JeffK
Well-Known Member
GM was nearly halfway to the 200,000 cut off before this year. They sell a lower volume of EVs per year than Tesla so I'd estimate GM will hit the 200,000 mark around the time Model 3 starts finding its way on to the streets.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt
- Thread starter pjfranks1509
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model 3
GM was nearly halfway to the 200,000 cut off before this year. They sell a lower volume of EVs per year than Tesla so I'd estimate GM will hit the 200,000 mark around the time Model 3 starts finding its way on to the streets.
@pj- (I don't work for GM or any automanu. I'm a programmer and investor.
Several things you completely overlook-
Price:
Bolt will have fed and state incentives-depends which state you're in and what options you feel are mandatory for a Tesla for your needs.
Bolt doesn't have SC fee-more than likely most Tesla purchasers will buy it. That will add about 2k or 2.5k. So now you're at the same price just with that one option which weights heavily on the charging segment you mention. Big no no. I go with Bolt here.
Range: How far do you drive on your average day? The average person drives 15000m/yr. divide that by 365-you get 41m/day. And if you just do work days...64m /day. So this car works perfectly for everyone doing any average driving. This point is mute or null. 200 miles/day is plenty for nearly all for every day driving. No winner here.
Tech: Well if you care about cowbells-yeah Tesla will have those/autopilot more money which kills your price point again.
This is very iffy but I think Tesla just edges out Bolt here in the base model.
Performance: If you care about how fast you can pull out or your top speed - Tesla will be faster/quicker off the line but most cars can't do 0-60 under 7 seconds. You don't get much safety of going from 6.5 seconds to 5.6 seconds in reality. You save yourself about 15 feet in distance with that time. Big whoopie. Now if you opted for p70l model then yeah 3 second is a lot faster but why do you really need it other than to look cool? Put the ego away for safety sake. Tesla is a winner only if you pick up a higher priced model.
Look-Tesla is better looking appealing by far. Yes, I agree with you big time there. GM should be ashamed of that Bolt design. However, if you want a hatchback-Bolt is your car.
Charging: Ungghhh. $$$$$ and time time time time. How much you get paid an hour or how valuable you think your free time is is the validator of this topic. It also depends on how far your commute is and where you live.
Just showing your post has huge holes and mine isn't complete either. Like me-judging this is personal and not a judge for everyone.
Several things you completely overlook-
Price:
Bolt will have fed and state incentives-depends which state you're in and what options you feel are mandatory for a Tesla for your needs.
Bolt doesn't have SC fee-more than likely most Tesla purchasers will buy it. That will add about 2k or 2.5k. So now you're at the same price just with that one option which weights heavily on the charging segment you mention. Big no no. I go with Bolt here.
Range: How far do you drive on your average day? The average person drives 15000m/yr. divide that by 365-you get 41m/day. And if you just do work days...64m /day. So this car works perfectly for everyone doing any average driving. This point is mute or null. 200 miles/day is plenty for nearly all for every day driving. No winner here.
Tech: Well if you care about cowbells-yeah Tesla will have those/autopilot more money which kills your price point again.
This is very iffy but I think Tesla just edges out Bolt here in the base model.
Performance: If you care about how fast you can pull out or your top speed - Tesla will be faster/quicker off the line but most cars can't do 0-60 under 7 seconds. You don't get much safety of going from 6.5 seconds to 5.6 seconds in reality. You save yourself about 15 feet in distance with that time. Big whoopie. Now if you opted for p70l model then yeah 3 second is a lot faster but why do you really need it other than to look cool? Put the ego away for safety sake. Tesla is a winner only if you pick up a higher priced model.
Look-Tesla is better looking appealing by far. Yes, I agree with you big time there. GM should be ashamed of that Bolt design. However, if you want a hatchback-Bolt is your car.
Charging: Ungghhh. $$$$$ and time time time time. How much you get paid an hour or how valuable you think your free time is is the validator of this topic. It also depends on how far your commute is and where you live.
Just showing your post has huge holes and mine isn't complete either. Like me-judging this is personal and not a judge for everyone.
As far as I know, DC fast charging will be an option on the Bolt, so you will have to pay extra for the CCS connector.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
As far as I'm aware, the Bolt won't have active safety features on the base model, and having the hardware for full-autopilot is a HUGE plus for anyone buying the Model 3. You can always add auto-pilot, and that ability will help with residual value at selling time.
Most $37,500 vehicles can go 0-60 faster than 7 seconds...
DC fast charging isn't what I was referring to. Most of us charge up at home. Only at home.
And no-most cars at 37500 don't do under 7 seconds. Toyota camry, prius, honda accord-no they don't do 7 seconds. If you jump to 45k-yes most of them do. Autopilot costs an extra 2.5k or thereabouts. So if you add sc and autopilot and dual motor you're looking at about 10g's more for the Tesla. Not a fair comparison.
And no-most cars at 37500 don't do under 7 seconds. Toyota camry, prius, honda accord-no they don't do 7 seconds. If you jump to 45k-yes most of them do. Autopilot costs an extra 2.5k or thereabouts. So if you add sc and autopilot and dual motor you're looking at about 10g's more for the Tesla. Not a fair comparison.
Truth? Most $40k vehicles will not out punch a 8.x second EV in traffic where it matters. Sub 7 second power is enough to merge onto a 70mph freeway with a short ramp. A 4 second car will hit over 90 mph merging on short uphill ramp with a lot of tire smoke and squealing. A 3 second car will normally have traction issues and if not, will hit 120+ mph when merging into traffic.
But a "low powered" EV will nearly always jump gas cars in traffic. A 1 second lag changes everything, which is not a lot with automatic gas cars, and would be excellent for turbo car.
While this thread is for comparing the Model 3 with the Chevy Bolt EV, I will suggest the Chevy Volt is the only competition. None of the 200+ mile EVs have a fast charging network to facilitate longer trips, but the Chevy Volt makes long trips easy, and still operates as an EV for daily driving.
GSP
PS. Not my idea really, but a good suggestion from "the 8-bit guy" in this nice review of the gen 2 Volt:
GSP
PS. Not my idea really, but a good suggestion from "the 8-bit guy" in this nice review of the gen 2 Volt:
WileyTheMan
Peanut Gallery Member
Like you alluded to, its all based on personal preference with the validity of these categories. So here's my incoming opinions.
I would counter-argue that the Range category is important for another reason: Easing range anxiety. Certainly its perception-based, but very important to the consumer who is used to the liquid-fuel filling process and needs to change their way of thinking. Also, performance is not just speed. Tesla is also known for handling, which clearly by just looking at the M3 protos, they will handle as good if not better, than other entry-level luxury sedans. Not to mention compact designs like the Bolt. And speed is so much about ego. Let's not discount that. All things being equal (price included), I guarantee you the average buyer would opt for the faster car, just because its faster. I usually laugh when people try to justify it by saying "I can avoid accidents better if I could go faster!"
Yeah, the Bolt won't have a lack of power given the target market. With 200 hp, but more importantly 266 lb-ft of of instant torque, the Bolt will likely be the quickest around town vehicle that many of its owners have ever owned. But given the way electric motors work, likely the Bolt behaves like an 8+ second ICE at 60+ mph, and a 5-6 second ICE under 30 mph.
UnbeknownstToAll
Member
UnbeknownstToAll
Member
No, being indicted would be more embarrassing. It's not legal everywhere to enter an automotive purchase contract with a manufacturer, or to sell a car without a dollar and cents legally binding agreement.
Your post sums up exactly how I feel on this topic and is why the Bolt is my premiere Plan B option right now should I cancel my Model 3 reservation. The reality is that they are not competing anywhere near each other. The Tesla is geared as a luxury car while the Bolt is geared towards being an affordable EV. It is very likely the Bolt will offer far better value for the money when you start adding options. That is because Tesla made it clear they are chasing the BMW 3 series and thus will result in German car like options pricing where adding some options could easily double the price of the car. I do not see the Bolt costing more than $42-43k fully loaded with everything. The big advantage the Bolt has is that Chevy is technically trying to class it as a crossover vehicle and that means it will be far more usable with the hatch + fold down seats.
In a way, the Volt has no real competition except the BMW i3 REx. The Volt and the i3 REx are the only 2 cars sold that can go anywhere in North America (well, there are SOME areas you'd need a gas can for the i3 REx) yet still have an all-electric range longer than what most commuters require. They are the only untethered "EVs" in existence, but the i3 REx is in a different price segment and has a very poorly thought out range extending system.
The Volt remains today as the most practical EV for sale, going on 6 years.
Don't be too surprised if GM delivers a 2017 Bolt to showrooms that becomes the most practical BEV of all time.
Chevrolet in ingrained with the Corvette Syndrome today:
Chevy makes a sports car, so what do they engineer it to be?
1) It doesn't have the fastest top speed, but it's near the top.
2) It doesn't have the most HP, but it's near the top.
3) It doesn't have the best mileage, but it's near the top.
4) It doesn't have the best handling, but it's near the top.
5) It isn't the cheapest, but it's close.
6) It isn't the most technologically advanced, but it's near the top.
7) It isn't the most reliable, but it's near the top.
The Corvette Syndrome has filtered throughout GM for last 20 years. They want to make the best cars via the balanced approach. They don't have to be the #1 in any category, they need to be top shelf in all categories.
Like the Volt, expect the Bolt to have the balanced approach.
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Funny.
Here is a car that has little cargo space to be a useful long distance driver. It is too low for vast majority of Americans above a certain age to easily ingress/egress - the same age group that has the means needed to buy the car.
Infact, it is so practical, it barely outsold over the last 6 years a 84 mile range EV with battery issues. That too only because Nissan messed up 2016 release and pricing.
Wake me up when GM does something more sensible - like putting Voltec into a CUV.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Yes. The metric he used was 0-60, and it's true that most $40k vehicles of similar size will do so faster than 7 seconds.
Last edited:
JeffK
Well-Known Member
CoastalCruiser
Member
If the M3 was not coming to market then I might not be too surprised. As it stands, I would be a surprised.
And, there are unknown variables in the equation, so who knows? It will be fun to revisit these threads in 3 years.
Personally, the M3 looks the best for me. If there was no M3 I would be all over the Bolt. If I didn't have a 150 mile round trip commute I would have been all over the Volt the past few years. 95% of my reason for buying an EV is range (the % incorporates the joy of no longer being a gas slave). Aside from charging network all else, for me, is bells and whistles (not cow bells.. that's a touch pejorative, and I suspect I will fall in love with the bells once I have them).
Cheers
Last edited:
Yeah, I agree.. GM is doing this from a compliance perspective, not from decent product planning perspective. Vehicles with inherent poor aerodynamics will likely stay PHEV at major automakers for longer... and vehicles that are inherently easier to make aerodynamic should be BEVs sooner. So it would make more sense that the Volt should be the BEV, the Bolt should be the PHEV.
However, electric drivetrains are expensive still.. so the natural fit is more upmarket vehicles. Adding $12,000 to a $24,000 vehicle doesn't make as much sense, especially since the Bolt adapts the Gamma platform which underpins stellar vehicles like the Chevy Trax, Spark and Sonic. With the failure of the ELR and the upcoming electrification being inevitable at the point, they should be looking at making a GM Alpha BEV platform that underpins the ATS, CTS, and Camaro. That would be the sign that GM really gets electrification and is willing to really go there. Instead, the Bolt is basically a reaction to the i3, the Leaf, and the Prius, and a limited extent, to the Tesla owners that upgraded from a Prius.
BTW, this Buick Avista concept is based on the Alpha platform (Camaro):
This vehicle would make much more sense to be a full on BEV using those LG Chem cells, the upcoming CCS v2 plug, and command a price premium using a Cadillac brand name. With just a 60 kWh pack discharging at 4C, it would get 320 horsepower. At 6C, that's 360 hp and don't forget, instant torque well over 400 lb-ft. Probably shouldn't recycle the ELR name though. A Chevy Camaro starts at just under $30k, the ATS Coupe costs $38k, and adding $20k to the drivetrain for a vehicle that looks like the above... well, GM can easily ask $50-60k starting price for it. However, it would mean full on commitment to BEVs, including solving all the chicken and egg problems that Tesla is tackling... worldwide charging network, battery cell production, etc.
After establishing that, they can then look downmarket at Chevy for a BEV.
Last edited:
Similar threads
