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

[abasile]

So the Bolt has more range than the base Model 3....

Doubtful at freeway speeds. Both the Bolt and the Model 3 have more than enough range for city/suburban driving. It's the longer trips, on freeways and highways, where more range really matters. Try comparing the Bolt and the base Model 3 at 80 mph. I guess we'll have to wait another several months before that's possible, though. I highly doubt that GM will increase the Bolt's battery size before the base Model 3 ships in volume.

 

[electracity]

Bolt regen may be superior to the single motor model 3. But this won't matter too much. A 200 mile range for local driving is more than enough in both cars.

I think the Bolt gets "a bump" only by increased interest in EV die to M3 press. No one is going to buy a Bolt because the base model 3 has "only" 220 mile range. People are going to buy a Bolt because they can't actually buy a model 3. A three year lease on a nice Bolt is a good strategy, especially for a multi-car household.

I think the new Leaf will have a bigger impact on Bolt sales. Which is a better value?

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I have a feeling Bolt sales will get a nice bump moving forward.

I've been saying that for quite some time. The Model 3 put a lock on BEV sales (with good reason) and this reveal will have released the lock. So now I expect some low-end fence sitters to get the Bolt (although maybe some will wait until after the Leaf reveal), since it'll be a good chunk cheaper for a lot of people (unless you're really dumb).

The only really nasty surprise is the Premium Upgrade Package upselling. I'm hoping that Tesla will at least see sense and offer a "sub-package" on the heated (motorized) seats and mirrors, or at least make heated mirrors standard since they are a really big deal in cold locations (the base 3 has power mirrors anyway).

But on the plus side, from the press kit:
(1) No mention of a Supercharger enabling fee
(2) Expected efficiency seems good (base model's curb weight was a pleasant surprise)
(3) DCFC is 130mi/30min base or 170mi/30min larger. No real corner cutting there.
(4) Aside from the upsold PUP, base features are solid
(5) Although EAP and FSD are pricey, at least you don't have to decide at time of purchase

Long-range BEV's really getting real.

Nissan's turn next.

 

[electracity]

I forgot about curb weight. It is excellent. I had guessed 4000+ lbs base model.

 

[FlatSix911]

Tesla claims to add 30 miles per hour of charge at 32A vs. Bolt which GM claims adds about 25 miles per hour (at 32A, I think).

That implies the Model 3 could be 20% more efficient. That, in turn, could imply a battery closer to 50 kWh if it gets an EPA 220 miles? Very loose guess. It also implies that the 130 miles in 30 minutes could equate to an average Supercharger rate of under 70 kW?

Probably it is less than 20% more efficient so these other implications are probably less extreme. I need to spend more time scribbling on the back of the envelope.

Pared-down electric experience: Driving one of the first Model 3s off the line

 

[Zoomit]

Doubtful at freeway speeds. Both the Bolt and the Model 3 have more than enough range for city/suburban driving. It's the longer trips, on freeways and highways, where more range really matters. Try comparing the Bolt and the base Model 3 at 80 mph.

Indeed, I'm contemplating buying a Standard battery Model 3 to complement our Bolt EV (and other vehicles). I fully expect the Model 3 would be our preferred long trip vehicle. (Autopilot, Superchargers, plus similar or longer highway range.)

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

bro1999, are you so much of a Tesla hater that you'd post such a blatant lie that you'd be called out on it?: Tesla Model 3 Side Pole Impact Test Compared To Volvo S60 - Video

"Volvo test was a 40 mph impact while the Model 3 test was 20 mph.
Can you say “blatant deception”?"

 

[bro1999]

bro1999, are you so much of a Tesla hater that you'd post such a blatant lie that you'd be called out on it?: Tesla Model 3 Side Pole Impact Test Compared To Volvo S60 - Video

"Volvo test was a 40 mph impact while the Model 3 test was 20 mph.
Can you say “blatant deception”?"

I read a post on here and it turned out the person was wrong? Oh well, what can you do.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I read a post on here and it turned out the person was wrong? Oh well, what can you do.

Limit your posting to the Bolt forum?

 

[McRat]

bro1999, are you so much of a Tesla hater that you'd post such a blatant lie that you'd be called out on it?: Tesla Model 3 Side Pole Impact Test Compared To Volvo S60 - Video

"Volvo test was a 40 mph impact while the Model 3 test was 20 mph.
Can you say “blatant deception”?"

All I can say (I test products for a living) is watch the velocity of the glass fragments of the driver's window as it heads towards the bottom of the shot.

I'm surprised there are no clocks on the video. That's very unusual for high-speed camera recordings during professional testing. In fact, it makes the testing pointless. This is what a real test normally looks like. Notice the 1,000 frames per second identifier, and frame count.

Use your own judgement.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

All I can say (I test products for a living) is watch the velocity of the glass fragments of the driver's window as it heads towards the bottom of the shot.

I'm surprised there are no clocks on the video. That's very unusual for high-speed camera recordings during professional testing. In fact, it makes the testing pointless. This is what a real test normally looks like. Notice the 1,000 frames per second identifier, and frame count.

Use your own judgement.

There's no need. And I'll save you the trouble of RTFA. The Volvo side impact test was also done at 20mph, despite what bro1999 read. So instead of thinking the Tesla test was rigged, let's just accept the test results for what they are.

 

[McRat]

There's no need. And I'll save you the trouble of RTFA. The Volvo side impact test was also done at 20mph, despite what bro1999 read. So instead of thinking the Tesla test was rigged, let's just accept the test results for what they are.

Here is the footage of the 11/23/2015 Volvo S60 side impact testing from the NHTSA. This is the same test but the other camera angle. Note the 1000 fps and frame numbers. Somebody cropped that off. I have no idea if anything fishy was going on. But I could go to jail for doing that on medical or aviation tests, and people have.

If you cannot see that the frame was cropped to remove the timer, then it really doesn't matter. Data is simply not something you want in your life. Which is actually kind of obvious by your posts in this Chevrolet Bolt EV thread.

 

[McRat]

There's no need. And I'll save you the trouble of RTFA. The Volvo side impact test was also done at 20mph, despite what bro1999 read. So instead of thinking the Tesla test was rigged, let's just accept the test results for what they are.

Let's go for the Cliff Notes version. You are clueless about testing. Period. You probably stay up all night studying for a urine test.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Here is the footage of the 11/23/2015 Volvo S60 side impact testing from the NHTSA. This is the same test but the other camera angle. Note the 1000 fps and frame numbers. Somebody cropped that off. I have no idea if anything fishy was going on. But I could go to jail for doing that on medical or aviation tests, and people have.

If you cannot see that the frame was cropped to remove the timer, then it really doesn't matter. Data is simply not something you want in your life. Which is actually kind of obvious by your posts in this Chevrolet Bolt EV thread.

Let's go for the Cliff Notes version. You are clueless about testing. Period. You probably stay up all night studying for a urine test.

Let's review:
- i point out bro's anti-tesla bias in shading a model 3 vs volvo crash test result with a bad assumption. Bro1999 did NOT dispute this.
- you defend him by claiming the framerate info was cropped out, ergo bro's claim still stands.
- I pointed out that you didn't RTFA, because the comments has a link to the actual Volvo test showing that the results of the comparison still stands.
- you responded with the above nonsense.

Whatever, I'm done with the bolt.

 

[Merrill]

Why would you want a Bolt anyway, no charging infrastructure and its ugly.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Why would you want a Bolt anyway, no charging infrastructure and its ugly.

It's "available" now...seems to be the response of choice.

Not a strong argument, if you ask me...but there it is.

 

[McRat]

...
Whatever, I'm done with the bolt.

Probably a good plan.

Why would you want a Bolt anyway, no charging infrastructure and its ugly.

Yup. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[McRat]

It's "available" now...seems to be the response of choice.

Not a strong argument, if you ask me...but there it is.

Availability is vastly overrated when it comes to transportation. It's not like nobody sells shoes.
Probably time to quit the thread.

 

[Yggdrasill]

Here is the footage of the 11/23/2015 Volvo S60 side impact testing from the NHTSA. This is the same test but the other camera angle. Note the 1000 fps and frame numbers. Somebody cropped that off. I have no idea if anything fishy was going on. But I could go to jail for doing that on medical or aviation tests, and people have.

It doesn't matter at all that the video was cropped slightly. The comparison video was a marketing video, nothing more. The question is if the comparison is valid, and yes, it is. If the comparison was misleading, that is illegal in some jurisdictions. But that's not the case here.

The worst you can say is that they didn't show the other tests, like frontal overlap. That is almost certainly because the difference is much smaller.

 

[McRat]

I'm really excited by the Model 310, and hope production accelerates (and some folk balk at the $49k ante) so I can get it sooner.

But I'm also interested in the Bolt as a delivery vehicle. Haul bigger objects than our current Volts so we won't need the truck as often.
We were going to get a cheap used EV, but now NASA/JPL is on our route, cheap EVs lack safe range. Too far for cheap EVs except the Bolt.

But more importantly, I drive for many reasons:

I love to drive.
I need to drive.
It's cheaper to drive.
It's more comfy to drive.
Driving can be a social event.
I race.
I need to tow, usually over 6,500lb x 28' x 8' x 8' (empty trailer weight).
I need to off-road occasionally.
I need to put up to 2,500lb in the back of a vehicle and drive safely at 70+ mph.

Obviously there is no magic carpet that does all of this. The closest are the modified high-powered 2500/3500 crew cab luxury trucks.

Would the M310 be my first choice for fireroading? Heck the Bolt is even a stupid choice for that, but better than a M310, the Bolt will be lighter, more ground clearance, cheaper to repair, cheaper to put offroad tires on.

Fireroading, towing for work, racing, loading with a forklift is not really EV territory yet.

It's about purpose. For me the purpose of the M310 is for track use. Should be a fun track car for AutoX or other events. Other than that, the Bolt is probably a more functional choice as a delivery van. Higher seating position, GM's excellent AEB/FCW, tight parking, large object capacity.