M3 MR vs Chevy Bolt (energy consumption)

[AlanSubie4Life]

Months. Yet, vampire drain is very noticeable on a Tesla, and practically non-existent for Bolt.

Yep. Same experience on my Spark EV. Unless they're hiding it somehow (unlikely with your long term data results), the vampire drain is nearly zero on that GM drivetrain. I don't even notice any self-discharge from the battery (some people claim that's the reason for vampire drain ...lol... which is supposed to be 1% per month for Li-ion...the other favorite excuse is "temperature change"...lol....), though I have only left it undriven for 2 weeks. Exactly the same mileage as when I left it...

 

[Dan123]

Can you also provide some details on what your charging option was? It sounds like it was the same wall charger for both vehicles? How many amps? This is (perhaps) relevant to help understand what efficiency the Tesla Model 3 on-board charger was operating at (how many input watts). Allegedly (according to this forum) it's somewhat lower efficiency at lower current, though I don't have a convenient table at hand. As with many things on this forum, this may well be a false claim, or obfuscated by the effects of battery warming that has to take place in sub-freezing or chilly temperatures.

(Tesla's table doesn't suggest there is any significant impact on efficiency under Florida conditions...this table is somewhat subject to rounding error but we're looking for differences of more than 5% here)

Wall Connector

It's pretty easy to see this table implies charger efficiency of 94-96% (using the Model 3 column and the magic (possibly incorrect) 242Wh/mi constant). I wonder what it actually is? Does anyone know the published efficiency of the Bolt on-board charger?

It is a KHONS charger plugged into a 240v outlet. I have tried 16/24/32amp with Bolt, with no measurable difference on charging efficiency. So far I have tried 16/24amp with Tesla, and also no measurable difference in charging efficiency.

My measurements of Bolt charging at 240 volt were 92-94% efficiency. I presume that charging technology in both cars should be similar, and the efficiency should be similar.

With 120volt charging, Bolt was significantly less efficient (20% loss vs. 8% loss). I haven't tried it with Tesla.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Yep. Same experience on my Spark EV. Unless they're hiding it somehow, the vampire drain is nearly zero on that GM drivetrain. I don't even notice any self-discharge from the battery (some people claim that's the reason for vampire drain ...lol... which is supposed to be 1% per month for Li-ion...the other favorite excuse is "temperature change"...lol....), though I have only left it undriven for 2 weeks. Exactly the same mileage as when I left it...

I think it's the neural net plotting our extermination. You can't say that Elon didn't warn us!

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

It is a KHONS charger plugged into a 240v outlet. I have tried 16/24/32amp with Bolt, with no measurable difference on charging efficiency. So far I have tried 16/24amp with Tesla, and also no measurable difference in charging efficiency.

My measurements of Bolt charging at 240 volt were 92-94% efficiency. I presume that charging technology in both cars should be similar, and the efficiency should be similar.

With 120volt charging, Bolt was significantly less efficient (20% loss vs. 8% loss). I haven't tried it with Tesla.

Seems relatively similar to Tesla's published numbers. Tesla's lack of complete displayed info make it difficult to determine their real-world penthouse charger efficiency, but if you have an opportunity to charge the car, immediately drive it a long distance (200 miles), and then immediately recharge it, with no time spent in park, then it might be possible to determine the actual efficiency of the Tesla penthouse charger. Still subject to some error of course. Tesla makes it very difficult to determine the answer. Some of these third party apps might help with the tracking, but I am not sure you can entirely trust their reported numbers for idle losses - and they probably have no idea about your losses in park - I don't use TeslaFi so I don't know.

 

[mswlogo]

Vampire drain is not that big of a deal. And it’s quite obvious Tesla does not track any usage when the car is in park. The moment you touch the door handles to the moment you walk away the model 3 consumes energy, wethers it’s moving or not (especially in cold climates). But only when it’s in drive or reverse is the wh/mi meter running (very clever Tesla). It would be nice to have a breakdown of all energy used as well as how many watts was pumped in.

I always laugh when I see folks saying they do 30 minutes (or more) of preheat. So much waste it’s crazy. But the wh/mi will look better because it won’t include the initial hit of heating the cabin.

Also what is the range on the bolt? You are paying some cost for carrying around a bigger battery around that can go further. How many miles will a bolt battery go. You are paying some cost for battery cooling and the capability to accelerate faster.

I don’t know how the MR stacks up to this particular Bolt. But the MR base design is really based on a LR so there is some lost efficiency there too (capacity for a larger battery and another motor). So it’s a little bit apples and oranges in my book.

I’m impressed by both the MR and the Bolt.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Also what is the range on the bolt? You are paying some cost for carrying around a bigger battery around that can go further. How many miles will a bolt battery go. You are paying some cost for battery cooling and the capability to accelerate faster.

It's (arguably) more relevant to answer: How many miles can you go after a full charge, assuming you don't top off, driving occasionally? This is in the OP's data, for the most part. The Bolt has about a 58kWh (usable) battery and the Tesla MR a 62kWh, that's all the extra info we need.

Total Distance: 1187 miles
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 270.86 kWh (0.2280 kWh/mile)

For Tesla M3 MR:
Total Distance: 569.7
Energy Consumption Per Charger: 167 kWh (0.2934 kWh/mile)

Since Tesla doesn't report actual energy use, we have to work backwards from wall power numbers, and assume identical charger efficiency. I'll use 93% though it's possible Tesla's is slightly better. I deleted the data reporting from the car.

Bolt:
1187mi/(270.86kWh*0.93)*58kWh = 273 miles

Model 3 MR:
569.7mi/(167kWh*0.93)*62kWh = 227 miles

Do note that these are single datapoints from a single user and may be subject to some error, but I don't think it's totally out of line.
So, in real world, occasional use conditions, in urban driving, the Bolt goes much further with a smaller battery. This gap would likely be dramatically closed if the test were conducted over a very short period of time. It's nearly entirely due to vampire and standby losses; they most certainly are a big deal! Their primary effect is they make the Tesla look awful.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Vampire drain is not that big of a deal. And it’s quite obvious Tesla does not track any usage when the car is in park. The moment you touch the door handles to the moment you walk away the model 3 consumes energy, wethers it’s moving or not (especially in cold climates). But only when it’s in drive or reverse is the wh/mi meter running (very clever Tesla). It would be nice to have a breakdown of all energy used as well as how many watts was pumped in.

I always laugh when I see folks saying they do 30 minutes (or more) of preheat. So much waste it’s crazy. But the wh/mi will look better because it won’t include the initial hit of heating the cabin.

Also what is the range on the bolt? You are paying some cost for carrying around a bigger battery around that can go further. How many miles will a bolt battery go. You are paying some cost for battery cooling and the capability to accelerate faster.

I don’t know how the MR stacks up to this particular Bolt. But the MR base design is really based on a LR so there is some lost efficiency there too (capacity for a larger battery and another motor). So it’s a little bit apples and oranges in my book.

I’m impressed by both the MR and the Bolt.

EPA range for the Bolt is 238mi vs. 260mi for the Model 3 MR. Bolt MPGe is 119 combined vs. 123 for Model 3 MR. What grinds my gears is that a consumer looking at those numbers might conclude that the Model 3 MR will use less energy than the Bolt. Clearly that is not true. His test shows 28% more energy usage for the Tesla. That should be presented on the window sticker and whether that is significant or not should be decided by the consumer.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

EPA range for the Bolt is 238mi vs. 260mi for the Model 3 MR. Bolt MPGe is 119 combined vs. 123 for Model 3 MR. What grinds my gears is that a consumer looking at those numbers might conclude that the Model 3 MR will use less energy than the Bolt. Clearly that is not true. His test shows 28% more energy usage for the Tesla. That should be presented on the window sticker and whether that is significant or not should be decided by the consumer.

Exactly. For most city users, the Bolt is a much more efficient choice, even if the car doesn't drive as nicely (and I've ridden in a Bolt; I don't like it). It will routinely provide lower charging costs than the Tesla, for reasons that are probably quite avoidable. If you want a highway vehicle that can frequently zip between warm cities 200 miles apart at 70mph, the Tesla MR might be a better choice. Just don't leave it in your garage; always be driving!

 

[David_Cary]

Wait - the Bolt is not "much more efficient" even for city users. It is more efficient but not much more.

The vast majority of the delta here is the vampire. Sure the tires on the 3 are much grippier but vampire dominates this particular situation.

So because it is vampire, it varies considerably on a per mile basis. OP has 2 cars so they are driven less than average per month (all things being equal). As you drive more miles per month, the vampire gets lost in the usage. I guess that is fairly obvious - but just wanted to make the point.

I have an S. I drive 20k miles a year. I haven't tracked but I suspect 2 kwh a day or 700 a year. That is $70 which is significant but when my driving electricity use is 6660 khw, it is only about 10%. Still unacceptably high but ignored by most consumers. I think here is was 20% which is the majority of the difference between the 2 cars.

The average cable DVR box uses a little less. You do have to question the wisdom of millions of people needing to record the same show when streaming works perfectly fine.

What bugs me is that my car will last a long time so the vampire really adds up compared to what it would have taken to reduce it (cost and engineering effort wise). The cable box built today has average life of probably 18 months.

Go Hulu, Youtube TV or Sling and buy a Model 3 (instead of a Bolt). The money and electricity saved are about equal. Depending on number of boxes - the energy saved could actually be a lot more. Cost - ok - maybe not but 1/2 way there.

 

[Dan123]

Wait - the Bolt is not "much more efficient" even for city users. It is more efficient but not much more.

So because it is vampire, it varies considerably on a per mile basis. OP has 2 cars so they are driven less than average per month (all things being equal). As you drive more miles per month, the vampire gets lost in the usage. I guess that is fairly obvious - but just wanted to make the point.

I have an S. I drive 20k miles a year. I haven't tracked but I suspect 2 kwh a day or 700 a year. That is $70 which is significant but when my driving electricity use is 6660 khw, it is only about 10%. Still unacceptably high but ignored by most consumers. I think here is was 20% which is the majority of the difference between the 2 cars.

The average cable DVR box uses a little less. You do have to question the wisdom of millions of people needing to record the same show when streaming works perfectly fine.

What bugs me is that my car will last a long time so the vampire really adds up compared to what it would have taken to reduce it (cost and engineering effort wise). The cable box built today has average life of probably 18 months.

True, vampire drain is mostly a constant, so if you drive more, it becomes less obvious. My commute is only about 25 miles per day, so I don't drive as much. However, I think think most "city" commutes are short. If you have a long distance commute, you are probably driving on the freeway most of it.

I don't have a cable box. But my house has a 500 watt per hour "vampire" drain. Between the refrigerators, the lights, the internet modem/wifi router, amazon echo, clocks, and other plugged in equipment. So it is about 12 kWh per day, or 360 kWh per month, before I even turn on anything.

 

[derekmw]

Really good info, thanks for this post. Makes me happy that I never charge at home. I charge everyday at work for free.

Now, one thing I wonder though, we know vampire drain mostly happens due to Tesla's battery conditioning right? If Bolt doesn't seem to have much vampire drain, is it because they don't do this (or at least not to the degree Tesla does)? If so, I wonder what long term results we will see between the two as regards the battery capacity? Will we see that although the Bolt used less energy, the battery capacity drops significantly more than the Model 3? If so, we would all prefer using a bit more energy than having to deal with less capacity over time.

 

[Dan123]

Really good info, thanks for this post. Makes me happy that I never charge at home. I charge everyday at work for free.

Now, one thing I wonder though, we know vampire drain mostly happens due to Tesla's battery conditioning right? If Bolt doesn't seem to have much vampire drain, is it because they don't do this (or at least not to the degree Tesla does)? If so, I wonder what long term results we will see between the two as regards the battery capacity? Will we see that although the Bolt used less energy, the battery capacity drops significantly more than the Model 3? If so, we would all prefer using a bit more energy than having to deal with less capacity over time.

It is possible that Tesla battery will show greater longevity. However, the vampire drain doesn't appear to be just the result of battery conditioning. It appears that there are simply some electronic components that are always on.

 

[Superspectral]

I own both a Performance Model 3 and a Bolt Premier. I am a little bit surprised that the MR Model 3 did so poorly in the city. However, my Performance Model 3 clearly does worse in the city than the Bolt with one caveat. I drive the Model 3 daily. My teenage son drives the Bolt daily. These days, with temps in the 30's, my son is getting 2.0 mi/kwH in the Bolt. I can easily get 3.2-3.5. The difference is my son has the heater on 75 deg, and doesn't decelerate in the best way to get regen. Teenagers don't brake early enough. The Bolt has better regen options - and it is much more aggressive in regen. The Bolt has the regen paddle and a quick way to shift between normal and ultrahigh regen with the shifter in L mode. So driving style is huge. The Bolt has *zero* vampire drain compared to the Model 3. The Model 3 loses 10-15% charge parked for 5 days. The Bolt loses nothing. On the other hand, if you drive both at 70 mph I'm going to say the MR Model 3 should win handily (unless you draft trucks in the Bolt). The Bolt is very high and has drag at high speed. There are other intangibles regarding highway driving with the Bolt. The Bolt suspension is not as good. Not even close. The rear axle is not independent and it gets jumpy at speed. Not fatally so, just not as pleasant. The Model 3 is sports car stable. The CCS charging network stinks. Supercharging is a lot faster for a road trip.

Now in warm areas - turn the A/C off, many hypermilers can get 300 miles out of their Bolts. I've never actually done this. Weather for me has always been a challenge to get the 238 miles.

From a battery perspective, the MR model 3 is probably pretty equivalent the Bolt in the city (driving wise, forgetting supercharging). The Model 3 is swanker in many respects - but not all compared to the Bolt highest trim. There are some things the Bolt does better (regen, 360 deg camera, rear cross traffic).

Regarding the 35K Model 3, this really goes head to head in a way with the Bolt LT that consumers might find tradeoffs in one or the other and its a hard choice. Frankly, I don't think a 220 mi Model 3 is a good idea - they probably should do their hardest to make it 240 mi. Then it is a hatchback vs. sedan choice.

 

[Dan123]

There are some things the Bolt does better (regen, 360 deg camera, rear cross traffic).

I also like the Bolt's front charging port. I find it a lot more convenient than Tesla's rear port.

And the car play. And the rear view e-mirror.

 

[derekmw]

It is possible that Tesla battery will show greater longevity. However, the vampire drain doesn't appear to be just the result of battery conditioning. It appears that there are simply some electronic components that are always on.

I see, and that is probably something they could improve on (and on my Model S, I had options to reduce vampire drain by turning some options off, which I assume the model 3 will eventually be able to do as well).

But regardless, I suppose only time will tell, but like I said, I would much rather deal with vampire drain with battery capacity saved over time vs less/no vampire drain and losing the capacity. Of course, I'm not sure if this will happen to the Bolt...I don't think anyone knows yet at this time?

 

[chronopc]

Months. Yet, vampire drain is very noticeable on a Tesla, and practically non-existent for Bolt.

Does the Bolt have an app similar to Tesla?

 

[chronopc]

I also like the Bolt's front charging port. I find it a lot more convenient than Tesla's rear port.

And the car play. And the rear view e-mirror.

I actually like the location of the Tesla charging port. It's essentially the same location I would expect the gas cap to be. Also, it has to be located on the back because of how short the cable is at the superchargers.

 

[trm2]

I actually like the location of the Tesla charging port. It's essentially the same location I would expect the gas cap to be. Also, it has to be located on the back because of how short the cable is at the superchargers.

Well, you would be able to pull in forward if that were the case.

 

[Dan123]

Does the Bolt have an app similar to Tesla?

Bolt has an app. Not as much functionality as Tesla's app, but it gives you the information about the car, allows you to unlock it, honk it, locate it, etc.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Their primary effect is they make the Tesla look awful.

Wouldn't that assume that the Bolt and Model 3 are comparable vehicles? I get that people want to compare them because their both BEVs...but I'm not sure I'd say that the Tesla having higher consumption makes it look comparably awful. YMMV, though.