Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by Frank Schwab, Oct 31, 2016.
Interesting article posted this morning:
2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV vs. 2016 Tesla Model S 60 Comparison
Nice writeup. Good to see the Bolt drives like a hot hatch vs an econobox. Based on how much fun the Volt is to drive, I am glad they expanded on that DNA. I think the more people who drive an EV the less we will hear about how a Volt is just a Cruze that is just $10k more, or how a Bolt is just a Trax, etc.
Also some interesting info on efficiency numbers.
Interesting that they show the S taking 78 miles range and 21.5 kW-hr over their test loop, and the Bolt taking 60 miles of range and 18.4 kW-hr over the same loop. With 50% highway travel, I would have thought the S would handily dispatch the Bolt - I guess the difference in frontal area is making up for the difference in Cd.
That also reflects Car and Driver's results where they got 190 highway miles at 75mph with the AC on. That's very respectable, actually. It sounds like Chevy has done a good job of making an efficient car.
Not true. Old 60 was not upgrade-able.
Not true. It's just like saying that car has an engine and four wheels therefore they are so similar.
Not true. Spark was a retrofit. Chevy learned from Tesla.
Overall, this whole article is very one sided and was likely conceived to promote Bolt at Model S expense.
I like this at the end!
They forgot the "400 VDC" option for real performance....
But does it require unleaded electricity? Can you use Regular electricity or do you have to use the more expensive Premium grade? Is there any potential long-term harm (e.g., gunking up the copper wiring) from using an electric source blend, such as 15% renewable and 85% fossil?
Tesla only uses premium grade electricity. Bolt being an economy car uses regular electricity
My wife's comment when seeing me look at the Chevy Bolt and new 2017 Smart ED...
"wait for the model 3"
That they're even being compared is somewhat ludicrous. The only thing they have in common is that they're both EVs.
Cheers to GM for the Bolt, but not to Motortrend.
There are many other cars that the Bolt can be reasonably be compared with. How about starting with ICE vehicles in the same price range? It would blow them away.
Another case of the media not taking care to think very much. I'm always reminded that the College Board use to report SAT scores by the intended occupation of test takers. Among the lowest scores? Students who want to go into journalism. Auto journalism is proabably even lower. There's a good reason we call them motor heads.
Don't forget, they also compare supercars to the Tesla's (not quite the same ballpark either)
Before some of us accuse the writer of any unfairness in favor of the Bolt, lets be glad they didn't include fit/ finish
in the view. Some comments: Only 234 miles range for a 75 after unlocking? Was all testing done before or after unlocking? Was range mode on? One hour +. Seems long for charging a 60 about right for a 75. My 60 on a CHAdeMO charges at almost 1 Kwh per min on the electric companys charger. Plus price differential Bolt to my car about $25000. Just a comment, my seats are not scratchy.
Frontal area is actually lower in the S. I suspect the rolling resistance is a big factor, as is any acceleration/deceleration. It depends on the specifics of their test loop. In any case, GM did a terrific job on the efficiency of the powertrain. I suspect the synchronous motor was also an advantage in efficiency, and possibly some power electronics differences (inverter efficiency). Of course, there is a lot more permanent magnet mineral resource usage in the synchronous permanent magnet motor versus none on the Tesla side.
Note that the Model S 60 is actually a 75, so it is carrying around all the weight of a 75 which contributes to rolling resistance and lower efficiency for acceleration.
We have yet to see performance in a variety of conditions, including very high temps and very low temps. How good is the pack's thermal management? How much does that thermal management affect energy available? And of course, we won't get real cycle life information for quite a while.
It does seem that the tone of the article tries to draw the distinction that while the Model S performs far better as a car, the Bolt is surprisingly a much better performer than a typical econobox. It's not a Model S, but it's also not a Prius. I suspect some will put much stickier tires (0.77g skidpad) at a dramatic expense on range and efficiency.
Let's compare the S Class Benz with a Chevy Cruz next. They both have 4 doors and the same size gas tank right?
A HUGE difference between the Bolt and the Model S is just plain looks. The Bolt looks like a cheap econobox and the Model S looks like a sleek premium vehicle that happens to be electric. Of course any EV is good for society and our environment, but just with regards to this article, its ridiculous to even compare these 2 vehicles...
Unfortunately until there are more than (3) long range EVs on the market (the S, the X and the Bolt) comparisons will be made as ridiculous as they are.
It glosses over the big thing for me. Size. Really can't shove 4 people and a lot of stuff into the Bolt. So it wouldn't work for family trips very well.
I forgot... .which of these two companies paid compensation for 124 deaths due to an ignition part that they balked at fixing for $0.57 per?
And a followup: which co is more likely to do that... again? Unfortunately?
I hate to go negative but safety and trust means something.
Where did you see an ignition key on a Spark EV/Volt/ELR/Bolt?
The Cobalts I bought for family and friends were fine. The key detents felt just like a Mercedes.
It's not a comment on the specific car/part. I hope they do build it correctly.
It's a comment on how each co will handle a future problem going forward. Will they deny a safety issue, adopt a CYA mentality, and/or balk at fixing a 57 cent part as > 100 ppl pass b/c of it?