Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt

[dsvick]

I'm not so sure that either the dealership network or "decent build quality" ... are great selling points.

Agreed, iirc, there are several polls that show that people hate car dealerships. I know I personally can't stand it, the back and forth, the pressure tactics, service prices, ... all of those combine, for me, into a horrible experience. The only advantage they have right now over Tesla is convenience, in that you can find a dealership for almost any other car brand by swinging a cat around in a circle. Of course, once you've found one all you really have is a pissed off cat, a tired arm, and an opportunity to watch some commission based sales person run back and forth to his "manager" to "get you the best deal".

Here's a Good Indication of How Much People Hate Car Dealerships
How much longer will consumers keep buying cars at dealerships?

 

[Dan Detweiler]

Having driven a Volt for the last 4 years (and enjoyed every mile driven in it) I have loved having the car. That being said, I have always looked at it as a transitional car to bridge the gap between ICE and full BEV cars. It has served me well, but I am wanting the next step. For me, that can only lead to the Model 3. Tesla's nationwide DC high speed charging network is one of the biggest reasons for me. I anticipate using it exactly as I have used my Volt, just trading refuel time for charge time.

Dan

 

[jelloslug]

Agreed, iirc, there are several polls that show that people hate car dealerships. I know I personally can't stand it, the back and forth, the pressure tactics, service prices, ... all of those combine, for me, into a horrible experience. The only advantage they have right now over Tesla is convenience, in that you can find a dealership for almost any other car brand by swinging a cat around in a circle. Of course, once you've found one all you really have is a pissed off cat, a tired arm, and an opportunity to watch some commission based sales person run back and forth to his "manager" to "get you the best deal".

Here's a Good Indication of How Much People Hate Car Dealerships
How much longer will consumers keep buying cars at dealerships?

But the NADA says that people love, love, love the dealership experience.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Just to be clear, your E-REV quote is taken from one part of GM's definition. That definition, in a 2008 SAE paper written by GM engineers involved in developing the Volt, does not raise or discuss cabin heating or climate controls at all. It's entirely focused on the propulsion requirements. They obviously intended the definition to apply to the Volt.

And that document justifies EREV on the basis of reduction of pollution by avoiding cold engine starts to reduce pollution. There's no inherent reason for a separate definition other than _practical implications_, because an EREV and non-EREV can work the same way. GM doesn't get to define EREV, the SAE does. And the definition itself doesn't explicitly refer to the powertrain.

You believe that cabin climate controls should become an additional requirement in any E-REV (or EREV) definition.

No, in my opinion the cabin climate controls _are_ included in the definition, because (a) it says that it functions as a full-performance BEV and (b) says that the engine only operates when the charge is exhausted. And in my opinion it _should_ be included in any definition, because if the car cannot operate in all conditions without the engine running , it's being used as more than just a range-extender. That's the nub of it.

I think your view has merit as does GM's published definition. Since no standards body has adopted an official EREV definition there is no "the definition" although I think GM's definition is a reasonable default for public discussion since they popularized the term first.

No. The proposed definition is a good default, as it says that the engine is only used when the battery's empty. But _you_ are _changing_ the definition, adding qualifiers to it, to say that it only refers to the powertrain. The Volt doesn't meet the definition because the Volt's "auxiliary energy supply" can be cold-started for reasons other than because "RESS energy is not available".

I was just trying to be clear that you were describing and promoting your own EREV definition rather than attempting to describe some standards-based definition or GM's definition which popularized the acronym when the Volt was first introduced as a concept car beginning in 2007.

I go by the proposed definition.

 

[Jeff N]

And it doesn't, ironically enough.

In what way does the Volt fail to fit the full main E-REV definition in GM's SAE paper when read fairly in its full context?

Yes, you could selectively quote parts of their definition out of context from the full paper....

If Tesla added a small propane heater assist to the Model 3 for use only in sub-zero weather to preserve more usable winter range with the standard battery pack would that suddenly stop it from being an electric car?

 

[Jeff N]

This isn't the right thread for this discussion but...

And the definition itself doesn't explicitly refer to the powertrain.

GM's description is all about the propulsion behavior of an E-REV car before the range extender starts. It specifically identifies which propulsion behaviors should not start the range extender. It is silent about non-propulsion behaviors like climate control. It says nothing about the range extender itself or how it operates after it starts up.

No, in my opinion the cabin climate controls _are_ included in the definition, because (a) it says that it functions as a full-performance BEV and (b) says that the engine only operates when the charge is exhausted. And in my opinion it _should_ be included in any definition, because if the car cannot operate in all conditions without the engine running , it's being used as more than just a range-extender.

The scope of the paper's main E-REV definition section is limited to propulsion behavior of the powertrain prior to the start of the range extender.

No. The proposed definition is a good default, as it says that the engine is only used when the battery's empty. But _you_ are _changing_ the definition, adding qualifiers to it, to say that it only refers to the powertrain. The Volt doesn't meet the definition because the Volt's "auxiliary energy supply" can be cold-started for reasons other than because "RESS energy is not available".

We each read the paper differently. I agree that it rambles a bit and could have been more precisely written.

I think the fact that it was written by key leaders of the Volt development team and attempts to provide a definition for the term E-REV at a time when GM was attempting to popularize that acronym outside of SAE when discussing the Volt is evidence that they intended the definition to be compatible with the Volt.

Because the paper is not written as precisely as it could have been, it is possible to interpret it the way you do. On balance, I think my interpretation is more reasonable but I understand that "views differ."

 

[stopcrazypp]

And that document justifies EREV on the basis of reduction of pollution by avoiding cold engine starts to reduce pollution. There's no inherent reason for a separate definition other than _practical implications_, because an EREV and non-EREV can work the same way. GM doesn't get to define EREV, the SAE does. And the definition itself doesn't explicitly refer to the powertrain.

No, in my opinion the cabin climate controls _are_ included in the definition, because (a) it says that it functions as a full-performance BEV and (b) says that the engine only operates when the charge is exhausted. And in my opinion it _should_ be included in any definition, because if the car cannot operate in all conditions without the engine running , it's being used as more than just a range-extender. That's the nub of it.

No. The proposed definition is a good default, as it says that the engine is only used when the battery's empty. But _you_ are _changing_ the definition, adding qualifiers to it, to say that it only refers to the powertrain. The Volt doesn't meet the definition because the Volt's "auxiliary energy supply" can be cold-started for reasons other than because "RESS energy is not available".

I go by the proposed definition.

To be fair to GM, the SAE definition of vehicle type is only concerned with energy used for propulsion and not for accessories.

Link to GM paper for reference (it is no longer on GM's site directly, so this is a third party link):
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.4891&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Here's the two SAE definitions mentioned:
Hybrid - A vehicle with two or more energy storage systems both of which must provide propulsion power – either together or independently.
Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) - A hybrid vehicle with the ability to store and use off-board electrical energy in the RESS (rechargeable energy storage system).

GM's proposed definition:
Extended-Range Electric Vehicle (E-REV) - A vehicle that functions as a full-performance battery electric vehicle when energy is available from an onboard RESS and having an auxiliary energy supply that is only engaged when the RESS energy is not available.

GM's definition is sloppy in an engineering sense (since you can interpret it as you did), but if they changed it to "A PHEV that functions..." it would make more sense.

In general, "propulsion power" is what matters because accessories are typically powered by a different energy storage source (your typical 12V car battery). For example, even for the climate control system, the fans are powered by the battery, but a typical ICE vehicle will not be considered a hybrid despite this.

Similarly, an EV that uses a fuel based heater will not be considered a hybrid by SAE's definition.
Bio-Ethanol Powered Heaters

 

[Topher]

In what way does the Volt fail to fit the full main E-REV definition in GM's SAE paper when read fairly in its full context?

having an auxiliary energy supply that is only engaged when the RESS energy is not available.

"However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself, but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent." - Motor Trend

[note: this is gen 1. I am unsure what they changed in gen 2]

Thank you kindly

 

[Jeff N]

"However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself, but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent." - Motor Trend

This has no relevance to the discussion about E-REV which says nothing about what happens after the range extender starts up. E-REV is all about electric driving and what specific conditions are not allowed to start the range extender while there is usable charge left in the battery. Namely, neither vehicle speed nor "torque demand" (acceleration) are allowed to start the engine (charge sustaining mode).

The article you quoted from Motor Trend is discussing the behavior of the hybrid transaxle after the Volt has already started the engine.

Again, this has nothing to do with E-REV but out of general interest I will describe it below:

[note: this is gen 1. I am unsure what they changed in gen 2]

The gen 1 Volt (2011-2015) has 2 power flow options through the transaxle when the engine is running:

1. Series hybrid... Engine only spins the generator and electric power flows to the battery and/or the traction motor to drive the wheels. Series mode can be used at any vehicle speed but is always used when the engine is running at speeds below around 35 mph.

2. Power-split.... This operates somewhat like a Prius but is technically different. At speeds above around 38 mph (not 70 mph as MT stated) the Volt may engage a clutch to switch to power-split mode depending upon the vehicle speed and torque demand. At lower speeds it will clutch in at mild torque. At higher speeds it will clutch in at higher torque. So, the faster you go the lower the accelerator pedal can be to the floor when the clutch engages. By the time you reach 70 mph the car engages the clutch under most conditions but the clutch normally engages into power-split mode at far lower speeds than 70.

-----

In Volt gen 2, 2016-2017, the transaxle is completely different. There is no longer any series mode. Instead, there are 3 modes I will refer to using my own naming scheme:

1. City power-split... This is conceptually identical to how the Prius works. It essentially replaces the old series mode and is used under similar conditions.

2. Fixed gear parallel.. There is literally a fixed gearing between the engine and the wheels but the traction motor is also connected and can optionally help push using power from the battery or can regeneratively brake. The smaller generator motor is locked up mechanically and does not spin.

3. Highway power-split... This is similar but technically different than the power-split mode in the gen 1 Volt. It is a more efficient hybrid mode at higher vehicle speeds.

 

[vjason]

I should have ended my quote saying the last Chevy I bought was in 1991; I've driven nothing but Toyota's for the last 10 years. I do own a 2000 Silverado (bought used) but it is for towing a boat, going to the dump, and making trips to home improvement stores. I'd like to think I could replace it with a BEV truck in the future, but given what I paid and the fact I drive it less than 1000 miles a year means that I'll own it until it dies (or I sell my boat, which is the main reason I bought it).

No doubt dealer service is pricey, and that is a fairly common service at all car (brand) dealers. After all they are private businesses trying to take money, which is one area where Tesla has a potential advantage since their dealers are part of the company (although as we know car dealers don't like this).

Everyone reading this post knows the advantages of a Tesla over the previous way of buying and maintaining cars. I completely agree with those advantages, but then again I have both a Tesla service center and sales center within 15 minutes of my house so all I really have to worry about is when my 3 will actually arrive.

The next 5 years will be interesting to say the least. If there is one advantage to being a model 3 owner, it is that you'll see what happens when the model S's start going out of warranty. Will the number of 3's on the road finally convince a significant number of private shops to pay for access to service manuals? What will part availability look like? My assumption is that initial build quality will continue to improve, so it is just a matter of long term care and feeding.

Speaking as someone with a GM currently sitting at a Chevy dealership for an emergency mechanical repair, I'm not so sure that either the dealership network or "decent build quality" (which I've had more quality issues with the GM I currently drive than any of my other cars combined) are great selling points.
IE, my car went in Monday with no coolant/engine fan. Repair quote was $850+tax for the dead fan module and labor - plus the suggestion that a number of other items needed immediate maintenance (each for about another $200), including fluid changes that have recently been done, belts that had recently been looked over, brakes that had been recently done, etc. In other words, suggestions in addition to the hefty repair bill that were not needed but presented in a way that someone unknowing would believe needed to be done before they drove away. Not to mention, the part to be replaced can be purchased for about $300 less than the GM parts MSRP and am sure it's full price is included in the quote.
Even if Tesla's have a few quality issues, there are endless stories of people surprised by the generosity of Tesla's service. Often going in for a minor issue, and other parts replace because the service crew noticed an issue the owner had not. I would much rather be surprised by extra work being included at no charge than being pushed for repair costs that are not required.

 

[MP3Mike]

Will the number of 3's on the road finally convince a significant number of private shops to pay for access to service manuals? What will part availability look like?

But Tesla currently only allows people in one state buy access to the service manuals. (And only because the state requires it.) Maybe that will change in the future, but I wouldn't count on it unless more states make laws requiring it.)

 

[JeffK]

But Tesla currently only allows people in one state buy access to the service manuals. (And only because the state requires it.) Maybe that will change in the future, but I wouldn't count on it unless more states make laws requiring it.)

Regular people don't necessarily need it... these cars should require far less maintenance. I don't imagine changing LED bulbs every 2000 hours, changing oil, taking off a door panel, tuning my electric motor?!, etc. If you have to mess with the coolant levels then your car obviously has more serious issues.

Many places have laws requiring mechanics to have a license, it's no different with Tesla in that they require you to be a Tesla approved body shop to get the service manual.

In addition, most service manuals normal people buy aren't even from the manufacturer. Go bug Chilton into making a Tesla service/auto repair manual.

 

[MP3Mike]

Many places have laws requiring mechanics to have a license, it's no different with Tesla in that they require you to be a Tesla approved body shop to get the service manual.

Correct, but there is no such thing as a Tesla approved mechanic. And I suspect the approved body shops aren't allowed to do non-collision repairs.

 

[montreid]

maintenance does not equal repair. EV low maintenance. That's a concern for every day cars that things not engine related. Niche market buyers will tolerate delays; mass market daily car owners --- not so much. Tesla has to be aware of this and ramp that up too as already behind on current service issues.

 

[Jeff N]

Regular people don't necessarily need it... these cars should require far less maintenance.

Less maintenance than a conventional ICE or hybrid. However, Tesla models do not require less scheduled maintenance than a Chevy Volt plugin hybrid.

 

[cwerdna]

California is current leased by Toyota as far environmental issues go. So should Toyota get pissed at Tesla, things will get ugly quick.

Footnote: Toyota sells lots of diesels globally, but does not sell diesels in California. This is not unrelated. The HOV Green Sticker program stopped when Toyota pulled the Prius Plug-in.

Toyota has always been exempt or assisted by CARB initiatives.

Bolded part is untrue. It seems like you have an axe to grind against Toyota. Just because you believe something and post it doesn't make it true.

Production of the PiP ended in June 2015 per Confirmed: Toyota Prius Plug-In Production Ends In June (looks like it was announced at end of April 2015).

Look at the status of the green HOV stickers on this pages:
updated May 11, 2015: Eligible Vehicles - Single Occupant Carpool Lane Use Stickers
updated July 6, 2015: Eligible Vehicles - Single Occupant Carpool Lane Use Stickers
updated Dec 1, 2015: Eligible Vehicles - Single Occupant Carpool Lane Use Stickers
updated Dec 18, 2015: http://web.archive.org/web/20151225074120/http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm (cap hit and wasn't raised until very recently)

 

[diamond.g]

Less maintenance than a conventional ICE or hybrid. However, Tesla models do not require less scheduled maintenance than a Chevy Volt plugin hybrid.

Why do Tesla's have more scheduled maintenances than the Volt?

 

[Jeff N]

Why do Tesla's have more scheduled maintenances than the Volt?

I don't know.

One possibility is that Tesla thinks the Model S, with its higher performance, might be driven harder on average and need more aggressive maintenance.

Another possibility is that Tesla wants the recurring revenue stream from regular service visits.

Another possibility is that Tesla, as a relatively less experienced car company, wants the cars in for regular inspections to help spot design problems or premature wear items quickly so they can improve the design and ensure the quality of existing cars on the road.

I'm sure there are other possible explanations also. The key point in my statement relative to the Volt is that the Volt's maintenance schedule is surprisingly minimal. Most people casually assume the Volt must require more frequent, extensive, and expensive scheduled maintenance because it has a gasoline engine but that turns out to be false.

 

[jgs]

I don't know.

One possibility is that Tesla thinks the Model S, with its higher performance, might be driven harder on average and need more aggressive maintenance.

Another possibility is that Tesla wants the recurring revenue stream from regular service visits.

Another possibility is that Tesla, as a relatively less experienced car company, wants the cars in for regular inspections to help spot design problems or premature wear items quickly so they can improve the design and ensure the quality of existing cars on the road.

I'm sure there are other possible explanations also. The key point in my statement relative to the Volt is that the Volt's maintenance schedule is surprisingly minimal. Most people casually assume the Volt must require more frequent, extensive, and expensive scheduled maintenance because it has a gasoline engine but that turns out to be false.

It's worth noting the maintenance schedule is "suggested" and importantly, disregarding it does not invalidate the warranty. Judging from comments here on TMC, it's not uncommon to skip maintenances.