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

[JohnSnowNW]

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?

I was talking in general...basically the several hundred pages of this thread, and about the several prolific pro-Bolt/GM commentators.

The Bolt is, by all accounts, a great BEV. However, it's not magic, it's not a competitor to the Model 3, GM doesn't actually want to build them (as they've done nothing to allow their profitability), the CCS network isn't comparable to SC stations (and despite continued future projections by others, won't be anytime soon).

It would be great to have a reasonable discussion about the vehicle, but since certain people go to great lengths to avoid everything noted in the above paragraph, it's impossible.

 

[bro1999]

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.

Since neither the Volt nor Spark EV uses the same chemistry as the Bolt, it is hard to say. I would lean towards the Spark EV, but then again GM used the Spark EV as a guinea pig for both the Bolt and Gen 2 Volt. GM programmed the Spark to use pretty much all of its capacity (over 95% for sure), and also let the Spark fast charge fully to 80% at ~46 kW. GM certainly used and abused the Spark EV's battery for R&D. Perhaps that is one reason why GM went conservative with the Bolt's DCFC taper (lessons learned from the Spark EV).

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Most of this thread is about misrepresentation.

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.

No, the GM engineers aren't liars or incompetent.

You, however, are one of either of those 2 options. You repeatedly posted gross misrepresentations of Bjorn's Korea drive by stating that there was "heavy rain" and mountainous terrain, when anyone who watched the video would observe otherwise. Either you lied about this, or were incredibly inattentive to Bjorn's report.

• It goes 190 miles on a charge typically

There you go again: inexcusable misrepresentation of what was actually said.

The 190 mile range is from Car and Driver's highway test at 75 MPH and AC set to 72 F. This is a scenario specific to what one would typically see on US interstate highway travel. It is NOT what a driver would typically see in local commuting, where low speeds and regen save a lot of energy.

 

[scaesare]

I was talking in general...basically the several hundred pages of this thread, and about the several prolific pro-Bolt/GM commentators.

The Bolt is, by all accounts, a great BEV. However, it's not magic, it's not a competitor to the Model 3, GM doesn't actually want to build them (as they've done nothing to allow their profitability), the CCS network isn't comparable to SC stations (and despite continued future projections by others, won't be anytime soon).

It would be great to have a reasonable discussion about the vehicle, but since certain people go to great lengths to avoid everything noted in the above paragraph, it's impossible.

Sure. There are some negatives, no doubt, hence I said: "Now there are undoubtedly tradeoffs.".

But it doesn't seem meeting advertised range is one of them. Thus I question the aggressive questioning of that metric.

Perhaps folks on the "other side" are guilty of not directly acknowledging the negatives. Fine... but I think the general level of discourse would be best served by "your side" not also targeting criticisms that don't seem to have a lot of evidence of merit.

 

[bro1999]

There you go again: inexcusable misrepresentation of what was actually said.

The 190 mile range is from Car and Driver's highway test at 75 MPH and AC set to 72 F. This is a scenario specific to what one would typically see on US interstate highway travel. It is NOT what a driver would typically see in local commuting, where low speeds and regen save a lot of energy.

Because people all over the country can ALWAYS travel at 75 mph on the highway. Especially in say LA or DC.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Because people all over the country can ALWAYS travel at 75 mph on the highway. Especially in say LA or DC.

In vast swaths of America outside of elite coastal areas, yes, 75 MPH travel is quite common, and 75 is often right-hand lane speed.

 

[McRat]

...

So, for the third time: are you going to buy a Bolt? Or a Model 3? Or an Ioniq? Your silence is very odd. Given your high regard for the Bolt, I am curious as to why you don't back up your regard with a purchase.

Well, I suppose I'll even go further off-topic.

We have 4 drivers. Combined together, since October, using 3 Volts and other cars, trucks, and motorcycles, more that 90% of this family's transportation miles are on electricity. So adding a Bolt at this point will actually not improve our EV miles significantly. But we might swap the oldest Volt for a Bolt. We will see. The Volt in question runs like new, so there is no real reason to discard it.

I promised to buy a Model 3. If I make a reservation for a table, room, plane, ship, etc, I carry through with it. I believe the Model 3 a worthy cause. However, I anticipate using it for AutoX competition not as a daily driver. It should do better than the Volts, but worse than the Vettes. It will still be fun.

The Hyundai won't increase our EV miles significantly either, but it is also below my threshold for what a car should be when there are other EV choices with better performance and range.

So why do I promote the Bolt through my postings on this site and others? EV adoption. There are two groups. Those who want the Bolt to fail, and those who want it to succeed. I'm in the second group. Trashing the Bolt will not increase EV adoption. What it does, is give people ammunition not to buy EVs.

Some think that is good. I personally do not. The Bolt is not the POS as claimed, and even 53 mile EV ability covers a lot of miles with no gasoline use. 238 miles will cover even more. And apparently 238 miles is no exaggeration.

 

[McRat]

In vast swaths of America outside of elite coastal areas, yes, 75 MPH travel is quite common, and 75 is often right-hand lane speed.

Living in California my entire life (5th gen) I can say without a doubt you are wrong. 75-100 mph happens quite a bit on freeways here. But you will get ticketed for it if you do it long enough. The CHP is now allowed radar, so it's not 1970 anymore. Vehicles with trailers are restricted in California to 55 mph. This naturally creates congestion on the freeways that does not exist in many states.

It doesn't matter what you drive. 75 mph+ has a huge amount of losses. You should see what 175mph does. Drain a tank in 20 minutes.

PS - You really need to change your screen name to antievadoption2017 since that appears to be one of your prime focuses in this thread. People without EVs read your constant negative EV comments. For every member on a typical site, there about 10 readers.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Well, I suppose I'll even go further off-topic.

We have 4 drivers. Combined together, since October, using 3 Volts and other cars, trucks, and motorcycles, more that 90% of this family's transportation miles are on electricity. So adding a Bolt at this point will actually not improve our EV miles significantly. But we might swap the oldest Volt for a Bolt. We will see. The Volt in question runs like new, so there is no real reason to discard it.

I promised to buy a Model 3. If I make a reservation for a table, room, plane, ship, etc, I carry through with it. I believe the Model 3 a worthy cause. However, I anticipate using it for AutoX competition not as a daily driver. It should do better than the Volts, but worse than the Vettes. It will still be fun.

Ok, that is fair.

So why do I promote the Bolt through my postings on this site and others? EV adoption. There are two groups. Those who want the Bolt to fail, and those who want it to succeed. I'm in the second group. Trashing the Bolt will not increase EV adoption. What it does, is give people ammunition not to buy EVs.

Some think that is good. I personally do not. The Bolt is not the POS as claimed, and even 53 mile EV ability covers a lot of miles with no gasoline use. 238 miles will cover even more. And apparently 238 miles is no exaggeration.

Others may have claimed that the Bolt is no good, but I am not one of them. My only major complaint with the Bolt is that it isn't suitable for long range highway travel in much of the U.S. Otherwise, it's perfectly fine IMO as far as powertrain, interior layout, and overall quality.

When the Bolt can fast charge as quickly as a Tesla, I will have no complaints at all about it.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Perhaps folks on the "other side" are guilty of not directly acknowledging the negatives. Fine... but I think the general level of discourse would be best served by "your side" not also targeting criticisms that don't seem to have a lot of evidence of merit.

SOME folks on the "other side" often didn't come here to support Tesla or EVs. For example, look at the "concern" expressed about Tesla and decide for yourself what the motivations for coming here are:

Tesla cancels contract with Model 3 supplier = delayed launch?

 

[McRat]

...

When the Bolt can fast charge as quickly as a Tesla, I will have no complaints at all about it.

You need to be aware that most EVs on the road today in the USA have too short of range to even make fast charging a viable long range proposition. Drive 1 hr, charge 0.5 hr, rinse repeat, is not going to get John/Jane Q. Public into EVs as long distance transportation. They will continue to use aircraft, just like today.

 

[Discoducky]

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.

HA, that's one of the best typo's I've had in quite a while.

Well, I'd bet there are folks keeping track somewhere; guess I'll go looking!

 

[stopcrazypp]

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 and @Saghost beat me to it, but the argument was never about a "beef" with GM or that it was improper for them to pick a route (rather that's expected in general press drives).

Rather the beef is with @McRat arguing that the picked routes by GM in the press drives are equivalent to independent tests of the car's range. Your comment actually agrees with our side: an independent test where the journalist picks the start, destination, route is going to be different than a picked route.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Because people all over the country can ALWAYS travel at 75 mph on the highway. Especially in say LA or DC.

In vast swaths of America outside of elite coastal areas, yes, 75 MPH travel is quite common, and 75 is often right-hand lane speed.

Living in California my entire life (5th gen) I can say without a doubt you are wrong. 75-100 mph happens quite a bit on freeways here. But you will get ticketed for it if you do it long enough. The CHP is now allowed radar, so it's not 1970 anymore. Vehicles with trailers are restricted in California to 55 mph. This naturally creates congestion on the freeways that does not exist in many states.

It doesn't matter what you drive. 75 mph+ has a huge amount of losses. You should see what 175mph does. Drain a tank in 20 minutes.

PS - You really need to change your screen name to antievadoption2017 since that appears to be one of your prime focuses in this thread. People without EVs read your constant negative EV comments. For every member on a typical site, there about 10 readers.

Actually I travel the common California long distance route which is SF to LA via I-5. 75mph is slow on that route. No way CHP will give you a speeding ticket for that (even though our state technically has a strict speed limit, so they can do so for being over the 70mph speed limit on that route).

Now, is that representative of typical commuting speeds (with traffic)? Definitely not. However, for commutes, maximum range doesn't really matter for a vast majority of people (esp for a car that can get ~200 miles of range). It's only on the long distance trips where it really matters (when you are trying to stretch between stations), and on those trips usually you would travel at those higher speeds.

 

[scaesare]

SOME folks on the "other side" often didn't come here to support Tesla or EVs. For example, look at the "concern" expressed about Tesla and decide for yourself what the motivations for coming here are:

Tesla cancels contract with Model 3 supplier = delayed launch?

Certainly may be agendas. My point is: address the incorrect premises being presented. Jumping (perhaps prematurely) on a perceived deficiency that doesn't seem to have much real work basis just makes it a pissing match.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Certainly may be agendas. My point is: address the incorrect premises being presented. Jumping (perhaps prematurely) on a perceived deficiency that doesn't seem to have much real work basis just makes it a pissing match.

I'll just leave it at this: sunlight disinfects. Bad faith actors need to be exposed for who they are.

 

[mtndrew1]

An anecdotal thing here, but a friend of mine found out his dealer in Illinois (where he bought his Volt) had nine Bolts in stock so he went for a test drive.

All nine cars were originally from Rydell in Northridge, CA. This seems to point to weak demand for the Bolt in the epicenter of EV adoption if Rydell is offloading inventory. I'm curious to see if May's sales numbers pick up over the weakness in the initial six months. It's starting to look like the ELR all over again (fine car, way overpriced).

 

[stopcrazypp]

An anecdotal thing here, but a friend of mine found out his dealer in Illinois (where he bought his Volt) had nine Bolts in stock so he went for a test drive.

All nine cars were originally from Rydell in Northridge, CA. This seems to point to weak demand for the Bolt in the epicenter of EV adoption if Rydell is offloading inventory. I'm curious to see if May's sales numbers pick up over the weakness in the initial six months. It's starting to look like the ELR all over again (fine car, way overpriced).

Days to turn was still 14 days (vs ~70 for rest of industry) according to the April report, so the car still appears to be supply limited. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions yet at this point.

 

[wdolson]

Actually I travel the common California long distance route which is SF to LA via I-5. 75mph is slow on that route. No way CHP will give you a speeding ticket for that (even though our state technically has a strict speed limit, so they can do so for being over the 70mph speed limit on that route).

Now, is that representative of typical commuting speeds (with traffic)? Definitely not. However, for commutes, maximum range doesn't really matter for a vast majority of people (esp for a car that can get ~200 miles of range). It's only on the long distance trips where it really matters (when you are trying to stretch between stations), and on those trips usually you would travel at those higher speeds.

North of Sacramento the de-facto speed limit on I-5 is even faster than Sacramento - south. The mountain roads slow people down north of Redding, but you do have to drive in the left lane most of the time. The right lane usually is clogged with vehicles with trailers. Last time I came down to California, driving 75 in the left lane often had people wanting to go faster coming up on my tail. I kept having to pull over and let them by.

 

[FlatSix911]

Well, I suppose I'll even go further off-topic.

So why do I promote the Bolt through my postings on this site and others? EV adoption. There are two groups. Those who want the Bolt to fail, and those who want it to succeed. I'm in the second group. Trashing the Bolt will not increase EV adoption. What it does, is give people ammunition not to buy EVs.

Some think that is good. I personally do not. The Bolt is not the POS as claimed, and even 53 mile EV ability covers a lot of miles with no gasoline use. 238 miles will cover even more. And apparently 238 miles is no exaggeration.

Another big boost for widespread EV adoption ...
Volvo credits Tesla for creating EV demand, says they will stop developing diesel engines to focus on EVs

Today, Volvo Chief Executive Officer Hakan Samuelsson said that the current generation of diesel engines will be the automaker’s last and that they will instead focus on electric vehicles. And he also gave credit to Tesla for launching demand for electric vehicles, which actually plays right into the automaker’s mission.

The Swedish automaker is aggressively pushing for its first long-range electric car to start between $35,000 and $40,000 in 2019 and it confirmed that they plan to build it in China and export it globally. In an interview with German’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (via Reuters) today, Samuelsson confirmed that today’s market shows no reason to continue investing in diesel: “From today’s perspective, we will not develop any more new generation diesel engines,”

He added that they will instead focus on all-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids: “We have to recognise that Tesla has managed to offer such a car for which people are lining up. In this area, there should also be space for us, with high quality and attractive design,”

Again, Volvo’s first all-vehicle will hit the market in 2019. The company confirmed that they are aiming for a range of “at least 250 miles”. We still don’t know in what segment it will be, but it is expected to be based one of the two new concepts Volvo unveiled last year – SUV pictured and a sedan.