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

[JST]

ICEVs are different. Nobody buys an efficient ICEV because they'll spend less time refueling.

BEVs refuel slowly, so if a manufacturer wants to build a long-distance BEV (e.g. Model S), rather than a long-range BEV (e.g. Roadster) they have to consider the refuel:drive ratio. There are two ways to lower that ratio. One is to have faster charging, the other is efficiency. Since long-distance driving is likely to be highway driving, to make the refuel:drive ratio tolerable the vehicle has to be efficient on the highway.

Now consider GM's approach to the following two cars:
- Volt: PHEV/EREV; highway efficiency has small impact on travel time. Aerodynamic design to maximize efficiency, with some utility trade-off.
- Bolt: BEV; highway efficiency has large impact on travel time. Boxy utilitarian design to maximize utility from small size.

So, my problem with the Bolt is that it isn't competition for the Model 3 and if they build this GM clearly isn't trying to build a long-distance BEV. All they're doing is creating a city BEV with more range.

But there remains a huge market for long-range EVs, as opposed to long-distance EVs. In fact, even with the Supercharger network, long-distance EVs are a bit of a square peg in a round hole. I applaud Tesla for building them, and I'm happy with my purchase (mostly because I mostly go places on Supercharger routes), but there are many, many people for whom the tradeoffs involved in "long-distance" EVs still are a big enough barrier that they won't consider an EV as their primary or "big" car.

On the other hand, there are many hundreds of thousands of people for whom a garage that consisted of a long-range EV for around-town work and an ICE of some sort for trips makes a lot of sense. I think that's an easier sell for most people than, e.g., my case, where our big, nice, trip car is an EV and our 'round-town commuter burns gas.

So I can't begrudge GM for pursuing this market. It makes perfect sense to do so. And when enough people buy Bolts and realize, hey, these things are better on a day to day basis than the hulking ICE trip car we have, they'll be comfortable with (and perhaps even demand) long-distance EVs. This is all part of moving the market.

As for complaints about lack of info...eh. It's a concept car. I am sure that it is still being developed. I am also sure that GM would not publicly claim a 200 mile range if they weren't confident that they could do at least that (in fact, a GM exec said basically that same thing yesterday). Ghosn's comments that the next Leaf would also have a 200+ mi range lends some credence to the idea that this is within the realm of what's technically achievable--not that anyone driving a Tesla should doubt that.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

But there remains a huge market for long-range EVs, as opposed to long-distance EVs. In fact, even with the Supercharger network, long-distance EVs are a bit of a square peg in a round hole. I applaud Tesla for building them, and I'm happy with my purchase (mostly because I mostly go places on Supercharger routes), but there are many, many people for whom the tradeoffs involved in "long-distance" EVs still are a big enough barrier that they won't consider an EV as their primary or "big" car.

On the other hand, there are many hundreds of thousands of people for whom a garage that consisted of a long-range EV for around-town work and an ICE of some sort for trips makes a lot of sense. I think that's an easier sell for most people than, e.g., my case, where our big, nice, trip car is an EV and our 'round-town commuter burns gas.

So I can't begrudge GM for pursuing this market. It makes perfect sense to do so. And when enough people buy Bolts and realize, hey, these things are better on a day to day basis than the hulking ICE trip car we have, they'll be comfortable with (and perhaps even demand) long-distance EVs. This is all part of moving the market.

The problem is that they're asking people to pay for a larger battery and DC charging and then putting that in a form factor that'll make it drink more charge on the highway, both reducing real-world range and lowering the effective charging mph, which reduces the value of the larger battery and DC charging.

 

[JST]

The problem is that they're asking people to pay for a larger battery and DC charging and then putting that in a form factor that'll make it drink more charge on the highway, both reducing real-world range and lowering the effective charging mph, which reduces the value of the larger battery and DC charging.

Reduces, sure. But, then again, the form factor offers a great deal of utility in the car's designated mission, which is mostly around-town driving. For that purpose, the Tesla is actually not so great, just because it's too big. There's a reason people buy Honda Fits for city driving, and it's not just because they are cheap. It's because they are useful.

In my 1.5 winters with an EV now, I've concluded that a 200 mile range on the EPA cycle really is the minimum I'd consider useful for winter city driving. That's the point, for me, where range anxiety almost completely disappears. I don't have to worry about charging during the middle of the day or finding places that let me charge when I'm running errands--I can leave the house, go to the mall, come back, go to another shopping destination, drop the kids off at sportsball things, and still have enough juice to go out to dinner, all in the winter (when real range drops from 200 to something closer to 100).

I might be able to live with a Leaf or e-Golf, but I would have to make adjustments and would always be thinking about charging.

So, is there a use case for a 200 mile city commuter? Yeah, I think there is. I think there's a much bigger use case for that car than there is for an 80 mile city commuter. Is it going to replace the Tesla? No. Would I take it to NYC from DC? No.

But it's a big piece of the EV puzzle, and, critically, it's a piece that literally *no one* is building right now. No one. Not one car out there meets this need.

 

[EchoDelta]

But it's a big piece of the EV puzzle, and, critically, it's a piece that literally *no one* is building right now. No one. Not one car out there meets this need.

Maybe for different reasons but agree wholeheartedly w the conclusion

 

[Jaff]

I wonder if there is a "Supercharging deal", behind the scenes here...

Just imagine GM trying to explain to Bolt buyers, or them finding out after the sale, that they can't use these so called sleek superchargers that are everywhere. Pointing to scarce, and scary frankenplugs won't exactly inspire confidence, or build goodwill.

 

[Jaxcoffee]

Can you say "Butt ugly bubble?"

 

[jdevo2004]

It is going to be funny when the Model 3 comes out with a very similar design to this car and the bmw i3.

 

[AnOutsider]

It is going to be funny when the Model 3 comes out with a very similar design to this car and the bmw i3.

Should make for some interesting back-reading.

 

[adiggs]

Well this author got it right:

Chevy Bolt Is The Best Thing That Could Happen To Tesla - Business Insider

I echo Tesla's quote that appears at the end of the linked article:

“We are always supportive of other manufacturers who bring compelling electric vehicles to the market,” Tesla representative Alexis Georgeson told me. “Tesla applauds Chevrolet for introducing the Bolt, and we are excited to learn more about the product.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chev...at-could-happen-to-tesla-2015-1#ixzz3OjGhyc7E


I think that strikes exactly the right balance relative to what's been announced. If Chevy delivers, then there will be a second meaningful supplier of EV's in the market beyond Tesla (or a 3rd if you count Nissan, and a 4th if you count BMW - I count 200 mile EV's, so Chevy is announcing their intent to join the market, and become the second participant). I'm excited to learn more when Chevy is ready to tell us more (but not as excited as I am to learn more about Model X when Tesla is ready to tell us more about that )

 

[Adm]

Nissan will have a 200mi EV by than as well!

Update, Jan. 12, 2015, 4:55 p.m.: At a media briefing Monday afternoon in Detroit, Nissan said it too will aim for a 200-mile range on the next generation of its Leaf electric car, which is also due out in 2017. "We want to be competitive" with the Bolt, CEO Carlos Ghosn said, according to the Detroit News. "It may have even more range."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/12/detroit_auto_show_2015_electric_chevy_bolt_concept_car_not_a_tesla_killer.html

 

[scaesare]

Substitute Tesla for Apple, and either Chevy or Nissan for IBM:

 

[qwk]

I wonder if there is a "Supercharging deal", behind the scenes here...

That would be the logical choice, but somehow I doubt that GM is competent enough to make ANY good decisions like that.

- - - Updated - - -

It is going to be funny when the Model 3 comes out with a very similar design to this car and the bmw i3.

I sure hope not. Ugly is ugly, no matter the make.

 

[Iz]

I sure hope not. Ugly is ugly, no matter the make.

I hope not as well. A smaller version of Model S would be much more desirable.

 

[Jeff N]

The problem is that they're asking people to pay for a larger battery and DC charging and then putting that in a form factor that'll make it drink more charge on the highway, both reducing real-world range and lowering the effective charging mph, which reduces the value of the larger battery and DC charging.

Let's keep some perspective here.

Highway EV MPGe

68 2013 Coda sedan
81 2014 Ford Energi C-MAX
92 2014 Chevy Volt
97 2014 Tesla Model S (60 kWh)
101 2014 Nissan LEAF
109 2014 Chevy Spark EV
111 2014 BMW i3 (without range extender)

The form factor of the Bolt looks similar to the i3. Both the Bolt and i3 will use weight reduction body frame techniques but the Bolt likely has a significantly heavier battery. Still, it seems reasonable that the Bolt should be competitive on the highway with typical EVs and PHEVs driven on battery.

 

[MassModel3]

That would be the logical choice, but somehow I doubt that GM is competent enough to make ANY good decisions like that.

Come now, GM is far from incompetent. They wouldn't be where they are today -- the 'too big to fail' category -- if they were incompetent. However, it's very likely that they are too [shall we say] egotistical to join in with a start-up like Tesla, buying into the infrastructure Tesla built. Their own idea self worth could very well result in a "We don't need anybody's help" attitude that ultimately hurts them.

I sure hope not. Ugly is ugly, no matter the make.

Well, Elon Musk has recently said that the Model 3 "won't look like other cars." That could mean any number of things. But he did help design the look of the Model S, so hopefully his good taste carries through to the Model 3. And I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure, too, that he's gone on record saying that the Model 3 will not just be a shrunken version of the Model S.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Let's keep some perspective here.

Highway EV MPGe

68 2013 Coda sedan
81 2014 Ford Energi C-MAX
92 2014 Chevy Volt
97 2014 Tesla Model S (60 kWh)
101 2014 Nissan LEAF
109 2014 Chevy Spark EV
111 2014 BMW i3 (without range extender)

The form factor of the Bolt looks similar to the i3. Both the Bolt and i3 will use weight reduction body frame techniques but the Bolt likely has a significantly heavier battery. Still, it seems reasonable that the Bolt should be competitive on the highway with typical EVs and PHEVs driven on battery.

Bear in mind that the biggest criticism of the EPA testing is that it has a low average speed.
The average speeds of the highway and high speed tests are 48.3 and 48.4 mph.
The old highway test has a maximum speed of 60mph and the new one has a bunch of acceleration and deceleration.
For gasoline cars, the highway tests are generous to boxy vehicles with large engines, because of the combination of low speed and excessive acceleration.
For EVs I'd expect the testing to be generous to lighter, boxy cars.

 

[qwk]

Come now, GM is far from incompetent. They wouldn't be where they are today -- the 'too big to fail' category -- if they were incompetent.

They still exist today because of taxpayers. If that isn't incompetence, I don't know what is.

 

[Krugerrand]

It is going to be funny when the Model 3 comes out with a very similar design to this car and the bmw i3.

Less than zero chance of that happening considering who's responsible for vehicle design at Tesla, and the fact there's even less than less than zero chance that Elon Musk would approve such a model. The car has to be compelling. The Bolt from design aesthetics doesn't even show up in the same dictionary as the word compelling.

 

[MassModel3]

They still exist today because of taxpayers. If that isn't incompetence, I don't know what is.

They still exist today because they build, market, and sell a collection of products that people want to buy. Nobody's forcing anyone to buy a GM. If people stopped buying GM, they'd go out of business. Yes, the taxpayers bailed them out, in a manner of speaking, but they still know how to build a car.

 

[Jeff N]

For gasoline cars, the highway tests are generous to boxy vehicles with large engines, because of the combination of low speed and excessive acceleration.
For EVs I'd expect the testing to be generous to lighter, boxy cars.

Seems plausible. Still, I'd give them a fighting chance of being highway competitive with a Ford Energi C-MAX at 65 mph.