpg-e. Frank and Jessi traveled 211 miles to Las Vegas and had 74 miles of range leftover. They consumed 60.6 kWhr of energy, the equivalent of 1.8 gallons of gas, for an average of 118 mpg-e. My 285-mile journey left 3 miles unused and consumed 78.0 kWhrs or the equivalent of 2.31 gallons of gas. That’s an mpg-e of 123.4.

So if our three range tests point to an mpg-e over 100, why is there such a disparity in distance traveled? Because of differences in weight (two occupants vs one), driver speed and technique. Because of differences in climate (outside), climate control usage (inside) and terrain traveled. The bottom lines is that your mileage will always vary no matter if you’re driving a car that runs on gas or electrons. These are real world numbers, not absolutes.

The take home message isn’t whether or not the Model S meets the EPA’s range rating of 265 miles. We’ve proven that it does and does not."

 

[scaesare]

The Bolt seems to get advertised range or more under reasonably typical driving conditions for many folks.

It appears GM was conservative in range rating. As part of that, they may have actually over delivered on their specs for battery size (quoting useable vs actual perhaps) as well as aero efficiency.

Why is this a bad thing? If anything the idea under-promising but over-delivering on products is something I appreciate. We want folks to adopt EV's, and when they are pleasantly surprised by the performance or value proposition, that's one more step in the right direction. I, for one, am glad to hear the Bolt performs as well as it does.

Now there are undoubtedly tradeoffs. It's still probably not as slippery as other cars, and will likely take more of a hit at 75-80. The interior materials and seats have mixed reactions. On the other hand folks generally praise the regen, and the accessibility of the hatch.

There is plenty of market space for cars of varying design, capability, and price-point. I think everybody would rather see EV's from major manufacturers be serious contenders for mass-adoption rather than compliance efforts. Building a car that delivers on a number of fronts that people value is heading in the right direction.

Like I've said since I've first heard of the Bolt: I hope GM finds a surprise hit on their hands and see more demand than they imagined. It might spur more movement that direction. It doesn't have to be Tesla to be positive for EV adoption...

 

[McRat]

Motortrend actually has the most insightful and realistic commentary on real-world range of EVs: Visiting Las Vegas in the Tesla Model S - Motor Trend

"Kim and Benson’s 233.7 mile journey to San Diego left roughly 4 miles of range available and consumed 78.2 kWhrs of electricity. That’s the energy equivalent of 2.32 gallons of gas or 100.7 mpg-e. Frank and Jessi traveled 211 miles to Las Vegas and had 74 miles of range leftover. They consumed 60.6 kWhr of energy, the equivalent of 1.8 gallons of gas, for an average of 118 mpg-e. My 285-mile journey left 3 miles unused and consumed 78.0 kWhrs or the equivalent of 2.31 gallons of gas. That’s an mpg-e of 123.4.

So if our three range tests point to an mpg-e over 100, why is there such a disparity in distance traveled? Because of differences in weight (two occupants vs one), driver speed and technique. Because of differences in climate (outside), climate control usage (inside) and terrain traveled. The bottom lines is that your mileage will always vary no matter if you’re driving a car that runs on gas or electrons. These are real world numbers, not absolutes.

The take home message isn’t whether or not the Model S meets the EPA’s range rating of 265 miles. We’ve proven that it does and does not."

From your source, he went Hypermiling Method which impeded traffic and yielded 3.6x miles per kWh:

"Sure, the EPA reckons it’ll do 265 miles with some A/C use and hard accelerations, but Kim and Benson only managed 238 miles at 65 mph on flat terrain with the air off. MT video host Jessi Lang and I have 212 miles of desert to cover, and two mountain passes of around 4000 feet to climb. Adding to my anxiety is a lifelong irrational phobia or undefined feeling of dread I’ve had of Las Vegas that has kept me away since the age of 5. I insist on trailering the Tesla to the very edge of the L.A. basin and bringing the truck and trailer along for safety.

To prepare for this adventure I study Tesla’s energy-use curves for highway driving at various speeds and make some calculations of energy use in hill climbs. My back-of-napkin numbers are not promising. At 65 mph, we appear to fall 22 miles short; slowing to 60 drops the shortfall to 16 miles. At 55, it appears we may arrive with enough juice to cruise the Strip a few times, but the safety margin is so thin that I decide we shall suffer like the Conestoga wagon pioneers, climbing the steepest grades at the speed of the heaviest semis and running with the air off and the windows closed. As we set off, Jessi takes the helm and I ride shotgun to monitor and record our energy use every few miles. I coach Jessi with pace notes, in a carbon-free riff on Denis Jenkinson and Stirling Moss. Jessi immediately line-item vetoes my closed-windows demand, but otherwise responds with military obedience to my frequent barking. “No brakes!” “Egg on the accelerator!” “Why is the cruise control off?!”

To put that in perspective, we have the Shop Volt for errands (our 'tow truck'). There is roundtrip to a medical engineering company that is 69 miles, 61 miles of that are 91/55/5 freeways. Impeding traffic not allowed, but 65mph in the right lane is permitted when possible. There is only 14.0 kWh in this Volt so it only has an EPA Highway Rating of 49 miles, It makes it most of the time. This is 4.9x miles per kWh. Full M/T cheater method is good for about 6-7 mi/kWh.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Like I've said since I've first heard of the Bolt: I hope GM finds a surprise hit on their hands and see more demand than they imagined. It might spur more movement that direction. It doesn't have to be Tesla to be positive for EV adoption...

I'm fairly certain most on this board would agree with your sentiments, certainly I would. However, this discussion has been more about misrepresentation than trying to minimize what GM has produced/accomplished.

 

[scaesare]

I'm fairly certain most on this board would agree with your sentiments, certainly I would. However, this discussion has been more about misrepresentation than trying to minimize what GM has produced/accomplished.

Given that real-world experiences don't seem to be painting a picture that's drastically different than GM's claims (and recognizing that for every individual, YMMV... literally, lol), I'm trying to figure out what misrepresentation folks are up in arms about.

Sure GM probably picked scenarios with high probabilities of success. But I'm not seeing reports that the average joe is getting only 175 miles of range under typical circumstances. If anything, folks seem to be meeting or exceeding the specs.

So... have I simply not seen a lot of real-world experience that belies GM's claims at this point?

 

[McRat]

I'm fairly certain most on this board would agree with your sentiments, certainly I would. However, this discussion has been more about misrepresentation than trying to minimize what GM has produced/accomplished.

Most of this thread is about misrepresentation.

• There are no CCS chargers.
• The car is tiny inside.
• It is uglier than all the other cars it matches.
• GM deliberates made the Bolt a POS so they can halt EV sales.
• The Bolt was made to hamper sales of Model 3 Teslas, no other reason.
• Their autonomy program has failed.
• It goes 190 miles on a charge typically.
• Ad Nauseam.

Many, including yourself, say More EVs Iz More Betta, then in the next posts say how the Bolt is the worst car of any kind ever made, and GM are total liars and their engineers incompetent.

There is no crit as good as a hippo. They be bigga.

 

[Discoducky]

Anyone aware of battery segregation data availability? This is my major concern.

 

[bro1999]

Anyone aware of battery segregation data availability? This is my major concern.

Hey, come on, let's leave the segregation talk out of this.

As the Bolt is brand new, there is no real world data to go on. Best way to guess is to look at the Volt's battery degradation....or lackthereof.

 

[bro1999]

I took my family of 4 on a road trip to Shenandoah National Park in March. The 260 mile r/t drive included a 3,000 foot climb up a mountain and highway speeds of 55-60 mph. I was really disappointed I didn't achieve the range the journalists in CA got.

260 miles on 54 kWh. Could have gone over 290 miles if I used up the other 6 kWh. GM sure fluffed that 238 mile EPA range. Lol
View attachment 227250

Here's the elevation profile for the drive to the campgrounds in Shenandoah. Just reverse for the return trip. Definitely not a range-optimized route...especially with 4 people in tow.

 

[Saghost]

Hey, come on, let's leave the segregation talk out of this.

As the Bolt is brand new, there is no real world data to go on. Best way to guess is to look at the Volt's battery degradation....or lackthereof.

Do you think Volt data or Spark EV data is more relevant?

I haven't seen much, but I've read a couple posts that seemed to be saying Spark EVs do have degradation issues.

The Volt has of course done incredibly well on degradation, between the limited charge window, solid thermal management, and lack of fast charging.