Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt

[stopcrazypp]

If you look at the spreadsheet chart, it indicates that an S60 that begins charging with 30 miles in reserve would add 90 miles in about 26 minutes. With 40 miles in reserve it indicates that adding 90 miles would take about 28 minutes.

This is likely a fair comparison to a Bolt EV with a 30-40 mile reserve because this is roughly the area where the S60 charging current has fallen near or below 200A (on Bjorn's video) which is the CCS specification aspect that is likely the most responsible for limiting the Bolt EV's charging performance.

I don't think that is a valid comparison, because it is comparing marketing speak (which usually presents the perfect scenario) to a real world situation. A Bolt with 30-40 mile reserve will not necessarily charge 90 miles in 30 minutes (esp. EPA miles, which we don't know if the Bolt is referring to). Bjorn's video seems to be slower in general than the numbers posted in the spreadsheet, so I wouldn't really go with that. When I have the time I will try to look up where the 200A limit pops in.

 

[techmaven]

So, in realistic charging with an S 60kWh or TM3 55-60 kWh at a Tesla Supercharger and a Bolt EV at a future 200A CCS charger the charging time may not be all that substantially different.

Truth is we really don't know. As you stated, there are hardly any 200A CCS's. It is likely that for all of 2017, the max charging rate that a typical Bolt sees in the U.S. is 45-50 kW just because one can't find 200A CCS. We don't know the realistic taper curve on the Bolt. We also don't know the degradation levels given a particular charging c-rate. Given the cooling design on the Bolt battery pack, I'm concerned that it can't move enough heat to really tolerate high charge c-rates without higher amounts of damage.

Also, using miles as a metric is also fraught with problems. We don't know on what scale Chevy is quoting miles. Presumably it is calibrated with their range claims, and if they are quoting UDDS range versus EPA 5 cycle combined versus EPA highway versus 70 or 75 mph steady, it can change a lot. Since the Bolt has terrible aerodynamics, the real world highway range will substantially differ from the EPA combined rating at a higher degree than a Tesla with terrific aerodynamics.

 

[Jeff N]

I don't think that is a valid comparison, because it is comparing marketing speak (which usually presents the perfect scenario) to a real world situation. A Bolt with 30-40 mile reserve will not necessarily charge 90 miles in 30 minutes (esp. EPA miles, which we don't know if the Bolt is referring to). Bjorn's video seems to be slower in general than the numbers posted in the spreadsheet, so I wouldn't really go with that. When I have the time I will try to look up where the 200A limit pops in.

GM hasn't had a recent reputation of exaggerating charge times or rates for its plugin cars.

The spreadsheet represents the average of Bjorn's numbers and KmanAuto's numbers, I think.

On Bjorn's video his charging current crosses the 200A level at around 10 kWh of charging in 9 minutes at what the display screen estimates as 55 km or 34 miles. Ninety miles of displaced charge later at 200 km he has since added 31 kWh in 36 minutes at an overall average charge rate of 51-52 kW.

I don't see why the Bolt EV wouldn't be able to keep up close with that charging rate if they allow it a peak rate of 60-65 kW.

Of course, this is all necessarily speculative since we don't know the actual rate and tamper curves of the Bolt or the Model 3 (which could even be a little less than 60 kWh).

I think it's likely the Model 3 with a standard pack at a Supercharger station will charge faster than the Bolt EV at a 200A CCS station under most conditions but the absolute time difference may not be very substantial in real world road trip scenarios.

 

[Jeff N]

Given the cooling design on the Bolt battery pack, I'm concerned that it can't move enough heat to really tolerate high charge c-rates without higher amounts of damage.

The Bolt is only going to be charging at about 1C or less, as far as we know today. The Nissan LEAF charges at 1.5C on a completely passively cooled battery with thermally sensitive cells yet studies showed that cars charged only using DC had only a slightly increased degradation rate compared to AC charged cars. The Bolt has an active liquid cooling system.

We don't know on what scale Chevy is quoting miles. Presumably it is calibrated with their range claims, and if they are quoting UDDS range versus EPA 5 cycle combined versus EPA highway versus 70 or 75 mph steady, it can change a lot.

They have been clear that the 200+ mile claim is EPA combined city/highway. They did not qualify the 90 miles in 30 minutes claim but I see no reason to believe that the 90 miles is on a different test cycle than the 200 mile statement. They also claimed an 80% charge in 60 minutes which is free of any mileage assumptions. Bjorn's car did 80% in 56 minutes.

Since the Bolt has terrible aerodynamics, the real world highway range will substantially differ from the EPA combined rating at a higher degree than a Tesla with terrific aerodynamics.

Mostly true. I wouldn't call the aerodynamics "terrible" as there are plenty of vehicles with worse numbers. The Bolt appears to have about 3-4% greater CdA (8.05 vs. 7.8) compared to the LEAF but those numbers only come from one source (Car&Driver). Certainly, the Model 3 aero will be much better at fast highway speeds.

 

[McRat]

Truth is we really don't know. ... Since the Bolt has terrible aerodynamics, the real world highway range will substantially differ from the EPA combined rating at a higher degree than a Tesla with terrific aerodynamics.

Aero is a funny thing. CdA of a Model S is less than a Volt. But the EPA says freeway MPGe favors the Volt. The hint is in the city MPGe. The Volt is even further ahead. What you are seeing is less losses in other areas. You do not need to win the aero battle if you win the efficiency war.

What the MPGe will be for the Model 3 and the Bolt is unknown. In fact, nobody even knows how long or wide or tall the M3 will be, probably not even Tesla yet. I do not think the M3 on the stage has lower drag than the Model S. Same width and height and shorter length equals more drag.

 

[brucet999]

I do not think the M3 on the stage has lower drag than the Model S. Same width and height and shorter length equals more drag.

Looks to me like the height of M3 is about the same, but both length and width are substantially less than MS

 

[techmaven]

Aero is a funny thing. CdA of a Model S is less than a Volt. But the EPA says freeway MPGe favors the Volt. The hint is in the city MPGe. The Volt is even further ahead. What you are seeing is less losses in other areas. You do not need to win the aero battle if you win the efficiency war.

What the MPGe will be for the Model 3 and the Bolt is unknown. In fact, nobody even knows how long or wide or tall the M3 will be, probably not even Tesla yet. I do not think the M3 on the stage has lower drag than the Model S. Same width and height and shorter length equals more drag.

I do not see an EPA highway MPGe rating for the Volt on DoE's site, so I have to assume the Wikipedia entry is correct. The 2016 Volt gets 99 MPGe highway. The Model S has several variants that beat that, including the 70D at 102, the 85D at 106, and the P85D and P90D are within 1 at 98.

The EPA highway test has an average speed of only ~48 mph. The aero effect would far more pronounced at higher speeds. At 70 or 80 mph, the Model S is far more efficient.

As for the Model 3, Elon Musk is claiming they are hoping for 0.21 Cd. The car is narrower and taller. But assuming the same frontal area as a Model S (unlikely) of 25.2 sq ft, and using 0.22, the resulting CDa is 5.54 sq ft. The Bolt is 8.05, the Leaf is 7.8, and the Model S is 6.2.

You need to win the aero battle if you want to realistically make highway jumps in all kinds of weather on U.S. highways with realistic spacing... 120-140 miles apart. If you don't win the aero battle, have fun driving 60 mph in a 70 mph zone for 2 to 2.5 hours on each jump.

 

[AB4EJ]

When GM sends Bolts to most dealerships, I expect them to sit forgotten in a corner of the dealers lot, just like the Volt and Leaf have at many dealers. Other factors matter a whole lot less. Unless there is some gigantic, magic epiphany between now and when it comes out.

 

[HookBill]

When GM sends Bolts to most dealerships, I expect them to sit forgotten in a corner of the dealers lot, just like the Volt and Leaf have at many dealers. Other factors matter a whole lot less. Unless there is some gigantic, magic epiphany between now and when it comes out.

I suspect GM will spend some big bucks in advertising just before and after it's official arrival. They already know what has happened with Tesla so they will not be casual bystanders. This should draw in a larger than normal group of perspective and inquisitive buyers who simply want to see and touch it live. How long the interest lasts is yet to be determined.

 

[AB4EJ]

I suspect GM will spend some big bucks in advertising just before and after it's official arrival. They already know what has happened with Tesla so they will not be casual bystanders. This should draw in a larger than normal group of perspective and inquisitive buyers who simply want to see and touch it live. How long the interest lasts is yet to be determined.

GM may do that, but if sales reps at the dealerships dis the car to prospective owners (like we have seen at many Nissan and Chevy delaers), they will ensure that it doesn't sell. No, the way for GM to actually sell some of these Bolts would be to offer big incentives to the dealers for selling them, and also insist that sales reps get trained. Otherwise you get the "I don't really know much about 'em," response when you go to dealership to ask about the model. (This is an exact quote from multiple sales reps when asked about the Volt and Leaf). This training needs to include how to give advice on charging, a concept that will be utterly foreign to 95% of sales reps.

 

[HookBill]

GM may do that, but if sales reps at the dealerships dis the car to prospective owners (like we have seen at many Nissan and Chevy delaers), they will ensure that it doesn't sell. No, the way for GM to actually sell some of these Bolts would be to offer big incentives to the dealers for selling them, and also insist that sales reps get trained. Otherwise you get the "I don't really know much about 'em," response when you go to dealership to ask about the model. (This is an exact quote from multiple sales reps when asked about the Volt and Leaf). This training needs to include how to give advice on charging, a concept that will be utterly foreign to 95% of sales reps.

I suspect GM will do a much better job in educating their dealers on the Bolt capabilities and needs. They know they have serious competition now from an EV only company with a huge following so that will not be taken lightly. I am in 100% agreement with you in the importance of the dealerships in not taking the Bolt lightly and if incentives are needed, so be it. What to me will be most interesting is seeing how the product is marketed and how they portray the Bolt from a charging perspective. They have a huge hurdle around long distance charging considering the base model is not equipped with L3 capabilities. The fun for me will be seeing how their advertising and sales staff spin it. We already know Tesla's approach.

 

[Drivin]

I've never understood the "shoot yourself in the foot" method of EV promotion.

It is not about ev promotion.
It is about "tesla is the best, don't dare to doubt, question or compare"
Hail Hydra

 

[Rockster]

Did you read that GM's CEO was knocking the M3 today. He said something along the lines of "GM's balance sheet is in great shape. We don't need you to give us $1000 just to reserve a car."

Uh, exactly why is your balance sheet "in great shape"? Is it because every single taxpayer in America has already given you bailout money, and we don't get anything for it (except, of course, GM's continued, annoying presence).

 

[Jeff N]

Did you read that GM's CEO was knocking the M3 today. He said something along the lines of "GM's balance sheet is in great shape. We don't need you to give us $1000 just to reserve a car."

Uh, exactly why is your balance sheet "in great shape"? Is it because every single taxpayer in America has already given you bailout money, and we don't get anything for it (except, of course, GM's continued, annoying presence).

I think you mean Dan Nicholson, GM's vice president of global propulsion systems. He was giving a keynote speech or something like that at the annual SAE World Congress engineering conference and the media were desperate to write something.

 

[Menifeer]

I suspect GM will spend some big bucks in advertising just before and after it's official arrival. They already know what has happened with Tesla so they will not be casual bystanders. This should draw in a larger than normal group of perspective and inquisitive buyers who simply want to see and touch it live. How long the interest lasts is yet to be determined.

Chevy dealers will have lots of people coming to their showrooms to see the Bolt. The third of a million who already showed interest in EVs by plunking down $1K will likely drop by to see it, even if they don't plan to buy one.

Those people won't show any interest in ICE cars. The dealers will learn that if they want to market to such people, the car will have to be frost-free.

 

[Paul Yager]

You know that fact that Tesla has just had $14 billion dropped in their lap with projected sales of the Model 3 is a game changer. GM will no longer be able to claim to have an advantage of being the "bigger car company" with a resource advantage. Tesla is moving into the big leagues. All Tesla has to do now is deliver. I'm a new customer coming from BMW and Audi and this is the first American car company I've been interested in years. I want them to succeed and now I'm helping! Get me my Model 3 and make me happy!

 

[stopcrazypp]

GM hasn't had a recent reputation of exaggerating charge times or rates for its plugin cars.

The spreadsheet represents the average of Bjorn's numbers and KmanAuto's numbers, I think.

On Bjorn's video his charging current crosses the 200A level at around 10 kWh of charging in 9 minutes at what the display screen estimates as 55 km or 34 miles. Ninety miles of displaced charge later at 200 km he has since added 31 kWh in 36 minutes at an overall average charge rate of 51-52 kW.

I don't see why the Bolt EV wouldn't be able to keep up close with that charging rate if they allow it a peak rate of 60-65 kW.

Of course, this is all necessarily speculative since we don't know the actual rate and tamper curves of the Bolt or the Model 3 (which could even be a little less than 60 kWh).

I think it's likely the Model 3 with a standard pack at a Supercharger station will charge faster than the Bolt EV at a 200A CCS station under most conditions but the absolute time difference may not be very substantial in real world road trip scenarios.

Bjorn's video is drastically slower than KmanAuto's. If I go with Kmanauto's, it doesn't hit 200A until 20 minutes into the charge session with 93 miles. At the 30-40 mile point, it is still at 325A-306A. So I definitely don't agree with your summary going with the data so far.

 

[stopcrazypp]

They have been clear that the 200+ mile claim is EPA combined city/highway.

Actually no journalist was able to get GM to confirm that the 200+ mile claim refers to EPA. I don't think there is any quote from GM that refers to what GM expects EPA to be. They only say it gets 200+ miles in internal testing, but no reference to what cycle they tested on.

They did not qualify the 90 miles in 30 minutes claim but I see no reason to believe that the 90 miles is on a different test cycle than the 200 mile statement. They also claimed an 80% charge in 60 minutes which is free of any mileage assumptions. Bjorn's car did 80% in 56 minutes.

Again, Bjorn's car was extremely slow, this throws a monkey wrench on the assumptions. Kmanauto's 60kWh hits 80% in around 46 minutes.

 

[Zoomit]

Actually no journalist was able to get GM to confirm that the 200+ mile claim refers to EPA. I don't think there is any quote from GM that refers to what GM expects EPA to be. They only say it gets 200+ miles in internal testing, but no reference to what cycle they tested on.

Well, I'm new to this, but I understand the CARB ZEV credits are based on the UDDS cycle, and 200+ miles is where the Type IV cutoff happens for the additional credit. The credits are where the money is made so that would be the actual design objective.

 

[Jeff N]

Again, Bjorn's car was extremely slow, this throws a monkey wrench on the assumptions. Kmanauto's 60kWh hits 80% in around 46 minutes.

But KmanAuto mentions that this was his fastest charge ever and is under "ideal" conditions. I don't have my own S60 so I can't speak to which is more realistic.