-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Would you consider a Bolt?
- Thread starter Autonerd
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
To a degree, sure; but as the Tesla population grows the marginal cost of the network drops rapidly. The real subsidy accrues from only building 200+ mile cars. This increases the spacing and keeps the locals charging at home.
In retrospect, it is a very smart and subtle plan.
Which BEV on the market during the first 12 months of Bolt EV sales is likely to have better performance and/or EPA range at a lower cost? Model 3 if they keep to their schedule and GM doesn't slip theirs. Anyone else?
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
If the only performance metric is AER, none. However, that's not what I was discussing. The Volt, for the Avg. driver, handles all of their daily commute at 100% AER, and then can be taken on a road trip, anywhere. That is a performance metric. There are other PHEVs coming on the market that will have similar performance.
Then there is the Leaf. For a daily commute it can handle the majority of Americans travel on a single charge. It's not as practical as the Bolt to take on longer trips, but then the Bolt isn't particularly practical either. However, the Leaf is currently being sold for at least 10k less than the Bolt is set to launch at. Pretty significant factor, if you don't actually need more than the Leaf's range...as the majority of Americans don't.
Even if we consider the Bolt having 200 miles, allowing greater long distance than current competitors, you have the fact that GM went with a tall vehicle, which has more cargo room (which you rightly point out as a positive), unfortunately this becomes a disadvantage at Hwy speed. The Bolt will undoubtedly get considerably less range at a sustained 65-70mph...and as we've discussed the CCS network isn't particularly fleshed out...and certainly CCS 2.0 is non-existent.
So, for the Bolt to be appealing you basically have to ignore that it costs more, but will return similar functionality as competing vehicles (For the Avg. US driver), or you have to prioritize vertical cargo space above anything else.
I understand that the Bolt works for you, you make a good case for your own use. However, your use is atypical of American drivers, or at least, it's not how the majority of people use their vehicles.
Actually, no, it's not. I have the J1772 standards document, last revised Feb 2016. It does not have any plug standard that supports > 200A. It states, electrical rating, DC Level 2, 50-500, max current is 200 amps. It does have protocols to negotiate higher charge rates, but not the actual plug standard. So its theoretical to negotiate higher rates until the plug standards are ratified. Even if it is very, very similar. Until the SAE vote takes place, no one can ship products based on it, not for real anyways. It's a bit of a different animal than the 802.11 draft standards that people implemented before the final standard was in place. No way people are going to stand for hooking up 100+ kW EVSE's with draft standards.
Huh? How is going from CCS 1.0 to CCS 2.0 any different from Tesla updating their Superchargers and Model S battery pack revisions to go from 90 kW to ~120 kW and perhaps more later on? Both changes are compatible. There was no requirement that mandated changes to equipment that was already installed. Old chargers work on newer cars and newer cars work on old chargers with the same physical plug design.
Some charging providers like EVgo have announced plans to upgrade some sites to newer hardware but mostly we will just see newer stations installed in addition to what is already out in the field.
In California we already see the big utilities like Southern California Edison and PG&E applying for permission to install tens of thousands of new public charging stations at shopping areas and workplaces. The unstated reason is that they need EVs to suck up all of the rapidly expanding daytime solar power being added to meet aggressive renewable energy grid mix standards. CA law requires 33% renewable electricity in 2020 and 50% in 2030. I fully expect these utilities to apply to install interstate CCS charging stations in CA if nobody else steps up in a big way.
Correct, CCS 2.0 will specify faster charging rates. It isn't finished yet and any discussions about it are clearly speculative. However, based on compatibility statements at the CharIn website and public materials made available by CharIn members it appears likely to me that they will retain the existing physical connection design, add official support for higher amperage negotiation based on liquid cooling of the cable and plug, and perhaps increase the negotiable upper voltage range from 500V to near 1,000V. We shall see. I do not expect the Bolt EV to initially support anything beyond the existing CCS 1.0 standard.
I thought we were discussing BEVs. I also assumed performance meant acceleration. The only car that I'm aware of right now that might possibly exceed AER and acceleration performance of the Bolt EV during its first 12 months of sales would be the Model 3 if it were to become available during that timeframe.
Those maps are so 2015... If you compare today's online PlugShare CCS map to that old CCS map from that October 2015 article based on the most recent previous quarterly database snapshot from PlugShare you will see a lot of new CCS sites added since then.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
I mentioned PHEVs, though it was an edit before you responded. The Bolt isn't fast enough for people to care about it being 1 second faster than a cheaper vehicle, IMHO.
I'm actually not that down on GM. My family bought GM vehicles pretty much exclusively from 1929 (my grandfather) until the late 90s. The 1992 Buick I bought new is still going strong and it's been a great car. It's just I need a good road trip car and I don't feel comfortable taking long road trips with a car that old.
The only car anyone in my family ever had any problems with was a 1960 Chevy my parents had. After servicing the car the mechanic forgot to refill the radiator and my mother set her sunglasses case in front of the idiot light and she drove around a while with no coolant. It cracked the block. That was not a manufacturing defect.
I know a lot of other people have had problems with GM cars, but our personal experience is good.
However, I'm not impressed by the Bolt. Even if the manufacturing quality is first rate, it's way behind Tesla in design features as many have noted in this thread.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I cannot think of an 'American' built car in my extended family; Tesla is bucking the trend here.
My issues with GM though are with the company and not the nationality
- Destruction of the American trolley system
- 100+ years of industrial pollution they dump on society, the most recent after their BK
- FUD and lies to obstruct hybrid adoption
- Political lobbying against CAFE, CARB, safety, Tesla and climate change
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Actually it is not that simple. The move from 90kW to 120kW only required a relatively small current bump. Even so, the equipment actually needed to be changed on both ends to support the 120kW (see threads about "A" battery packs and also those discussing 120kW rated superchargers). Both sides were backwards compatible however when running at 90kW.
The move from CCS 1.0 to 2.0 however is a bump from 100kW to 350kW which will likely involve a voltage bump to 800V from 500V. That means the new 800V cars can't be charged on CCS 1.0 chargers (since they support only up to 500V). Unlike current spec changes (as in Tesla case), a lower voltage is not able to charge the EV. Automakers might use a stopgap in the meantime for backwards compatibility (reconfiguring the pack to half voltage using contactors in the pack), but eventually the CCS 1.0 chargers will need to be swapped out.
That's not just a CCS problem. Tesla faces the same transition since they will want higher rates with bigger packs (and to stay competitive) and doubling the current may be more clumsy and expensive than doubling the voltage. It will be interesting to see how it is handled. As far as I know, a move up to 800V does not necessarily imply a need to change the physical connector design. As best as I understand it, the CCS 2.0 spec will officially allow negotiating over 200A and negotiating a higher voltage range (or both). The first commercial impact may be charging stations and cars that stick with 400V but allow for higher currents. On the other hand, the Audi/Porsche cars said to be capable of "150 kW" may be assuming 800V at just under 200A.
My present theory is that today's 350-400V setup will stay with us for many years more. Lots of electronics and pumps, heating systems, DC-DC converters, etc. are available from auto parts suppliers now for relatively cheap cost. Redesigning them all to work at 800V while keeping parts costs down will take time. More ordinary BEVs won't need to transition or see much benefit from transitioning right away. If only expensive low volume cars switch to 800V for the next 5-10 years then there is little incentive to install special 800V chargers in most places.
On the other hand, with relatively few chargers now compared to the future it makes sense to switch now and get it over with before we install lots of "obsolete" equipment.
Probably we will see some ultrafast DC chargers mixed in with fast DC chargers at charging sites during a transition period of years.
Last edited:
Since the turn of the century my family moved away from GM too. My father and sister drive Fords now.
There weren't many people who knew who was behind the destruction for the trolley system many years ago but I grew up with the stories, though they made a veiled reference to it in Who Framed Rodger Rabbit. I laughed at it and everyone around me in the theater looked at me. They had no clue why I found it funny. Despite GM's involvement my father stayed loyal to GM.
Most older American companies are run by bean counters and GM is no exception. The Roger Smith era at GM was when the bean counters really started messing up the mix. They did some very bad moves like the destruction of the EV1 fleet, the Hummer, poor labor relations and generally poor management crippled the company so they eventually went bankrupt. There is an episode of "This American Life" that covers the NUMMI plant before it became the Tesla plant and GM's struggles to change it's culture before it was too late.
They also haven't exactly won me back with their attempts to obstruct Tesla at every turn. I know car dealers don't like Tesla's sales model, but it's time for the old model to go away and GM is the biggest corporate obstructionist to that evolution.
So yes, I'm not thrilled with GM corporate these days either. I was mostly just talking about the quality of their cars which these is overall decent these days and historically has been good for my family. A company run by jerks can make a good product.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yes, a voltage bump may not necessarily require a connector redesign (although the actual wiring may need to be swapped out to support enough insulation for 800V). However, Tesla is less affected by CCS because Tesla has more current capacity already with their standard since Tesla is already charging at 370A, while CCS 1.0 is stuck at 200A. It really depends on how CCS 2.0 is implemented (they are silent on specs other than 350kW max; although some hints can be taken from German makes announcing 800V cars).
My dad is a GM loyalist. We had a series of Chevys, Buicks and Cadillacs from the early 60s on. At this point he is only one left driving a GM as the rest of the family couldn't stand the crappy & inconsistent products they put out. To GM's credit Dad's 2014 Cadillac XTS is a lot nicer but making it front wheel drive standard was just another stupid stupid decision in a long history of stupid decisions.
Breezy
Member
I have no brand loyalty whatsoever. The Volt was my first and possibly my last GM product. Who knows what will be next.
Neither do I. All that really matters is that the car is produced by a U.S. company.
It is actually a race for me...seeing whether a used Model S60/85 with rear facing seats with CPO warranty will reach the ~$40k price point before the Bolt EV is released. I figure a Bolt EV spec'ed the way I want will be at least $40k, so while waiting for it, if a used Model S with RFS pops up for around the same amount, I may very well just pick up a used S instead .The ability to fit up to 7 (5 + 2 kids) is definitely a plus.
If no CPO S with RFS comes out before the Bolt, I'll likely just get a Bolt then,
How was the quality of the 60's VW/MB/BMW? Oh right. They sucked AND OEM parts were crazy expensive. Or did you forget that? The Japanese stuff was trash in the 1960's but at least they were cheap enough to abandon when they broke.
Cadillac today makes very powerful, eurokiller sedans that handle far better with better build quality than the euros. Live with it. A CTS-V would make you crap yourself with the babysitters off on a racetrack. Yeah, they can exceed 200mph.
But we do not buy them. We "claim" we want certain cars (like coupes and verts) but we don't actually buy them. We would rather have a car that "looks" fast than is actually fast.
We want color choices, but Black and White still dominate what we buy.
You don't buy GM's most likely because of image. You are afraid to buy cars based on how they feel, you need to buy them based on how other people feel. Which is fine, because that's how most cars are sold.
Similar threads
