-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
This will have no good answer
I could embrace just about any production EV today and accept it as my main car (Leaf just turned out to be best from the few available in central Ohio). But the average person still has a lot more convincing to do, and I don't think the Bolt can do the job even if a ton more people will be able to accept the Bolt.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
LEAFs have roughly the same lease payments as an Altima and are about the same price after the Federal Tax Credit.
Nissan sold 335k Altimas in the USA last year.
So it appears again that, for many here, the bar for "accepted", appears to be "match ICE sales" out of the gate.
I don't see it that way. The Prius is in the same price range as the Altima, and it only had 60% it's sales. Is that "accepted"? What if it were 40%? 25?
I think there's a big difference between "accepted", and "mainstream".
I'd venture the Prius has been accepted as a viable solution for a segment of the market, albeit, not the majority segment. The Volt sold ~19K cars in the US last yr. Yet I'd say it's been accepted in a similar segment.
So rather than debate terms all day long I'll say that, for me, I have no delusions that the transition to BEV's for society in general is going to take some time. To consider the platform not acceptable because it doesn't match a corresponding ICE seems shortsighted.
There's going to be a progression. As long as the car succeeds in steps along the way, eventually we'll get to mainstream. But it took time for roads, refineries, gas stations, repair shops, etc... to allow cars to replace horse & buggy.
That's why the introduction of the Bolt (and now the new Leaf), is good news: it's major movement in the right direction we would not otherwise have seen without somebody like Tesla to spur them on. A 250% increase in BEV range for marginally more money is a leap we have not seen in the entire modern era of BEV's
For some reason, however, I see more fault-finding with these initiatives here than anything else. I remain puzzled.
I don't see it that way. The Prius is in the same price range as the Altima, and it only had 60% it's sales. Is that "accepted"? What if it were 40%? 25?
I think there's a big difference between "accepted", and "mainstream".
I'd venture the Prius has been accepted as a viable solution for a segment of the market, albeit, not the majority segment. The Volt sold ~19K cars in the US last yr. Yet I'd say it's been accepted in a similar segment.
So rather than debate terms all day long I'll say that, for me, I have no delusions that the transition to BEV's for society in general is going to take some time. To consider the platform not acceptable because it doesn't match a corresponding ICE seems shortsighted.
There's going to be a progression. As long as the car succeeds in steps along the way, eventually we'll get to mainstream. But it took time for roads, refineries, gas stations, repair shops, etc... to allow cars to replace horse & buggy.
That's why the introduction of the Bolt (and now the new Leaf), is good news: it's major movement in the right direction we would not otherwise have seen without somebody like Tesla to spur them on. A 250% increase in BEV range for marginally more money is a leap we have not seen in the entire modern era of BEV's
For some reason, however, I see more fault-finding with these initiatives here than anything else. I remain puzzled.
So it appears again that, for many here, the bar for "accepted", appears to be "match ICE sales" out of the gate.
I don't see it that way. The Prius is in the same price range as the Altima, and it only had 60% it's sales. Is that "accepted"? What if it were 40%? 25?
I think there's a big difference between "accepted", and "mainstream".
I'd venture the Prius has been accepted as a viable solution for a segment of the market, albeit, not the majority segment. The Volt sold ~19K cars in the US last yr. Yet I'd say it's been accepted in a similar segment.
So rather than debate terms all day long I'll say that, for me, I have no delusions that the transition to BEV's for society in general is going to take some time. To consider the platform not acceptable because it doesn't match a corresponding ICE seems shortsighted.
There's going to be a progression. As long as the car succeeds in steps along the way, eventually we'll get to mainstream. But it took time for roads, refineries, gas stations, repair shops, etc... to allow cars to replace horse & buggy.
That's why the introduction of the Bolt (and now the new Leaf), is good news: it's major movement in the right direction we would not otherwise have seen without somebody like Tesla to spur them on. A 250% increase in BEV range for marginally more money is a leap we have not seen in the entire modern era of BEV's
For some reason, however, I see more fault-finding with these initiatives here than anything else. I remain puzzled.
The Prius has been top selling car in California for most of the last few years, so yeah, I'd say it's been accepted. 45%, 25%, sure. 1% no. We've made the current step in terms of acceptance of the Leaf and Volt. I think people here are looking for the electric car that will sell an order of magnitude more than that, and they don't feel the Bolt will be that car (neither apparently does GM, given their targets). The Model 3 could be that car (or maybe not, we'll see).
I think the model 3, plus other cars at about a $50K price are the next big thing. That is, more affordable cars that fit the S3XY paradigm. The 70D should get close to this price range too 2020ish.
Most people who buy economy $20K cars will not buy a $30K EVs, even if cost of ownership is the same or somewhat better. People who really really want the next big toy will buy the right $50K EV. Many more wives (of both genders) will approve the $50K EV purchase too, compared to Tesla's current prices.
The Model X is given major credit(blame) for killing Prius sales. This makes no practical sense, but underscores the emotional component of supposedly rational buyers.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I think we can say the Prius has been accepted on the West Coast.
It has been utterly rejected in the Midwest and South.
And is an also ran in the Northeast.
And it is not because the South hates foreign brands.
It has been utterly rejected in the Midwest and South.
And is an also ran in the Northeast.
And it is not because the South hates foreign brands.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
A true statement.
In fairness to the obsession about DCFC ability, it is a feature I can live without (evidence - I am living without it for 2.5 years so far, and happy as a clam), and would still like to have. There is even a price where I would spend money to get it - if there were a $3k upgrade for the Roadster that would make it Supercharger compatible, I would be hard pressed to not spend the money. Despite the very real evidence in my own life that I don't need it and wouldn't use it (evidence - I don't use it, and don't think about it).
The way I look at it is that vehicle buying decisions are usually not rational. Rather we find "objective" reasons to support our emotional choices, and we act based on what we want. A rational choice would have a Leaf in my garage (or similar alternative), and an extra $40-60k left over for .. a lot of things. But knowing what I know today about driving electric, and believing that I could sell my Roadster for what i paid for it, the idea of swapping cars and putting the extra $50-70k back in the bank isn't on the table. That's not rational.
Whether it is truly a requirement for a successful long range EV in some sort of external sense, I think we can all agree that rational or not, many people buying long range EVs will consider an effective and available DCFC charging network to be a requirement to support the car. Maybe its because some of these owners don't have a garage and will be charging their car using the gas engine paradigm (drive a few days or a week, and then stop at a charger when the battery is getting lowish) - that's a real need. Maybe its because some of these owners do drive long distances and will need to charge in the middle of the day, and do so routinely - also a real need. And maybe the vast majority of them will never or rarely actually use that DCFC charging network that was so vital to their decision making process. It's the option that mentally expands the world I can reasonably reach using the car - that's what the long range battery in the Roadster did for me other a Leaf (whether I actually use that capability or not). Oddly enough, in the Pacific NW, we have an excellent DCFC network that arguably makes Washington/Oregon driving more effective for Leaf owners than Roadster owners.
Whether its rational or not, the fast/super charging network is an important selling feature that a) sells cars and b) helps individuals and families make the mental shift from gas to electricity as their energy source for personal transportation. Whether they actually use it or not.
Do I think that a non-existent or ineffective DCFC network will stop GM from selling 30k Bolts a year? Not at all. I think they can sell that many cars in the US with a customer base (their dealers) actively anti-selling the car, no effective charging network, no marketing, and no incentives budget. And at 30k units/year, they can brag about what a big player in the small EV niche they are.
But can they sell 300k / year without an effective DCFC network, building towards 3M Bolts and other derivatives? Somewhere between small volume and significant volume, I believe that answer becomes no.
Do I think that GM WANTS to sell 300k Bolts a year? I really don't know. I think there is a good chance that GM as an entity, and GM management and other stakeholders really don't know either. Or they know, and the answer is NO, they don't. They like the press that comes with a 30k/year target and they like thinking the Bolt will be a conquest car that will bring new people to a GM brand that they can then sell other cars to (won't work). I don't yet believe they are thinking about EVs as the 95%+ units and revenue drive train that sustains and builds GM as a business (the way Tesla thinks about it right now).
On the off-chance somebody from GM is reading this thread, you need to live with an EV as your primary transportation for at least 6 months. I knew going in about garage charging / tank is full every morning, and it still took me 6 months before the paradigm shift really sunk in. That's the thing about paradigm shifts - if they were easy, then they wouldn't be a paradigm shift. Our paradigms of the world actively filter the world we see, to our benefit or detriment, whether we want them to or not. Driving electric represents a paradigm shift, and the survey results among those that have made the shift are consistent - we're not going back to gas. This isn't a passing fad. We're hungry for options in a range of body styles, capabilities, and price points. Kind of like a market typically provides.
To an amazing degree, there is no gas engine breakthrough that will bring us back to the gas engine market. Even if you could offer us $1M hypercar performance with SUV/truck utility for $50k with a gas engine, many of us wouldn't be interested (to state the obvious - others of us WOULD be interested). That any of us wouldn't be interested should tell you something about the disruption that has already happened to your industry - it may need many decades to play out, but the disruption has already occurred.
@adiggs, excellent post.
It wasn't until I had lived with my Model S for a few months that I realized I wanted to sell my Porsche and buy a Roadster and go 100% electric. So I did. Will never another ICE. That would be crazy. But I appear crazy to many people I know who are perfectly fine with their ICE cars.
It wasn't until I had lived with my Model S for a few months that I realized I wanted to sell my Porsche and buy a Roadster and go 100% electric. So I did. Will never another ICE. That would be crazy. But I appear crazy to many people I know who are perfectly fine with their ICE cars.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Thanks!
[jealous]And I see you found your Roadster in Very Orange. [/jealous]
I guess an important takeaway using the 2 of us as the sample, is that EVs ARE conquest vehicles. The conquest is to shift us from gas engine vehicles to BEV, rather than shifting us from one manufacturer to another.
From this point of view, GM selling 30k Bolts/year will be helping conquer the gas engine business by bringing more people to the alternative. If Leaf owners are representative, today anybody selling an EV is creating a Tesla conquest - people that aspire to "real" EV functionality which many view as only existing in a Tesla. We should thank GM for working so hard and being so visible about their intention to help Tesla out by moving another 30k/year EV sales, and create another ~30k aspiring Tesla owners
Thanks!
[jealous]And I see you found your Roadster in Very Orange. [/jealous]
I guess an important takeaway using the 2 of us as the sample, is that EVs ARE conquest vehicles. The conquest is to shift us from gas engine vehicles to BEV, rather than shifting us from one manufacturer to another.
From this point of view, GM selling 30k Bolts/year will be helping conquer the gas engine business by bringing more people to the alternative. If Leaf owners are representative, today anybody selling an EV is creating a Tesla conquest - people that aspire to "real" EV functionality which many view as only existing in a Tesla. We should thank GM for working so hard and being so visible about their intention to help Tesla out by moving another 30k/year EV sales, and create another ~30k aspiring Tesla owners
Almost every Leaf owner I talk to says they're waiting for a Model 3. I certainly haven't heard of anyone aspiring to a Bolt
Almost every Leaf owner I talk to says they're waiting for a Model 3. I certainly haven't heard of anyone aspiring to a Bolt
I think you are right, and this can be seen in Nissan's gyrations at the Tokyo Motor Show. If you believe the major auto makers are competent (a rarity on TMC), they are positioning to undercut the M3 on the low end with the Bolt and Leaf. They will then make a more standard car to compete at the mid price point. But they said they are doing an i5. The i5 will look like a BWM. BMW would prefer to be the BMW of EV, rather than Tesla.
BMW is clearly following this strategy, with the difference is that the i3 was priced to not sell. They probably have a pretty hard limit on the amount of carbon fiber they are willing to make at this point in time.
Tesla will likely still do well in this market.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
BMW i5 May Be a Hydrogen-Powered Crossover
http://www.hybridcars.com/bmw-i5-may-be-a-hydrogen-powered-crossover/
http://www.hybridcars.com/bmw-i5-may-be-a-hydrogen-powered-crossover/
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
adiggs
Well-Known Member
For obvious reasons, I only have my own guess as to whether this is real, likely, etc.. But if true, it certainly sounds like "let's take two bad drive train technologies, and put both of them in 1 car" to me
But hey customers (by which I mean the auto dealers) will be happy!
Certainly in 2008 through 2010, choosing an electric vehicle meant choosing without considering a DCFC network at all.
But even now, people pan the Ford Focus electric and the Mercedes B-class electric because they don't support any form of DCFC even though many people really don't need DCFC for such vehicles. You don't really buy 80-100 mile range BEVs based on the realities of the current DCFC networks since they suck. It's great when they are available and they work and they're an emotional crutch for these NBEVs. It already is a factor in purchasing decisions even though the realities don't quite match up.
In 2017 or 2018, if you were to choose BEVs within $5k of each other in price, certainly the quality of the DCFC network is going to be a significant factor. 2017 is already too close for everyone else to catch up to Tesla's Supercharger network. They need new standards approved (U.S., China), new equipment designed and certified, and the existing sites upgraded or new ones deployed with the new equipment. In the meantime, the Tesla Supercharging network supporting 135+ kW is expanding at a rate of 5% of Tesla's capex.
Working back on the Bolt's battery pack size, I look at the limits of the CCS Combo 1 plug which is limited to 200 amps at 500 volts. Standard pack voltages however, are 300-400 volts. The Model S 60 kWh is actually odd in that pack voltage starts at around 310 volts but only goes up to 347 volts for 80%. The 85 kWh pack is 360 volts to 395 volts to 80%. The 60 kWh battery pack peaks at around 105 kW, but it really spend almost no time there, but the Supercharger can deliver 320 amps to it. That means the average kW over a 80% charging session is about 67 kW.
Taking the assumption that the 60 kWh battery pack in the Model S is the worst at Supercharging and the Model 3 is at least that, then the question in my mind is how fast can the Bolt charge with a CCS plug?
At 0:42 seconds on this video that GM released showing the Bolt going through testing:
Bolt EV: All-Electric Car Testing at Milford Proving Ground | Chevrolet - YouTube
There is a screen shot of a Dell laptop with something that says, "...VTTR_U_HV_B... 376.750...(Vo..." which I presume to mean the voltage of the high voltage pack. I can't tell what the rest of it is, including the graph which has a 0-500 range. That could be voltage, but most of the data points are lower than 200, so that's not likely.
I can see lots of videos on the net for Supercharging speeds including comparisons between CHAdeMO, Supercharging, HPWC, and so forth, but zero on charging a Kia Soul with a DCFC. Zero. None for the i3 or the e-Golf. I'm not sure who else uses NMC variants - the Leaf is an older chemistry and not directly applicable. There is a service manual for the i3 posted online. The voltage range on the i3 battery pack is 259v to 396v:
http://www.jack.sh/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/06_I01-High-voltage-Components.pdf
Using the i3's NMC pack as a template for the Bolt's for voltage range, we get a start of 52 kW off a 200 amp CCS EVSE (100 kW theoretical limit). Assuming zero battery taper, it can hit almost 80 kW with an average of 66 kW. But of course, there's definitely battery charging taper. If we assume a max charging c-rate of 2 like the i3, then a 60 kWh battery can take 120 kW charging. At 30% or so the rate @ 80%, that's 36 kW. So there are two curves, one going up as the SoC is low, another going down as the battery taper effect takes hold. I'm guessing the actual peak rate is around 65 kW. So charging from 0% to 80% will have an average rate of about 53 kW or so.
In 45 minutes to 80% with an average rate of 53 kW, that's about 40kWh delivered to the car. This is all assuming a 60 kWh or so battery’s taper curve. A smaller battery means a lower max charge rate.
At 40 kWh delivered to the car in 45 minutes and if that’s 80%, that’s 50 kWh usable with about 55 kWh nominal. That of course means the taper is actually a bit lower rate than the 60 kWh, but anyways… 50 kWh usable using the 2016 Leaf’s efficiency as a metric, we get 30 kWh/100 miles EPA 5-cycle combined, that’s a range of 167 miles. Using an i3’s efficiency, we’re at 185 miles.
Basically, if the Bolt has a 200 amp limited CCS plug that can deliver 80% charge in 45 minutes to battery with a c-rate of 2, then the likely EPA range is around 170 miles unless it has CFRP weight savings and skinny tires to bump it to 185 or so miles. It certainly doesn’t have aerodynamics to help it that much.
As for 200 miles of range, 165 or so is about the same as 200 miles of range on the UDDS testing standard, which is necessary for the next level of CARB ZEV credits. There isn't much time to push through a new revision to the CCS Combo 1 plug standard, so maybe they will not be able to charge to 80% in 45 minutes is the other possibility by being plug limited for a longer period of time. In any case, there would be a material difference in charging speeds between a Bolt on CCS Combo 1 plug and a Model 3 on the Supercharger network.
Assuming a pack level gravimetric energy density of 150 Wh/kg with liquid thermal management, a 55 kWh pack would weigh 366 kg, or 806 lbs. The NMC variant they will be using is likely slightly worse than the cell level gravimetric density of Tesla's NCA cells from 2012. I will be interesting to see what they do to the Chevy Trax/Buick Encore to take on 500-600 more lbs of weight.
But even now, people pan the Ford Focus electric and the Mercedes B-class electric because they don't support any form of DCFC even though many people really don't need DCFC for such vehicles. You don't really buy 80-100 mile range BEVs based on the realities of the current DCFC networks since they suck. It's great when they are available and they work and they're an emotional crutch for these NBEVs. It already is a factor in purchasing decisions even though the realities don't quite match up.
In 2017 or 2018, if you were to choose BEVs within $5k of each other in price, certainly the quality of the DCFC network is going to be a significant factor. 2017 is already too close for everyone else to catch up to Tesla's Supercharger network. They need new standards approved (U.S., China), new equipment designed and certified, and the existing sites upgraded or new ones deployed with the new equipment. In the meantime, the Tesla Supercharging network supporting 135+ kW is expanding at a rate of 5% of Tesla's capex.
Working back on the Bolt's battery pack size, I look at the limits of the CCS Combo 1 plug which is limited to 200 amps at 500 volts. Standard pack voltages however, are 300-400 volts. The Model S 60 kWh is actually odd in that pack voltage starts at around 310 volts but only goes up to 347 volts for 80%. The 85 kWh pack is 360 volts to 395 volts to 80%. The 60 kWh battery pack peaks at around 105 kW, but it really spend almost no time there, but the Supercharger can deliver 320 amps to it. That means the average kW over a 80% charging session is about 67 kW.
Taking the assumption that the 60 kWh battery pack in the Model S is the worst at Supercharging and the Model 3 is at least that, then the question in my mind is how fast can the Bolt charge with a CCS plug?
At 0:42 seconds on this video that GM released showing the Bolt going through testing:
Bolt EV: All-Electric Car Testing at Milford Proving Ground | Chevrolet - YouTube
There is a screen shot of a Dell laptop with something that says, "...VTTR_U_HV_B... 376.750...(Vo..." which I presume to mean the voltage of the high voltage pack. I can't tell what the rest of it is, including the graph which has a 0-500 range. That could be voltage, but most of the data points are lower than 200, so that's not likely.
I can see lots of videos on the net for Supercharging speeds including comparisons between CHAdeMO, Supercharging, HPWC, and so forth, but zero on charging a Kia Soul with a DCFC. Zero. None for the i3 or the e-Golf. I'm not sure who else uses NMC variants - the Leaf is an older chemistry and not directly applicable. There is a service manual for the i3 posted online. The voltage range on the i3 battery pack is 259v to 396v:
http://www.jack.sh/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/06_I01-High-voltage-Components.pdf
Using the i3's NMC pack as a template for the Bolt's for voltage range, we get a start of 52 kW off a 200 amp CCS EVSE (100 kW theoretical limit). Assuming zero battery taper, it can hit almost 80 kW with an average of 66 kW. But of course, there's definitely battery charging taper. If we assume a max charging c-rate of 2 like the i3, then a 60 kWh battery can take 120 kW charging. At 30% or so the rate @ 80%, that's 36 kW. So there are two curves, one going up as the SoC is low, another going down as the battery taper effect takes hold. I'm guessing the actual peak rate is around 65 kW. So charging from 0% to 80% will have an average rate of about 53 kW or so.
In 45 minutes to 80% with an average rate of 53 kW, that's about 40kWh delivered to the car. This is all assuming a 60 kWh or so battery’s taper curve. A smaller battery means a lower max charge rate.
At 40 kWh delivered to the car in 45 minutes and if that’s 80%, that’s 50 kWh usable with about 55 kWh nominal. That of course means the taper is actually a bit lower rate than the 60 kWh, but anyways… 50 kWh usable using the 2016 Leaf’s efficiency as a metric, we get 30 kWh/100 miles EPA 5-cycle combined, that’s a range of 167 miles. Using an i3’s efficiency, we’re at 185 miles.
Basically, if the Bolt has a 200 amp limited CCS plug that can deliver 80% charge in 45 minutes to battery with a c-rate of 2, then the likely EPA range is around 170 miles unless it has CFRP weight savings and skinny tires to bump it to 185 or so miles. It certainly doesn’t have aerodynamics to help it that much.
As for 200 miles of range, 165 or so is about the same as 200 miles of range on the UDDS testing standard, which is necessary for the next level of CARB ZEV credits. There isn't much time to push through a new revision to the CCS Combo 1 plug standard, so maybe they will not be able to charge to 80% in 45 minutes is the other possibility by being plug limited for a longer period of time. In any case, there would be a material difference in charging speeds between a Bolt on CCS Combo 1 plug and a Model 3 on the Supercharger network.
Assuming a pack level gravimetric energy density of 150 Wh/kg with liquid thermal management, a 55 kWh pack would weigh 366 kg, or 806 lbs. The NMC variant they will be using is likely slightly worse than the cell level gravimetric density of Tesla's NCA cells from 2012. I will be interesting to see what they do to the Chevy Trax/Buick Encore to take on 500-600 more lbs of weight.
Last edited:
Similar threads
