2017 Chevrolet Bolt Fine Print


2017 Chevrolet Bolt Website

2017 Chevrolet Bolt Website

Concurrent with yesterday’s 2017 Chevrolet Bolt unveiling at CES 2016, General Motors updated the Bolt EV website.

New information has been posted to the site and we now get a look at the fine print for range, MSRP and charging time.

Usually, the fine print hides all sorts of disclaimers, but that’s not the case with the 2017 Bolt.

2017 Bolt Price, Range & Availability

2017 Bolt Price, Range & Availability

2017 Bolt Charging Time

2017 Bolt Charging Time

Above we see range, price and charging time, but not there’s a few small numbers which point us to the fine print. Here’s the fine print:

2017 Bolt Fine Print /Disclaimers

2017 Bolt Fine Print /Disclaimers

The most revealing info is the charge time – 9 hours at 32-amps (7.7 kW). Definitely helps us narrow down our battery capacity guesses.

Additionally, 9 hours at 25 miles of range added per hour would work out to 225 miles of range (not allowing for a taper), which seems to be the approximate figure General Motors is shooting for in saying more than 200 miles of range.

Furthermore, if you listen to Bolt product manager Darin Gesse explain range here, the indication seems to be that, in moderate temps, the Bolt will achieve well over 200 miles on a single charge.

Head on over to the updated Bolt site for more info on Chevrolet’s newest electric car.

Categories: Chevrolet


Leave a Reply

128 Comments on "2017 Chevrolet Bolt Fine Print"

newest oldest most voted

Anything less than 60 kWh (at least total capacity) would be a surprise. Am i reading it right?

Yes, it seems like 60 minimum for total capacity.

Looks like there are 4 sub-packs in the floor, so maybe 15kWh per pack?

18.4 kWh x 4 = 73.6 kWh

Figure GM is using a 15% buffer, that would leave us with 62.56 kWh useable.

Let’s say the Bolt is rated for 225 miles…that would mean 3.6 miles/kWh before factoring charging losses.

The 2011 Volt had a range of 35 miles and ~10 kWh useable, which = 3.5 miles/kWh

Gen 2 Volt has ~14.4 useable and 53 mile range, so about 3.68 miles/kWh

Considering the Bolt sits higher than the Volt, it’s conceivable that the miles/kWh would be slightly less than the Volt’s number….so 3.6 miles/kWh could be fairly accurate.

Along with the ~73 kWh pack size and ~63 kWh useable guesstimates.

Also, while a 73 kWh pack sounds absurdly huge (and expensive), we know GM is paying $145/kWh, so the total PACK cost (excluding cooling and packaging and whatnot) would be a little over $10k. Assuming a MSRP of 37.5k, that’s still probably $20-25k to build the rest of the car, once you account for the rest of the battery pack costs.

They won’t make much money on it, is what you are saying, and I agree.

Nice work bro. Looking at your math, it is hard to imagine it could come with anything but what you posted.

No. 70, or greater, if it can take 7.7kw X 9 hours, and have ordinary limits with respect to maximum charge and discharge.

The fine print provided “240v”, within the context of “9hrs” and “32 amps”. That’s where it looks like they are copying the i3’s charge rate (240(32)).

At 150hp, this battery’s output will be restricted in a way that might help Bolt achieve the implied 225/69.3 = 3.25 mile per kwh efficiency. That would be good for about 108 MPGe (in comparison to Tesla/BMW).

Reading comments below, lets not forget GM only allowed a 65% charge window, when the Volt came out. EV’s get more, and batteries are improving, but you can’t neglect those 9 hours are only addressing the “charge window”, and not the battery’s full size. i3, for instance, loads about 18kwh, of its total ~22kwh capacity.

I didn’t discount my estimate for charge losses, or taper, but still think we are looking at a higher number.

Does anyone know the buffer % for the Spark EV? That would probably give us a rough idea of the buffer % for the Bolt as well, give or take a few % points.

SparkEV 140 miles at 7.3 mi/kWh = 19 kWh. Out of 21kWh battery = 90%


But there’s no guarantee Bolt will be the same.

Ditto !

9 hours at 7.7kW would be almost 70 kWh. Of course the charging process isn’t 100% efficient, but the battery also won’t charge to 100%. So I would even guess around 70 kWh, limited to around 63. Thats a Tesla sized battery, in a compact car.

” … a Tesla sized battery, in a compact car.”

Now we’re talking my language. And if it starts at $37500 (give or take), I think even late adopters will find this car appealing.

There’s not just efficiency loss, but the battery won’t charge at 32A when it’s approaching a full charge. So I think our estimates will be rather high on capacity if we go by charge rate and time to full charge without adjusting for these factors.

The last hour or two will taper even at a “slow” 7.7 kW charge rate.

Nissan LEAF S, for example, has a 3.6 kW onboard charger (OBC), charges a 24 kWh with battery with 22 kWh available. Nissan claims 8 hours for this case.

Clearly the capacity for the car isn’t as simple as 3.6 * 8 = 29 kWh. Instead, the last hour is typically balancing, and charging the car is about 90% efficient.

That gives 3.6 kW (AC) * 0.9 * (8-1) = 22.7 kWh.

A similar calculation for the Bolt gives 7.7 kW (AC) * 0.9 * (9-1) = 55 kWh available, and around 60 kWh total capacity.

about 10% charger loses, plus last hour would put about half charge, so 7kW * 8,5h ~=60kWh


Should mean some second hand deals starting to appear as soon as 2020 if Chevrolet sell some of them in EU.

60 kWh ?

That’s what it seems like. 240v*32A*9hours/1000= 69kWh * 90% (line and AC/DC conversion losses)= 62kWh

Charge load drops over time, so the simple math doesn’t work. 60kWh is probably more likely for the usable.

don’t forget that they’ll keep a 15% to 20% reserve for battery life so actual battery is likely 62KWH / .85 = 72KWH

What about energy density improvements to LG’s batteries ?

That makes no difference re capacity; it just means the battery pack can be smaller and lighter.

But what does make a difference is that LG Chem said their new batteries can use a bigger DoD (Depth of Discharge). So figure the Bolt will use more of its full capacity right from the start.

Bottom line: The battery pack’s capacity will almost certainly be lower than what everyone here is estimating.

With all they put in that car, a smaller battery will do it.
It’ in the 55 to 60 kWh range and might even be on the low side of that.

Don’t forget that the higher-rate L2 slows down quite a bit towards the end… so I wouldn’t just multiply 25 miles by 9.

Yes, the first hour gets the 25 miles while the last may be like 18 miles. I’m guessing it gets an EPA of 205 miles..

It depends on the battery and car. The Kia Soul EV will charge at 6+ kw until 100%, then drops to 0 kw. At least within the 5 minute Chargepoint reporting interval, I haven’t seen any intermediate charge rate.

Bigger battery means less tapering especially at the low 7 kW rate. Maybe less reserve capacity as well.

“Don’t forget that the higher-rate L2 slows down quite a bit towards the end… so I wouldn’t just multiply 25 miles by 9.”

You can multiple it by 8 with no problem. =)

That is at least 200 miles.

The tapering on L2 speed doesn’t happen until the 90% or higher mark which would be well past 8 hours.

L2 is almost “trickle” charging for larger Lithium ion batteries.

The boilerplate fine print for the 2017 Bolt is too funny.

***The Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price excludes tax, title, license, dealer’s fees, and optional equipment. Includes destination freight charge and gas guzzler tax.


Copy/paste error I hope?


It is text approved by legal department. PR worker who changed that would get their head chewed off if they changed it on their own.

Companies need to be THAT inflexible when labeling their stuff in potential advertisements in US.

As background: the Federal “gas guzzler tax” dates back to 1978 and applies to passenger cars that get less than 22.5 MPG. Trucks and SUVs are not subject to that tax.

The footnotes section includes single-asterisk and triple-asterisk definitions of MSRP, but there are no single-asterisk or triple-asterisk claims of MSRP elsewhere on the web page.

That strongly suggests that those lines are boilerplate for the website. They also appear on other product webpages, including the page for the 16-MPG Camaro SS.

The numbered footnotes are all correct.

Nope, przemo_li is correct. Routine/standard terms in a legal contract, which aren’t always applicable, are referred to as boilerplate.


n., adj. slang for provisions in a contract, form or legal pleading which are apparently routine and often preprinted. The term comes from an old method of printing. Today “boilerplate” is commonly stored in computer memory to be retrieved and copied when needed. A layperson should beware that the party supplying the boilerplate form usually has developed supposedly “standard” terms (some of which may not apply to every situation) to favor and/or protect the provider.


+1. Very funny. Nice catch.

I’m glad somebody else spotted this too… I wonder if you can negotiate a lower price on the vehicle by saying you refuse to pay the gas guzzler tax on the grounds that you don’t need gas…

It reminds me of all the Oil change offers I got from my local Nissan Service Center for my Leaf.

I told them I thought $19.99 was a ripoff to change the engine oil in the Leaf. lol

When does the taper kick in with L2 charging? 90% of capacity? Does it kick in earlier with DCFC or Chademo chargers, at around 80%?
Because being able to charge from a depleted 20% to 90% at a near full charge rate of 50 kW would be very nice for road tripping. That would mean you could pull in with 40 miles of range and pull out with 180 miles of usable AER in less than an hour.

Assuming they have a decent buffer in their battery capacity like the Volt, the majority of the charge time should be “full rate” with limited taper.

My question is where did the author get the idea it is 7.7 kw? After all, IEVS guessed 6.6 kw initially, when I was told it would be 7.2 kw. I guessed 30 amps, but then it was revealed the limit will be 32 amps.

Since GM uses ‘240 volts’ generically to mean anything north of 185 volts, I wouldn’t think you could take the ‘240 @ 32’ too literally, unless of course the charger manufacturer (LG?) tells you. If it is indeed 7.2 kw then that probably means you only need 225 volts to get the full rate.

Of course, without hard info this is just conjecture, and there have been many cases of even the manufacturer’s literature being wrong: 1). Nothing VIA says ever makes sense, and they keep changing what they say. 2). BMW was confused with the I3, thinking that the 3-phase 400 volt charger was going to be the same as the single-phase 240 used in NA and the UK. So, for sake of argument, lets assume you can go a little more than 32 amps – after all, the brouchure only stated that was the charging speed at that current, it didn’t say it was the absolute maximum, necessarily, although, it could be. The Leviton 400 or the larger CC’s that can go to 40 amps would be interesting here, to see 2 facts left out of the brouchure: 1). What is the maximum power level ? 6.6 kw as IEVS initially guessed, 7.7 Kw as the author here is assuming, or 7.2 kw as I was told by my source. 2). What is the maximum current drawn assuming the source is ‘voltage starved’ as in most public locations. The Nissan Leafs in all models draw rated power down to the 200 volt… Read more »

Whether 6.6 or 7.2 I don’t care. I’m just glad they didn’t cheap out like on the Spark EV and Volt 2.0.

Of course, but it would be handy information for those buyers also in the market for an EVSE for their garage. Assuming they want to charge the fastest, and assuming they know what their voltage at the unit will be under load, the added info would tell them whether they would get full charge with a cheap 30 amp EVSE as shown in Chevy’s picture (Chinese Bosch), or whether they need a CC or Leviton 32 amp unit, or whether they need a Leviton 400 (40 amp unit) to get full power, depending on the voltage at the proposed charge siting.

They state a 32 amp EVSE Bill.

My guess is, like the Volt, it doesn’t matter if the car is getting 240V or 200V, the CAR will not allow more than 32A. So have a good working voltage to get the full kW rate advertised. 😉

I just said that… But that is the buyer’s choice. And the one they show in the ad is a 30 amp Bosch. But evses are optional extras not included with the car.

Unless you can find verbage elaborating more than I just did. I think I’ve covered all eventualities.

I’m surprised you said that – “…like the Volt, it doesn’t matter if the car is getting 240V or 200V…”

It sure does matter. GEN 1 GM’s don’t charge at full power unless the voltage is at least 220. (15 amp limitation). Over 220 and the current decreases to match 3300 watts.

The current doesn’t decrease. Rather, it doesn’t INCREASE to maintain the same wattage with a lower voltage.

Re-read what I said, you quoted me but ignored the second half of the sentence. We are saying the same thing.

1). We’re not saying the same thing.

a). of course the current decreases – my volt draws 13 3/4 amps at 3300 watts unless the voltage drops. Then the current goes up.

2). Where in any official documentation or press releases does it say they limit the current to 32 amps? They say the specs are taken with a 32 amp evse, presumably at 240 volts, but thats just a presumption – it could be the limitation – but I don’t see where it said is was. I know that 15 amps is the limitation on GEN 1’s because I’ve tested for it, but I can’t find any official documentation for that fact, other than the j1772 connector is ‘certified’ for it. It is unlabeled on the new volt.

3). Where does it say what the maximum power the charger will draw is? I haven’t seen that mentioned other than my source says its 7.2 kw. But I’ve seen nothing in print other than guesswork.

It is current limited because it’s a safety requirement.
It will take over a large voltage drop, but will never draw more than 32 amps because this is the only thing that residential circuit protection is capable of limiting.
The charger will do better with a normal 240 voltage but could go down to 200 or less, it will just tamper the available power while leaving existing protection valid.


Good grief. Yes, we’re saying the same thing. You’re just not re-reading what I asked you to read.

I was pointing out that, with lower voltage, the Volt pegs at 15A, and the current will not INCREASE (unlike the Leaf) to compensate for lower voltage. Decreasing Voltage would require INCREASING current to maintain the power into the battery. Again, we’re saying the same thing, we just are stating it differently. So yes, we are saying the same thing about the Volt!!!

And I was extrapolating the same assumption that the Bolt would do the this too. In other words, wth a lower voltage you won’t get more than 32A of current drawn from the vehicle. It is only a guess.

As for the Bolt’s specification, it’s on the Chevy website for the Volt; the fine print says their charging times/rates assume a 32-amp charge level.

Fine print on the BOLT website (not Volt website)…


Way at the bottom:
7 When using a 32-amp charge level. Based on outside temperature.

Djoni – that’s incorrect.

32 amps is not a magical number in North America as it is in Europe, and 200 or 240 volt systems are not necessarily due to pressure drop, but the fact they are different systems. (NA has a multiplicity of systems. unlike Continental Europe which as far as I can gather has only 1, and the UK, which has only 2 with it masquerading as 1.).

I’m not talking about safety, I’m asking for the simple rating of the equipments, which GM never gives full specifications.. In fact if similar lack of info had been released with the old volt or ampera, people would say:

“Its 240 volts and it takes a 15 amp EVSE (Voltec) so then it just has to be 3.6 kw.”

And they’d all be wrong. I’ve never seen more than 3.3 kw go into either of my GM products under any scenario.

Remember when at lunch one time you read something over 5 times and you still didn’t read it right? This is one of those times.

About 5 postings ago I said 32 amps was a ‘limit’ since I didn’t want to get into a needless discussion regarding that point at that time. Sometimes I try to steer the direction of the discussion and that was one of those times, but now several postings later:

Prove to me:

1). Power level of the charger. I don’t believe GM has released it yet. At this point in the old volt’s life one would easily assume it was 3.6 kw when it is *NOT*.

2). Maximum Current Level under *ANY* condition. The only reason I know the old volt is 15 amps is because I personally tested for it. I’ve seen the number no where else except when I’ve done the typing.

I’m not going to respond further. It’s clear we’re talking past each other, because you’re inferring things I’ve never stated.

All I said is that the Bolt EV website says 32-amp charge rate, and that I suspect, like the Volt, that will be the current limit, without it going higher to account for lower voltages.

Like at a lower Voltage Chili’s, a Leaf goes higher, to 16A, but a Volt pegs out at 15A.

That’s all I was saying, nothing more, nothing less. Not inferring any kW, etc.

Anything assumed that I’m implying or stating beyond that is inaccurate.

I thought you might have added info such as I came up with that my source said it will be 7.2 kw. But if you don’t, that’s fine.

“…A leaf goes to 16 A”..

Brian’s Leaf will do 18, for obvious reasons.

If they give the DC number to 80% it’s for a reason: that’ll be where the tapering gets really noticeable.

And 50kW is _not_ good enough. It’s not so much about time, it’s about contention. You need faster charging rates so that you can get cars in and out.

SparkEV has no taper until 80% using 50kW DCFC. Bolt with bigger battery should be similiar with 50kW, and slower taper after 80%.

60kWh at 145$/kWh (confirmed LG Chem price) works out to less than 9k$. Incredible. Basically the State incentive is covering the battery so they can focus on the 30k$ car 🙂 Excitement.

$145/kWh is the quoted _cell_ price.

Fair enough. I forgot. So probably something like 11 or 12k$.

How many will they make?

Not likely enough. Keep seeing numbers around 30,000 units a year, likely due to limitations of obtaining enough batteries.

Even 30,000 for the first year would be enough to be the second highest selling BEV (next to the Model S).

For more volume in sales, LG Chem’s factory in Michigan also has land available for expansion if necessary. They could also use batteries from their S Korea plant too.

LG Chem keeps announcing new customers, which isn’t surprising, since apparently they are offering li-ion batteries at a substantially lower cost than anyone else.

Even in the unlikely event GM really does want to ramp up production, it’s almost certainly going to find it hard to get more batteries from LG Chem than they have contracted for. Those contracts are written years in advance.

And GM has a strong disincentive to ramp up production of the Bolt. They make a lower profit margin on EVs, so they have no motive to increase production of EVs to the point that they cut into sales of their own more profitable gasmobiles.

On the LG side, there is a very strong incentive to produce more cells and therefore to push GM towards selling more cars. So if LG notice that market demand is higher they will pretty sure do anything possible to be able to supply any extra demands that GM would place. It is also not impossible that LG would propose alternatives to car buyers through the intermediary of another model proposed by another car assembling company since GM is now roughly only that.

Would be considerably higher numbers than the Model S. You’re likely thinking world wide not NA sales.

Anyone know what the production schedule is? I have not seen any info on it.

Only announcement was: Production to start by end of 2016. My guess is there will be a very limited supply of inventory for customers in December 2016 and real availability will begin in 2017.

We are going to need more batteries Martha !!!!!!!!!

😀 😀

It appears their web site no longer mentions DC fast charging. Did they remove that option?

I very much doubt that since Mary explicitly talked about it in the presentation. Probably just a miss on the website. Or maybe they didn’t want to talk about it since there are only 50kW CCS chargers deployed so far and “one hour” doesn’t seem so fast. Hopefully part of next week’s announcement would be partnering with a network to deploy the maximum power the current SAE standard allows (which dependent on the pack voltage, may be anywhere from 80 – 100kW).

I think than Battery of Bolt would not be higher than 55kwh in capacity.

yeah you are ok when you said “240v*32A*9hours/1000= 69kWh * 90% (line and AC/DC conversion losses)= 62kWh”

But you forget that last hour battery are balancing and that decrease a lot the charging capacity. last hour would’nt get more than 1kwh in capacity. so you need to remove 5-6kwh from your 62kwh.

This got me thinking, they quote 25mph L2 charging and a range of 200 miles, that’s 8 hours at full bore.
Let’s assume a 3.65 mi/kWh (halfway between and i3 and LEAF) that would mean:
25mph / 3.65 * 8 hours = 54.8 kWh
So maybe closer to 55kWh usable and probably 60kWh total capacity.

Yeah it really depends what they mean when they quote the 9 hour figure. My 2014 Leaf claims that it will take 5 hours for a full charge at 6.6kW, but 3 hours fills my car from turtle to >98%, and when I unplug, it will usually then state 100%. The last 2 hours are used for balancing at very low power. (I have explicitly watched this behaviour on Leaf Spy.)

Thanks HugoBe, looks like you are the only person here who chose not to ignore the charging taper effect. The estimates given by others can be said to represent an absolute ceiling for the battery pack capacity, but certainly are not a realistic estimate of what the pack capacity actually will be.

But everyone, and I do mean everyone, in this comment thread is ignoring the fact that LG Chem said its new batteries could use a deeper DoD (Depth of Discharge) than is standard for EVs.

So 50 kWh would be a more realistic estimate for battery pack size.

Personally, I’m guessing it will be in the range of 45-50 kWh.

Sure not.
I estimate also a lower capacity because of it and else. Between 55-600kWh, but wouldn’t be surprise by sort of 53.8 kWh.

Good job GM. Looks great! (except the badging, which I’d strip immediately)

Still hoping the Tesla M3 blows it out of the water.

The electric car future is looking bright.

A 60 kWh battery pack in the Chevrolet Bolt would be awesome.

OK, now they need to build a national CCS network in 12 months…

I’m being a little hard on them. There are already quite a lot. I can make all my usual runs with no problem already. As long as not too many are out of commission, ever.

This isn’t really that tall of an order now that battery prices have dropped so much. Package together 200kWh of cells with 100-200A of 240V chargers and the CCS control boards/cables. The whole package would cost under $50k. Team up with gas stations, the thing gets dropped off onsite and only needs a 240V hookup. Gas stations pay for the power and get the foot traffic in return. One unit could serve 2 cars per hour continuously and handle 4 per hour spikes because of the battery buffer.

Gas stations are a very poor fit for EV charging that takes 20-45 minutes. No EV driver would want to hang out in a convenience store for that long, and gas station owners want to get customers in and out quickly, so they can maximize volume of sales. The parking lot of a gas station is, from the station owner’s viewpoint, very high value real estate; space they won’t want occupied by a car sitting there for an average of half an hour or so.

For a gas station owner, installing another gas pump or two would make a lot more sense than installing a couple of EV charge points.

Building a DCFC network is one thing, but if L3 charging is priced similarly to eVgo (e.g. $10 for < 16kWh), then this will be doomed to failure.

Who in their right mind would pay more than gas but have to "pump" for 30mins at a station with only1-2 pumps?

Someone who is only going to do it a couple times a year?

Boom. The longer the EV range, the less vital infrastructure becomes (other than your home plug). We’ve already seen this with supercharger maps needing far fewer sites than CHAdeMO maps.

DCFC is for emergencies and road trips. At 200 miles range, emergencies basically disappear. Perhaps this is why GM- knowing the Bolt was coming- felt little need to install DCFCs.

I hope it’s not more than 60 kWh, unless it’s considerably more than 200 miles. The MS60 did 208 miles on 60 kWh. We should be taking steps forward in efficiency.

Exactly! This car is smaller and hopefully lighter than the 60 kWh Tesla. By what logic would it need 60 kWh? Better to extrapolate from the 2016 Spark EV, which uses the same LG cells, and has about the same frontal area but is shorter, so the Bolt should have a better CdA. The aluminum/carbon/etc. could offset the increased battery weight. In a perfect world 82 miles on 19 kWh extrapolates to 46.3 kWh. Reality suggests low 50s kWh.

We don’t need bigger batteries to reduce our waste/pollution, we need smaller cars!

In general I agree that most people could get by with smaller vehicles (hello commuters in one ton crew cabs, crazy!)

Having said that, I find our Leaf a bit too small to be a practical family hauler – our Subaru Forester is just the right size. For 90% of our trips, we can fit everything in the car (weekend camping, kids activities, etc), then for the other 10% we put the pod on the roof rack for the extra luggage space.

So if the goal is to get more than just commuters into EVs, we need some selection of size and vehicle types. The first company to make an affordable vehicle like my Forester will get my money for our next car.

If they made a Forester EV, I would get one. They are, in my opinion, one of the most practical do-anything vehicles in existence.

Unfortunately, climate change, and resource depletion will bring us all family vacations in hell. Automobiles are our handbasket.

You do realize that using your vacation hauler as a daily driver, then criticizing crew cab commuters, makes you just a small step away from those ‘crazies’?

Rent a vacation vehicle a few times a year if you admit it’s so crazy. Unless, that is, you’re tacitly admitting you’re a small step away from the crazies yourself.

Warren said:

“This car is smaller and hopefully lighter than the 60 kWh Tesla. By what logic would it need 60 kWh?”

Ah! Finally, someone other than me steps back and looks at the whole picture.

Yes, it is absolutely absurd to think the Bolt is gonna have a battery pack as big as the 60 kWh Tesla Model S, yet have no greater range. The Tesla car’s EPA range is 208 miles, and the Bolt is a significantly smaller car.

Even if the Bolt does have an EPA range slightly in excess of 200 miles, as GM seems to be claiming, it won’t need — or have — a 60 kWh battery pack.

Aerodynamic drag is perhaps higher than Model S, which would ask for more KWh.

Yes. A higher Cd for sure, being a crossover, i.e. fat car. I still think GM could have come out with a sleek two-seater five years ago, with 100 mile range and stolen the whole market. By now it would be 200 mile range on 40 kWh, and actually selling at a profit.

But I took that into account with comparing the Bolt to the Spark and not a Tesla S.

So probably at the end of the year we’ll have some details about the Euro version too. Hope they do something to get around the import tax like Tesla does.

Dont forget the trickle charge period built into the charge time. When the Leaf states 3 hrs, 2 hrs brings it to 98% and the last hr or more is trickle to 100%. Check your graphs on the Chargepoint app and you’ll see, of you own electric that is. Id guess 8 hrs at full charge rate so a 60kwh battery. Usable reserve usually doesn’t enter into published charge times. Ie. nissan says 4 to 6 hrs. Its actually at 98% in under 4 from empty.

I have a hunch that the Chevy Bolt will be offered with two battery sizes.

“Priced as low as $30k” suggests the smallest version, with perhaps a 120-mile range. It would be price and range competitive with the new Nissan Leaf.

And if they built the base model with an easily upgradable battery pack, a customer might have their Chevy dealer install a supplemental battery module when they discover that they want more range. Or, when they can finally afford the long-range compact EV they wanted in the first place.

It would also allow more time for battery prices to drop.

Imagine being the owner of a three-year old Chevy Bolt, getting a letter from the dealer inviting you to double your range at a reasonable price.

No. That would be utterly stupid and they wouldn’t do it.

It’ll have over 200 miles of EPA-rated range.

While on the face of it multiple battery options sounds reasonable (both Tesla & Nissan do it), if GM were going to do it, they’d have said something to that effect quite a while back.
Even if they were to do it, they’ve long since been committed to the “$30K for 200mi car” line, so the lower-range version would have to cost significantly less.

My guess is 48kWh minimum, 60kWh maximum.

So you guys think “available” means it will go into production by the end of the year, or available IN CUSTOMER HANDS by the end of the year?


I think that it should mean, or by any reasonable interpretation saying that they are available means that you can get one. Do I think that will be true. No.

It will probably be rolled out like the Volt, limited availability in Q4 2016 for CARB states, then a national rollout in Q2 2017.

What I can’t figure out is the DC Fast charge time. GM is stating 80% in 60 minutes. Is that constrained by CCS or by the car? 80% in 30 minutes is what is quoted for almost all other cars, the Leaf and the new VW Budd-e.

60 minutes definitely has less utility than 30 minutes.

VW is using a mythical 800 volt quick charging system that doesn’t exist yet for the 80% in 15 minutes charge time calculations.

I’m thinking GM used a 50 kW charge rate for its calcuations….I believe current CCS stations have a max output of 50 kW, though the standard can support over 100 kW.

I’m guessing they are basing that on today’s DC fast charge rates. Their battery is likely twice the capacity of current EVs or more, therefore twice the time to fast charge.

Constrained by the 50 kW CCS chargers currently being installed. Not sure if the Bolt would be able to take a quicker charger if available later, or if they engineering the battery system with 50 kW in mind.

No info yet on how battery temp is managed from what I can see. Really would like to know this, particularly how it handles hot weather. Hope they provide some more specs at NAIAS.

Overall, this looks like a great car. Perfect for our next EV after our Leaf lease is up this June.

The Volt maintains battery temperature just fine, and my guess is that the Bolt will too.

I doubt any other major auto maker is gonna make the mistake of producing a highway-capable passenger car EV relying on passive cooling for the battery pack, as Nissan did with the Leaf.

If this vehicle is as efficient as my LEAF, then with a 65kWh battery I should get ~280 miles in my city-only driving cycle. Sweet!

One hour fast charging to 80% is a 60/25 x 80/83 the time it takes a Kia Soul EV (25 minutes to 83%), with has 27 kWh usable capacity. This would indicate the Bolt will have around 62,5 kWh usable.

Nissan is getting 107 miles with 30 KW pack. Double that and you have your 200+ miles. The Bolt may be a bit heavier due to the pack size — but likely only by a few hundred pounds. My bet is on a nice round 60 KW pack. $145/kw = $8700…..should leave a good deal of room for profit at $37k retail.

Pretty sure $145 / kWh is cell cost, not pack cost.

60 kWh pack with ~55 kWh usable is a pretty good guess. Also exactly what Nissan offered up in their next-gen LEAF concept. Maybe that isn’t a coincidence.

Next item up for bids, and not heard it discussed, yes 80% takes an hour, but QC is seldom used by the average BEV owner. Presuming a QC is to ‘react’ to a situation, and obviously Not to travel cross country, I am wondering what you get in 15 min with our new, jumbo battery. I’ll hazard that it is More than 50 mile, but 50 mi in 15 min beats everything but a supercharger, and will improve when 100kWh arrives.

Eric, If you happen to find the interior dimensions at some point, I’d like to check those out. I am a bit tall and it would be a deal maker/breaker.


Until those numbers are revealed, you can see how this 6′ 5″ reviewer faired in his Bolt First Drive ->


Would it be that much more expensive to support DC fast charging? Lack of DCFS is a big letdown since the car has such a big battery capacity. With DCFC you could stop for 30 minutes and get 80-100 miles of range. Probably 80 percent charge in an hour. Am I to understand that it is Level 2 only?

It has DCFC. Confirmed in pictures and presentation.

This is a bold trz to pinch Tesla, but will remain just a pinch thanks to being overpriced. Tesla Model III will mop it up, just like that. Bring down the price.

Without a Level 3 ie 200-300A DC fast charging solution they will have a stillborn on their hands. Teslas now criss cross the nation getting full batteries for free in 40 minutes at superchargers and Nissan and public stations with CHAdeMO adapters.

How about getting some fine print on the Bolt’s Cruise Control and if it will be adaptive? The 2nd gen Volt finally got this options..

Working on an interview with Bolt engineer now…lots of interesting tidbits incoming, including this.
/stay tuned

Out on the road and my bolts batt. is depleted,now what?