Range better than Bolt, optional or base?

[RubberToe]

It will definitely be a talking point of nay sayers though.

BREAKING NEWS at 11: Tesla base Model 3 has 23 miles less range than a Bolt, is a bankruptcy filing imminent?

The nay sayers have lots of talking points, most of which are simply random FUD and stuff they make up. This one would be a legitimate one though.

Not clear to me whether Elon and company would be focused on requiring that the base Model 3 have more than 238 miles range. I suspect that from a business standpoint it wouldn't be a consideration given the Supercharger network. So maybe the nay sayers get to shout from the mountain top about the "totally inadequate range versus the Bolt". That shouting will last for about 2 months until the Model 3 delivered volume eclipses the Bolt. Maybe less than that if the Bolt sales continue the decline they showed from January to February (1,162 down to 952). People might be like "Whats a Bolt again?"; You know, the Tesla killer selling 200 cars a month...

RT

 

[Jeff N]

Even if the Bolt and Model 3 have identical range, the lack of any reliable DC Fast Charging network for the Bolt limits them to commuter cars ONLY.

Not necessarily. I've already taken 2 long road trips in my Bolt EV including one from SF to LA/SD with nearly the same convenience as when I took a P85 Model S on a 1,300 mile road trip from SF to Las Vegas.

The DC chargers to do that are already in place at 125A and 100A. Yes, the actual charge time is longer but for practical purposes of charging while eating etc. it made relatively little difference.

Within the next 2 years CA will extend the existing CCS/CHAdeMO charging network including coverage of new highways like I-5 in the Central Valley and chargers faster than 125A.

Here's a map showing those California new and existing CCS stations relative to your location near Newport Coast, CA taken from your TMC profile:

Independent of that, VW will be spending $120 million to install it's own network of 250 chargers at 50 highway locations in California which will roughly match today's California Tesla Supercharger coverage along highways. VW will also add an unspecified number of urban charging depots in California's 5 biggest cities with 50 kW and 150 kW charger clusters. The VW chargers will be usable by all CHAdeMO and CCS cars from all brands.

VW is doing similar things at the national level outside of California in the next 2 years but those plans have not been made public yet (but should be within the next 4-6 weeks). The only thing known now is a rough initial target of 200 highway locations nationally with spending of $250 million outside of California in the next 2.5 years just on EV charging.

Of course, Tesla will be rapidly expanding its Supercharger network to accommodate all of the Model 3 cars (plus S and X) coming out in the next 2 years.

Basically, it's all good. The EV highway charging network is going to be growing rapidly and will allow for long distance traveling in many parts of the country by even non-Tesla vehicles soon.

VW Reveals Tesla-like EV Charging Plans - HybridCars.com

 

[Jeff N]

I got to look all around and sit in a Bolt, could have driven it too but I didn't feel like "running the numbers" at my dealership for a car that undoubtedly drives very much like my Volt2...

Not that your likely to buy a Bolt EV, but I recommend taking one for a test drive when you get another opportunity.

The Bolt EV is notably faster than a gen 2 Volt, especially at speeds above 40 mph. The Volt has very good acceleration at city speeds but the Bolt EV carries it's good acceleration performance (0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds) all the way up through high-speed highway driving.

Perhaps the biggest difference, though, is the Bolt EV's one-pedal driving implementation. It has stronger regen braking and, unlike the Model S, will bring the car quickly and smoothly to a complete stop and hold it there without use of the traditional brake pedal. It's very slick and is a very different experience than driving in the Volt in 'L' (speaking as a former Volt owner). That one-pedal aspect is also distinctly different, and better, than driving a Model S in my opinion.

 

[Zaxxon]

Within the next 2 years CA will extend the existing CCS/CHAdeMO charging network including coverage of new highways like I-5 in the Central Valley and chargers faster than 125A.

...

Independent of that, VW will be spending $120 million to install it's own network of 250 chargers at 50 highway locations in California which will roughly match today's California Tesla Supercharger coverage along highways. VW will also add an unspecified number of urban charging depots in California's 5 biggest cities with 50 kW and 150 kW charger clusters. The VW chargers will be usable by all CHAdeMO and CCS cars from all brands.

VW is doing similar things at the national level outside of California in the next 2 years but those plans have not been made public yet (but should be within the next 4-6 weeks). The only thing known now is a rough initial target of 200 highway locations nationally with spending of $250 million outside of California in the next 2.5 years just on EV charging.

With 8-12 stalls per location? That's the biggest issue with current non-Tesla DCFC stations. You're either the first one there or you're not going to be leaving anytime soon. Makes it impossible to plan a trip.

 

[McRat]

With 8-12 stalls per location? That's the biggest issue with current non-Tesla DCFC stations. You're either the first one there or you're not going to be leaving anytime soon. Makes it impossible to plan a trip.

It depends. For laughs, pull up Plugshare, select just CCS. Center on Los Angeles. Depending on your zoom you are showing roughly 1 CCS per lateral (west-east) mile, and about 2-3% reporting in use or in service. Within the range of a 50 mile AER EV, there are over 100 CCS locations, some are singles, some are not.

When I show the greater LA area with ~120 available CCS locations, there are 9 SC locations. Assuming 12 stalls at each one, none in use, and no dual or quad CCS locations at all, there are still more CCS stalls.

 

[jgillispie]

Not necessarily. I've already taken 2 long road trips in my Bolt EV including one from SF to LA/SD with nearly the same convenience as when I took a P85 Model S on a 1,300 mile road trip from SF to Las Vegas.

The DC chargers to do that are already in place at 125A and 100A. Yes, the actual charge time is longer but for practical purposes of charging while eating etc. it made relatively little difference.

I think the Bolt will work fine for that situation as California has so much EV infrastructure (and even more coming).

Where I'm at there's basically 0 EV charging at the common destination locations. Not to mention the way many midwest towns are laid out, destinations are spread out too far to charge while doing some other activity.

 

[Jeff N]

With 8-12 stalls per location? That's the biggest issue with current non-Tesla DCFC stations. You're either the first one there or you're not going to be leaving anytime soon. Makes it impossible to plan a trip.

The VW stations are planned to typically have 5 stalls per location but there will be 50 of them versus around 33-34 Tesla locations outside of metro locations that have an average of 7.6 stalls per location. It's presently unclear how VW's metro-area community charge depot stalls will compare with Tesla's ~19 California metro-area Supercharger locations.

Those VW locations should all be up and running by mid to late 2019 and during that timeframe there will be fewer 200+ mile EV range CCS/CHAdeMO cars in California than there are Tesla cars today. Going forward, both Tesla and VW will continue to expand their charging networks for many years to come. VW is obligated by a court-supervised settlement to continue funding of Zero Emission Vehicle investments for a 10 year period and they are motivated to do so in order to compete in sales of long-range premium BEVs against Tesla.

 

[Jeff N]

Where I'm at there's basically 0 EV charging at the common destination locations. Not to mention the way many midwest towns are laid out, destinations are spread out too far to charge while doing some other activity.

The California and US draft plans should likely be approved by the end of April. At that time we will likely know more about the non-California national plan including a rough idea of the national highway routes that they will initially cover and how many chargers they will place on those routes.

 

[Zaxxon]

It depends. For laughs, pull up Plugshare, select just CCS. Center on Los Angeles. Depending on your zoom you are showing roughly 1 CCS per lateral (west-east) mile, and about 2-3% reporting in use or in service. Within the range of a 50 mile AER EV, there are over 100 CCS locations, some are singles, some are not.

When I show the greater LA area with ~120 available CCS locations, there are 9 SC locations. Assuming 12 stalls at each one, none in use, and no dual or quad CCS locations at all, there are still more CCS stalls.

That's great for LA (and California). For the rest of the world, it's not so hot. Here in Colorado the CHADEMO/CCS situation is typically 1-2 stalls per location. Generally 1 shared with both CHADEMO & CCS, one of which can be in use at any given time. It's Supercharger or bust.

The VW stations are planned to typically have 5 stalls per location but there will be 50 of them versus around 33-34 Tesla locations outside of metro locations that have an average of 7.6 stalls per location. It's presently unclear how VW's metro-area community charge depot stalls will compare with Tesla's ~19 California metro-area Supercharger locations.

Those VW locations should all be up and running by mid to late 2019 and during that timeframe there will be fewer 200+ mile EV range CCS/CHAdeMO cars in California than there are Tesla cars today. Going forward, both Tesla and VW will continue to expand their charging networks for many years to come. VW is obligated by a court-supervised settlement to continue funding of Zero Emission Vehicle investments for a 10 year period and they are motivated to do so in order to compete in sales of long-range premium BEVs against Tesla.

Will be fantastic in mid-to-late 2019. Here in early 2017, the situation outside of California sucks if you're not driving a Tesla. I've got a Leaf and while CHADEMO is nice when it's available, it'd be marital suicide to plan any sort of trip that relied on more than L2 charging.

 

[McRat]

That's great for LA (and California). For the rest of the world, it's not so hot. Here in Colorado the CHADEMO/CCS situation is typically 1-2 stalls per location. Generally 1 shared with both CHADEMO & CCS, one of which can be in use at any given time. It's Supercharger or bust.

Colorado has just under 1/3 as many EVs per driver as California, and WAY fewer drivers. Establishing an EV grid in Colorado at the same density as California would be a bit silly, and perhaps not the best way to spend limited resources.

EDIT - My math sucks. Under 1/4 as many EVs per driver.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Establishing an EV grid in Colorado at the same density as California would be a bit silly, and perhaps not the best way to spend limited resources.

It's silly for California too. The Bolt needs DCFC, not 50kW urban chargers.

 

[McRat]

It's silly for California too. The Bolt needs DCFC, not 50kW urban chargers.

When a Bolt sold without DCFC can reach over 25,000,000 people in California, you might be right. How many friends can you have in real life (not facebucks)

 

[Zaxxon]

Colorado has just under 1/3 as many EVs per driver as California, and WAY fewer drivers. Establishing an EV grid in Colorado at the same density as California would be a bit silly, and perhaps not the best way to spend limited resources.

EDIT - My math sucks. Under 1/4 as many EVs per driver.

Your premise is flawed. What matters when planning fast charging locations is the flow of EVs through a state (more specifically, through an area, not just an arbitrarily-defined unit of 'state'), not the number of EV drivers who live in a state. Now go look up how many road trips travel through or to Colorado and get back to us.

In any event, I'm certainly not suggesting that Colorado requires the same charge location density as California. Rather, that the charge density in California is a separate discussion--outside of EV utopias like CA, DCFC is a non-starter for any sort of dependable use. Colorado is actually one of the more EV-friendly states, and no sane person would plan a trip that requires fast-charging availability other than in a Tesla. I say this as someone who very much would like to be wrong in this assertion. I assure you I am not.

 

[Model 3]

Just some nitpicking...

JB Straubel/Tesla have said in the past that the base will have less than a 60 kWh battery.

It was neither JB nor Elon that said that. I do not remember his name, but he was talking officially on behalf of Tesla. If either JB or Elon has repeated this I would like to see a source link.

JB/Tesla has also said before the average battery pack will be...wait for it, 65, which is between 55 and 75.

I do not remember what the number was, but I think it was Elon that gave that assumed approximate average number.

There also isn't an expansive charging network and Bolt drivers will have to rely on the CCS/SAE combo stations from ...

Here in Europe the CCS/combo station network is starting to be quite good, and I think it is build out at a faster rate then Teslas SC network. But cars from Tesla may use both networks with the CaDemo adapter.

 

[ikjadoon]

I agree. If the Bolt has a 60 kw pack so will the model 3. How could it be less than a Chevy?

Just some nitpicking...

It was neither JB nor Elon that said that. I do not remember his name, but he was talking officially on behalf of Tesla. If either JB or Elon has repeated this I would like to see a source link.


I do not remember what the number was, but I think it was Elon that gave that assumed approximate average number.

Jeff Evanson, Tesla Vice President of Investor Relations. Tesla confirms base Model 3 will have less than 60 kWh battery pack option, cost is below $190/kWh and falling That was nearly a year ago. Unless they have changed their plans, I think we should expect something in the ~50kWh range for the base model.

The optics of this are also important: Tesla is supposed to have an advantage in batteries and electric cars in general. What if their 4th electric car is bested in range (which is Tesla's original & primary advantage) by Chevy's car? You might not realize it yet, but come this winter, there will be dozens and dozens of media articles, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. comparing the Bolt vs Model 3. Those are going to set the narrative for Tesla in 2018 and even 2019. Anchoring is important.

If Tesla can squeeze out 210 miles in a 4500lb massive sedan with 60kWh & a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds...no idea why 215 miles is seen as anything more than the absolute minimum for the Model 3 (which will weigh less, be more aerodynamic in both frontal area and drag coefficient, and have lower performance---debate the degree for however long you want, but all will be true).

 

[ssrajputev]

Just some nitpicking...

It was neither JB nor Elon that said that. I do not remember his name, but he was talking officially on behalf of Tesla. If either JB or Elon has repeated this I would like to see a source link.

I do not remember what the number was, but I think it was Elon that gave that assumed approximate average number.

Here in Europe the CCS/combo station network is starting to be quite good, and I think it is build out at a faster rate then Teslas SC network. But cars from Tesla may use both networks with the CaDemo adapter.

It's fine. We can't have any more "alternative facts" going around these days.

Yes, you're right. I checked. It is Jeff Evanson that made that statement. See the post above.

I couldn't find the exact tweet or quote, but I remember reading it.

That might be true for Europe. But, here in CA, which is Tesla and the largest EV market, the supercharger is more widespread than CCS chargers. Tesla's output is already more than twice as much as the current CCS system (120-145 kw vs 50 in CCS). I know the next round of CCS chargers will be 150+, but that will be done after the M3 comes out. Greencarreports covered a Bolt owner who couldn't even go from the Bay Area to SoCal through the normal route on 5, because no CCS chargers exist there. She had to go on 101 and spend much more time driving and charging than if she had a M3 or Tesla.

 

[ssrajputev]

Jeff Evanson, Tesla Vice President of Investor Relations. Tesla confirms base Model 3 will have less than 60 kWh battery pack option, cost is below $190/kWh and falling That was nearly a year ago. Unless they have changed their plans, I think we should expect something in the ~50kWh range for the base model.

The optics of this are also important: Tesla is supposed to have an advantage in batteries and electric cars in general. What if their 4th electric car is bested in range (which is Tesla's original & primary advantage) by Chevy's car? You might not realize it yet, but come this winter, there will be dozens and dozens of media articles, interviews, reviews, videos, etc. comparing the Bolt vs Model 3. Those are going to set the narrative for Tesla in 2018 and even 2019. Anchoring is important.

If Tesla can squeeze out 210 miles in a 4500lb massive sedan with 60kWh & a 0-60 time of 5.5 seconds...no idea why 215 miles is seen as anything more than the absolute minimum for the Model 3 (which will weigh less, be more aerodynamic in both frontal area and drag coefficient, and have lower performance---debate the degree for however long you want, but all will be true).

I really doubt the base usable capacity in a M3 will be 50. When I said 55, that means the actual usable. Even in the Bolt, the usable is around 58, which translates 4.1 mi/kwh. We can argue the Bolt has a higher Cd at 0.32, but it a much smaller and lighter car with a very short frontal area. If you do that math at 50 for a M3, that would mean 4.3 mi/kWh to get 215 mi of range. Even my current MS60 (software-limited 75)'s really usable capacity is 62.4, which translates to 3.36 mi/kwh for the 210 mi EPA rating. That would mean the efficiency for the M3 would close to 30% higher than the MS. I know the M3 is 80% the size of the MS (just the front and rear overhangs are smaller) and will have the newest battery chemistry from the gigafactory, but the M3 will have more steel to save costs. Steel is heavier than the more-prevalent aluminum in the MS.

I do think the base M3 will have usable of 55, enabling 220 mi of average range (20% improvement over the MS) and the 75 will provide ~300 mi of range.

 

[Jeff N]

Greencarreports covered a Bolt owner who couldn't even go from the Bay Area to SoCal through the normal route on 5, because no CCS chargers exist there. She had to go on 101 and spend much more time driving and charging than if she had a M3 or Tesla.

She didn't "have to" go on US-101. She could have gone on CA-99 which has more DC charging infrastructure today and would not have taken more miles or more time to drive than US-101 from her original San Jose to Pasadena route on drive time alone and would have allowed faster and more convenient charging.

Even driving on US-101 she could have made better choices to minimize or avoid using 25 kW chargers. She made understandable novice mistakes. I know from personal experience that driving a Bolt EV on that route today can be nearly as convenient as driving a Model S.

Even in the Bolt, the usable is around 58

Not that it's a big difference, but we know that the Bolt EV has a usable capacity of closer to 59-60 kWh.

We can argue the Bolt has a higher Cd at 0.32,

The 0.32 was an initial design target. GM has stated that the final production vehicle has a drag coefficient of 0.308.

2017 Chevy Bolt EV Is Less of a Drag Than Originally Believed - HybridCars.com

Likewise, a SlashGear YouTube video from earlier this year shows the Bolt's designer at the same GM media event saying the CD is 0.308. He's the same guy quoted in an Automotive News article last summer (rewritten by Electrek) as saying the Bolt's CD was 0.32. The comment is at the 11 minute and 11 second mark at

.

 

[ikjadoon]

I really doubt the base usable capacity in a M3 will be 50. When I said 55, that means the actual usable. Even in the Bolt, the usable is around 58, which translates 4.1 mi/kwh. We can argue the Bolt has a higher Cd at 0.32, but it a much smaller and lighter car with a very short frontal area. If you do that math at 50 for a M3, that would mean 4.3 mi/kWh to get 215 mi of range. Even my current MS60 (software-limited 75)'s really usable capacity is 62.4, which translates to 3.36 mi/kwh for the 210 mi EPA rating. That would mean the efficiency for the M3 would close to 30% higher than the MS. I know the M3 is 80% the size of the MS (just the front and rear overhangs are smaller) and will have the newest battery chemistry from the gigafactory, but the M3 will have more steel to save costs. Steel is heavier than the more-prevalent aluminum in the MS.

I do think the base M3 will have usable of 55, enabling 220 mi of average range (20% improvement over the MS) and the 75 will provide ~300 mi of range.

I apologize; I worded that poorly. I meant 5x kWh, as in some number from 50 to 59 kWh. I agree with you; the upper 50s is much more plausible and 55 kWh is the only round number for marketing. But, exactly, usable capacity may be 57 or 58 kWh.

 

[ssrajputev]

She didn't "have to" go on US-101. She could have gone on CA-99 which has more DC charging infrastructure today and would not have taken more miles or more time to drive than US-101 from her original San Jose to Pasadena route on drive time alone and would have allowed faster and more convenient charging.

Even driving on US-101 she could have made better choices to minimize or avoid using 25 kW chargers. She made understandable novice mistakes. I know from personal experience that driving a Bolt EV on that route today can be nearly as convenient as driving a Model S.


Not that it's a big difference, but we know that the Bolt EV has a usable capacity of closer to 59-60 kWh.


The 0.32 was an initial design target. GM has stated that the final production vehicle has a drag coefficient of 0.308.

2017 Chevy Bolt EV Is Less of a Drag Than Originally Believed - HybridCars.com

Likewise, a SlashGear YouTube video from earlier this year shows the Bolt's designer at the same GM media event saying the CD is 0.308. He's the same guy quoted in an Automotive News article last summer (rewritten by Electrek) as saying the Bolt's CD was 0.32. The comment is at the 11 minute and 11 second mark at

.

The most direct/fastest route to go from the Bay Area to SoCal, LA, or Cal Tech (Pasadena) is 5 in an ICE car or a Tesla. No one goes through 99 from the Bay. That's further east in the Central Valley. It makes sense for people coming from Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, etc. to use 99 to come down to Cal Tech.

GCR notes, "Sarah had to visit Cal Tech in Pasadena, about 340 miles from our home in San Jose, California. In a gasoline car, that’s about a 5-hour drive, mostly down Interstate 5."

Because there are no CCS chargers on 5, she researched and added on the extra stop/trip to go to Cal Poly SLO by going all the way down 101S before going to Cal Tech.

I still think 0.308 is high. Even the aging Leaf is 0.28. The Bolt is much taller and has more headroom, so it's a trade-off.