-
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
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
You could find out Small-volume carmakers get a big break in Motor Vehicle Safety Act
An EV even gets around the emissions limitation.
DOH!! I had subtracted the EV cost of electricity. My bad. It costs on the average $5000 more per 100,000 miles to drive with gasoline.
In any case, you get the advantages of driving with an EV powertrain in the Bolt for relatively little money.
It has both more power, and more range than the existing affordable EV's.
But yes, it will NOT save anyone money. Nor will a Model 3 in the USA, even if they meet their target price.
As many have said, a Honda Fit will do the same thing for far less money.
You appear to be quoting CAFE numbers which are calculated differently than EPA window sticker numbers that are arguably "real-world" these days.
I don't claim to fully understand CAFE calculated mpg, but I believe those mpg numbers for passenger cars are typically about 1/3 higher than EPA. So, your 36.4 mpg is more realistically equivalent to an EPA number of about 27 mpg.
Think about it.... a new Toyota Yaris compact automatic gets a combined EPA estimate of 32 mpg. Do you really think the average car sold in the US is really 36.4 mpg?
Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Wikipedia
3Victoria
Active Member
For a lot of green folks, it's not just about dollars and cents. It's also doing something about rapid climate change and ending the phony Oil and Poppy Wars that killed millions and cost trillions, and ending the dominance of Big Oil. It's also about the pleasure of driving a nearly silent car with a silky drivetrain and strong acceleration off the line, all with little maintenance and high reliability (like the Chevy Volt).
Don't forget to add the cost of oil changes, tranny flush, spark plugs, timing belts, accessory belts , differential fluid smog checks etc.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
This is a specious argument every time it's used. It's like saying a used beater from Craigslist will do the same thing for far less money than any new car. It's a true statement but irrelevant. In reality if you intend to spend X amount of money on a vehicle, and that amount of money allows you to choose between similarly priced ICE's and EV's, the EV will save you money. Many people buying Model S and X were previously buying similarly priced vehicles in the past. In some cases they were buying more expensive ICE's to have similar performance levels now provided by the S and X. Even at a somewhat higher purchase price an EV can potentially cost less over time because of reduced operating costs.
This is similar to the cost model I built when evaluating the Model S. The model S was going to replace one previous vehicle that got 19mpg, and would also rack up a percentage of miles from our SUV which averages about 17.
I calculated my fuel vs. power costs based on what I was coming from, and what he Model S would as a replacement vehicle. For me the savings was several hundred dollars a month based on fuel costs at the time.
Had I purchased a replacement vehicle other than the S, it wouldn't have been something in a much smaller class that got 40-50MPH, but rather something likely in the 20's.
Was the Model S the absolute cheapest scenario I could have gone with? No. But given the overall situation, the fuel savings compared to what I was currently paying allowed me to buy in to a class of vehicle that wasn't nearly as expensive as the outright purchase price would imply, give overall TCO.
This is pretty odd: Chevrolet Bolt EV Equipped With 80 kW DC Fast Charging, Owner's Manual Now Online
So we have confirmation that the bolt will accept a 80KW CCS charger, but they're only claiming 90 miles in 30 mins. Are they being ultraconservative by starting at the 50% mark when starting the charge?
So we have confirmation that the bolt will accept a 80KW CCS charger, but they're only claiming 90 miles in 30 mins. Are they being ultraconservative by starting at the 50% mark when starting the charge?
I think it said "from depleted".
It does seem weird but I think it might be that CCS ratings are at 600V. Max is/was 200A at 600V.
80kW/600V = 133A.
So what they're saying is that the Bolt can take up to 133A.
Bolt pack is 400V. (I think).
The typical CCS chargers that have been installed at 125A chargers, so the Bolt could charge on them at 125A x 400V = 50kW. So, it looks like they've gone a _little_ above the old 50kW.
133A x 400V = 53.2kW. That would be consistent with the 90 miles in 30 minutes and it'd basically doing a bit more than 50kW.
The text from the manual is: "it will take approximately 30 minutes to recharge from a depleted battery to an estimated 145 km (90 mi) of driving range."
But I do suspect they are being conservative with this 90mi / 30 min number as that rate is possible from today's 50kW CCS units.
90mi / 238 mi (EPA range) = 38%
38% of 60kWh usable = 22.8 kWh
22.8kWh in 0.5 hrs = 45.6 kW
Add in some charging losses and that's 50 kW
The peak voltage of the CCS specification today is 500V, not 600V. So, 80,000 / 500V may well mean 160A (not 133). The Bolt pack average voltage is 350V so it is closer to 310V near empty and closer to 390V near full or something like that.
That would imply that it is still very much current limited when charging near empty but we don't know the charge curve so it's hard to say what the peak charging power might be and at what SOC it might occur at.
While 160A (if that is correct) is better than today's typical 125A, it is still fairly low given the fact that the rest of the battery pack, cabling, fusing, and contactors are rated for closer to 450A. Perhaps they are being conservative initially and will open up the software limits later on when they have more experience (and need to for competitive reasons).
As a Bolt EV customer, I would like to see faster charging but in real-world situations it probably means taking 50 minutes to charge on a suitable CCS charger instead of 35 minutes in a 2013 Model S60 on a Supercharger and it may not be a big experiential difference to an individual driver if they are off eating lunch etc. and have to walk a few minutes to and from the restaurant.
GM will have to step up their game soon if the Germans deliver anything close to their 2018-2020 charging speed claims.
Last edited:
Too high. I doubt that the Bolt EV will charge at higher than 400V and by then it will likely be ramping down sharply.
If the amperage limit really is 160A then I would guess the peak is closer to 56-60 kW.
The Kia Soul battery has a nominal pack voltage of 360V. I have seen a peak charging power claim of 68-70 kW. That implies a peak current of 180-190A on a ~33 kWh nominal pack (27 kWh usable).
So, it's odd if GM can only do 160A on a 60+ kWh pack. I can't really imagine the engineering limitation that would sink the charging rate to be as low as 160A. All of the other core engineering aspects of the car seem to be very well executed.
The apparent charge rate seems odd, but the car is available here (where I live in California) and now (in 2-3 weeks) and it is otherwise practical so it will make me happy for 3-4 years as a primary driver. The size of the Bolt is ideal in urban parking areas. And then, I'll use the Bolt EV to replace my 2004 Prius as the secondary family city car and I'll get a 300+ mile range TM3 with level 5 automated AutoPilot as our primary and longer-range driving machine. Probably.
Last edited:
That was my "out of the charger" voltage. I do expect the battery to be absorbing about 90% of that or a peak around 60kW.
Of course, an 80+ kW CCS charger will be challenging to find so we likely won't know for awhile.
Do you know of any in California?
I don't think there are any public ones yet in California but there are in Europe where the Opel will show up in mid-2017 and there may well be public 80 kW chargers in CA by then also. So, I think we will know by then at the latest.
I think the "around 90 miles in 30 min" quote is definitely based off a 50 kW charge rate. Makes me wonder if someone goofed writing the owner's manual and put in the Bolt's max charge rate instead of 50 by mistake. Even with a gradual build up and tapering, the Bolt should be able to charge much faster than "90 in 30" if plugged into an 80+ kW fast charger...that doesn't exist quite yet.
I am also of the opinion that they were likely making most of the initial claims based on a 50KW rate.. it seems they may have been holding 80KW close to their vest for a bit.
As an aside, with a nominal ~350V pack, that implies a ~170Ah pack capacity, which means the 160A you calculate above would be slightly less than a 1C charge rate... I suspect there may be room for improvement, unless there's a factor such as thermal management, etc.. in the way.
Thanks for the clarifications.
Anyway the key point is that despite the excitement, the "80kW+ charger" does not imply that it can current charge at up to 80kW, it implies that it can currently charge at up to the current required for a CCS charger to be 80kW. So that would be 160A, and then maximum power would be determined by the pack Voltage.
But, I do say "currently" because based on the conservative track record with the Volt, and given the rapid development approach that GM is now using, I wouldn't be surprised if they gradually increase the charging rate or improve the charging curve as they become more confident in the battery. I certainly hope that they are at least aggressively conservative and work to maximize the rate. Every minute counts.
It's important that they've stated a power higher than the typical 50kW, because as the first long-range CCS BEV and the first affordable long-range BEV, the Bolt should be a strong influence on charger installations.
Similar threads
