Chevrolet Bolt Electric Range Announcement Coming Tomorrow (update)


No details were released, but this teaser clip post on Chevrolet’s Facebook page immediately caught our attention.

What’s your range guess for the upcoming Chevrolet Bolt EV? We’ve been promised by General Motors that the figure will be over 200, but beyond that it’s a guessing game still for all of us.

Go ahead…guess away!

Editor’s Note/Update:  The Chevy Bolt EV has been rated at 238 miles of EPA range – how did your guess do?  Full details/specs/videos from the announcement can be found here.

Categories: Chevrolet

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

185 Comments on "Chevrolet Bolt Electric Range Announcement Coming Tomorrow (update)"

newest oldest most voted

220 miles, IMO

I will be more conservative and say 214 miles. 30 kWh Leaf has 107, so maybe that adds up.

I don’t think they’d tease us with 2?? unless they felt like they were going to handily beat it. 245 for me.

I would say anything with a “1” or “2” as the second digit does handily beat it. 245 would be about 25% over, which seems like wishful thinking.

I don’t mind being proven wrong though! 🙂

When driving to Syracuse, NY yesterday to meet all of you at the Drive Electric event, I was what I consider driving normally on country roads, using the paddles to slow the car down instead of the brake pedal as I almost always do, and got 56.7 miles, driving west to east , of course. I used double the gasoline going back home, east to west as is always the case. (EV’s are so efficient the wind direction now makes a significant difference in mileage, or should I say, the MAJORITY of the battery power goes to drive the wheels, as parasitic losses are much lower than in an ICE, or, at least they used to be before ICE’s got very efficient). My point is, the 2014 ELR’s ‘rated’ mileage was 35. If the BOLT is as similarly conservatively rated, then the mileage will be ‘OVER 324’. There must be some variation in the way different manufacturers do EPA testing. The roadster was ‘rated’ at 244 miles, and twice I exceeded it, but it was really hard to do. Most ‘tankfulls’ of battery got me 190-195 miles. Whereas in mild weather I never get under 43 miles with the ELR.… Read more »

“There must be some variation in the way different manufacturers do EPA testing.”

No, the EPA test rules have changed. In specific, the way the EPA test cycle handles multiple charge modes has changed since your Roadster was rated.

Under the old rules, the 245 mile range EPA rating was based entirely on setting the Roadster to charge in “range mode”, instead of the standard charging mode. This charged the battery to the maximum battery capacity, and allowed deeper discharge.

That’s why people got 170-ish miles of range in standard charging mode during everyday driving, while the EPA rating was 245 miles. 170-180 was typical for owners, not because it was hard to hit the EPA rating, but because standard charging mode uses much less of the battery than the range mode that the EPA test was based on.

At 190+, you were exceeding the 170-ish miles typical drivers got in standard charging mode.

The rules for how the EPA rating handles multiple charging modes changed a few years after the Roadster was rated, and the EPA range for cars with multiple charging mode is a combined composite of all charging modes.

You are clueless, again. The under 200 miles I mentioned were all charges using range mode, plus there is another complication with the roadster no one talks about.

But since I’ve never seen it written anywhere lets see if you really know what you are talking about.

In the case of the Volt and ELR, I think some of the good performance is thanks to the two motor configuration. The range doesn’t drop off as much at higher speeds because they use the two electric motors in parallel and reduce their RPMs and internal resistive losses.

This explains why my Volt, on the interstate, will not have as significant of a range reduction as a Leaf, for example.

It doesn’t really explain your back roads example though. That may just have to be attributed to better engineering in the electric drive components and associated efficiencies. I’m certain that some of those subtleties are not captured in the EPA testing methodology.

Windage losses are less on country roads since I’m driving more slowly.

The voltecs’ motors do not run much above their base speeds at highway speeds, so I’m not surprized at a bit of efficiency improvement.

But its not much since if you drive fast you’ll see the juice fall out of the battery.

I’ve never driven a Leaf so I can’t comment on that.

One of the lowest efficiency cars was my Roadster, as Top Gear claimed (to the objection of almost everyone here, including writers), but then our friend Brian proved while test driving it.


225 would be a nice bump, 250 would be awesome. Anything less is not really news.

Good point.. If it were going to be like 203 miles of range, I doubt they’d be trying to make a media event out of it and draw attention to it. So I’d say definitely over 220 miles.

210 is my guess

The bare minimum of having two question marks would be a huge letdown.

The bare minimum for 2?? is 200. ?

Thats true 😀
But it would be the marketing equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

Come to think of it, that sounds pretty GM. They could also show their Volt vs Leaf ad afterwards, the one where they get stuck in the elevator.

A short reminder from Chevy concerning EVs:

There’s a big difference between 84 miles and possibly up to three times that amount in the Bolt. I my metro area, 84 miles will leave me stranded, while 200-250 will not.

Beside marketing, thing, think, I never get stranded in my Leaf, nor that I ever got stranded in an ICE.

I use a very sophisticated gizmo that’s call a gauge!

Love it, I bet that it’ll be between 201 and 209 GM marketing is legendary for being um…. somewhat abstract.

This one is right on.
(Ampera-E is the European Bolt)

That actually is great advertisement, but only if you already handed out the basic informations about the car.

An European customer might have no idea how far it can go, only that it does the first few meters pretty quickly. But you can say that about lots of cars that fall between 0 and 1 million Euro. And we can be pretty sure the Ampera-E falls in that category, sadly we can only guess where.


Tesla announced more than 215 for the Model 3, so it will be more than 215 for the Bolt, but not much more because the real competition is still absent.
Meanwhile Tesla will have increased Model 3’s range to ~250 for next year, as they continuously do for the existing models..

This way it will be consistent with the ICE cartel’s strategy to NEVER have better specs than Tesla.

I’ve always thought I needed at least an EPA rated 150 miles to make a BEV work for me. 200 miles is great, so anything more than that is gravy. More is always welcome – but I’m glad they made it a roomy open feeling design. (like the Leaf) More of a sportscar shape (like M3) would have reduced aero drag, but for what I want it wouldn’t be worth it for mostly in-town driving.

Mostly in town is how most people drive most of the time, but the aero and the range (and the fast charging I might add) should be optimized for the times when you want to take a trip with your only car, and not have to stop too much more than you would in a gas car.

Otherwise a Nissan Leaf is perfectly fine, if you are not going to care about highway aero drag and therefore range on long trips.

I do hope they eventually offer multiple battery pack sizes so consumers can make their own range vs. cost tradeoffs.

They will probably do that in the future. But it’s a small car and now we have reached the bare minimum levels so it will take a while to be able to easily fit a 80, 100 or 120 kWh battery in it.

Nissan is aiming for at least, two and probably three, different battery size choices I believe.

Look at this picture of Bolt’s battery, there is no option for battery size.

Well done, GM.

Or perhaps I should be saying well done LG Chem.

Non-sense you just replace every 2nd cell with a blank and alter the motor controller or you make the electrodes in the cells thinner and put them in the same package for a lower volumetric energy density. There is no reason you can’t change the kWh in a battery pack. They could probably reduce (or increase) the capacity by 10% by just selecting the worst or best cells from their production line. You don’t have to take blocks in and out to make the battery capacity different.

237 hands down, BMW i3 but Nissan Leaf also stand not a single chance against it. 237

I doubt that would be the case. The Bolt isn’t going to be cheap. There is still plenty of room for 100 to 150 mile vehicles if they are cheaper.

Thats what I always say, even with multiple 200 mile EVs, there are still people not willing to spend more than 30k on a car.

And if you keep in mind that on a cheaper car, fixed incentives have more impact, 10k reduction on a 20k car is a lot more than on a 30k car, there will still be a market for lower range EVs.

I’m guessing 210, but anything 200 or more will make me happy.

Still needs a nationwide fast charging network though. Otherwise the 200 gets us regional travel here in California and a few other lucky places in the nation, but nothing more.

210 too.


210 is my guess too.


212 is the number. But, I like your variable.

“Drew, I bid 1 mile”
(it’s the closest without going over right?)

The fact it starts with a 2 is both a relief and a disappointment.

They had already said at least 200, so they aren’t giving anything away.

What, were you expecting 300 miles? How is that a disappointment? Unless you were one of the naysayers hoping the official range would be under 200 miles.

Crypto-vague trolly comment

I hear your wife said the same thing about your wedding night…

299 would be cool ._.

Just to be a contrarian: GM PR is jackassing its own upper management for no cost of living raise this year – 200 even, (=

(serious guess: 222it’s sexy, and more than the base level Model 3’s “at least 215 EPA miles” estimated number)

If the EPA ranks its 223, could GM “request” it gets lowered to 222?

On the newer 2017 EPA test cycle, 218 miles is my best guess…

Well, somewhat unbelievably, the ratings are all on the “honor” system, OEMs report their own numbers…so GM “could” report 700 miles range or 7 miles if they wanted too.

But we all know what happens if you are off by too much on the high side. Suspicious number will get noticed, audited, then fined.

What changes are coming in the 2017 cycle, compared the the 5-cycle I posted a link to below?

Have a link? I guess I missed this.

Ok, found the link.

Warning that is the full text from EPA, so a pretty dry read.

The major change is the recommendation on how the automakers calculate the losses (aero, road, etc) for calibrating the dynamometer the actual EPA test is conducted on. The EPA doesn’t actually drive the vehicles, the are on a dyne test stand in a lab and run through the exact cycles I linked to below.

It seems some hybrids are losing 1 or 2 mpg on the highway rating. So maybe the low rolling resistance tires are more temperature sensitive in their efficiency than other tires. This could have an impact on all EV ranges, especially Tesla’s very high highway ranges.

Luckily the change won’t be a significant as the change from 2 cycle to 5 cycle that bit both the Volt and LEAF at launch.

GM is the one that does the actual testing. All the EPA does is certify it. GM can submit whatever number they want…..just as long as the number would pass an EPA audit.

FYI, the EPA only audits perhaps 15% of vehicles to confirm the numbers are accurate.

In that doc I listed above, it reads like the OEM needs to have a 4000+ mile vehicle to collect the load data, and provide the load data inputs along with the test data to the EPA.

I doubt GM would “submit any number they wanted”. They also have no previous data, since it is a completely new vehicle, and argue that the system hasn’t changed.

When I say “whatever number they want”, I of course mean a number they came up with after doing their internal testing.

Pre-production Bolts started rolling off the line in March, and have been spotted in MI, CA, and OR, so not hard to fathom there are some 4k+ mile Bolts in the fleet at all.

Manufacturer does the testing and submits the numbers. The EPA certifies the results and audits them if they choose to. Ultimately, the EPA will usually end up certifying what the manufacturer submits, unless it has reason to believe the numbers are off.

I agree with you on the process. Any yeah, they better have 4k+ miles on the pre-production cars.

The point I was trying to make is that the Bolt probably has more scrutiny and more unique elements than a Silverado refresh. So my guess is GM will do a more thorough/accurate test on the Bolt than the average release.

Note another EV has used the 222 moniker

9/13 = 220.
It’s a winner anyhow :O)

Depends on how you play the numerology game. 9/13=257 (257th day, this is a leap year after all). If you’re using 9+13=22 then it’s 220 not 222.

Sorry, I read 222 (below) into your post.

Are we talking city/highway/combined/cold weather? A standard CCS port would be better to have than a few extra miles.

I am hoping for 210 hwy/230 city/222 combined.
Anything over 200 miles of hwy AER would be huge.
That is today’s target, yesterdays was different.

Yeah, the highway mileage is what’s important. If that’s over 200 miles I’m happy.

212, EPA combined range

Second 212. Sounds right to me.

Third, 212

Fourth, and not too late to the game.

I’m sticking with my 215 miles EPA combined.

With a 60-kWh battery pack, there’s really no excuse for anything less than 250 miles.

Tesla already gets 208 miles out of a 60-kWh Model S, which is at least 1,000 pounds heavier. With 30 percent less weight, and a smaller frontal area, the Bolt should have far more range than a ModelS-60.

It’s not only front area that matter for drag, it’s also the shape and Chevrolet Bolt have been called a disaster of drag with a coffisient of 0.32 while Model S have 0.24. In high speed the drag have far more meaning then weight so I don’t belive it will have 250 miles of range. Just compere Model S and Model X, even if Model X weight more and have more drag it’s not a huge different in range with the same battery.

It is also the SoC that matters. GM is more conservatieve with the battery

Not with the Spark EV (~95% depth of discharge)

The frontal area is closer than it seams to the same between the two vehicles, Bolt stands much taller than Model S.

Bolt should crush the S in city driving, but get dragged down in highway range with the non aero shape.

Here is the link to the drive cycles:

The high speed test is really going to hurt the Bolt. The highway one should be a slight win in efficiency for the S. The city will be an easy win for Bolt. The A/C and Heat should be wins for Bolt, but I will let our HVAC experts comment on that.

I look forward to seeing the full results.

EPA “high speed” is still just 48 mph average and it is just small fraction of combined number.

I’m guessing 225.
Any closer to 200 and it really wouldn’t merit any attention.

hopefully I’m wrong it’s higher!

218 miles/350 km

It will be more than Model 3’s 215, Chevy wants to take the crown from Tesla, anything less makes to sense for the announcement.

That simply cannot be a Chevy goal, as they have expressed a desire to make 20-30K per year, as opposed to the 400K M3’s that Tesla has already booked not to mention many, many more.

GM didn’t just “expressed desire”. They made it and assembly line is getting ready right now. The number is what they realistically can expect to sell in 2017 for that price and $2/gal gas. It doesn’t prevent them from selling more if people are buying.
M3 is still vaporware that is unlikely to see mass market in 2017 at all. Updated reservation number isn’t disclosed anymore, and who cares about refundable reservations for a car that isn’t made beyond few prototypes and without hard price tag.

There was quite a bit of discussion of the “3” at the Drive Electric event in Syracuse, NY yesterday. With so many reservations, people are going to have to accept “Loaded” $45,000 model 3’s if they want to keep their place in line, which I’d assume the majority will do. However for the minority who is expecting to pick up a ‘stripped 3’ very soon are likely to be disappointed… Since if they don’t accept pretty much what is offered, they will lose their place in line to the later people, of which there are plenty to satisfy. The Bolt may appeal to some of these minority reservation holders, as well as those in the market for a 30 kwh leaf, and possibly some I3 buyers. All I know is the first time Carlos Ghosn saw the BOLT, the expression on his face was one of extreme worry. Even though the Leaf is the world’s most popular EV, time marches on….. And the improved range, with superb battery Longevity (pampering the battery with air conditioned comfort, so to speak) – leaves the current Leaf a bit wanting for needed features. If Nissan has a ‘Bolt Killer’ up their sleeve, they… Read more »

9/13 = 9 + 13 = 22 = 220 official EPA range.

That makes no sense whatsoever, but 220 sounds good. 🙂

numerology FTW!!

Someone above said 222…

Since you bring up 9 + 13 = 22…

I will now be extremely disappointed if it is NOT 222! XD

218 – mixed city/highway

Unfortunately the EV industry as a whole has a rather poor record predicting their own EPA ratings. Every single one of the sub-100 mile range EV’s were initially promoted as being 100+ mile range EV’s before their official EPA ranges were announced. None of the car makers seem to be immune to this.

I’m hoping GM has gotten past those old days, and is now into over-delivering big time. My best case scenario is the mid 250’s combined using the current EPA test cycle. That would be 300 miles combined on the old 2-cycle EPA test that CARB uses for ZEV credits, and GM would earn 1 extra ZEV credit on each one they sold. That could be worth around 2K-5K on the back end for them, that they could take off the MSRP and still make money.

However, the pessimist/realist in me expects that of the hwy/city/combined numbers, they will all fall within plus or minus 15 miles above and below 200, with some above, and some below.

I believe the phenomenon to which you allude was due to changes to the test cycle itself. The 2017 cycle also has become stricter than before, but this time the impact should be very small.

“I’m hoping GM has gotten past those old days, and is now into over-delivering big time.”
What? GM over delivered on the Volt Gen1 & Gen2 and on the Spark EV. I think you have them confused with other automakers.

I think he’s talking about EPA rating, not the actual user range.

I’m getting 102 miles almost consistently whenever I get a chance to charge to 100% and 78 to 84 miles when charged to 80% at DCFC. This is with 1.5 year old battery that’s been through 1 mile remaining and frequent DCFC, so from user perspective, GM did meet/exceed 100 miles range.

He’s trying to suggest GM has a history of providing larger EPA numbers than what users experience, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Kdawg — I’m not “alluding” to anything specific in GM’s past. I clearly STATED that what I’m talking about is the pattern among ALL electric car makers to over-predict range compared with actual EPA results. The various reasons for each car maker is not really important. It doesn’t matter whether is was due to: – changing EPA tests. – releasing range numbers based upon Japanese or EU test cycles. – releasing steady speed range estimates and “real world” estimates that don’t reflect any gov’t test cycle. No matter what the cause, car makers all have a history of setting high hopes for EV’s. High hopes that are soon dashed upon the rocks of EPA test results. GM has not been immune to that. See the posts below about 230 mpg (a number that I’ve defended multiple times in the past for being technically valid, but incomplete). And the GEN I Volt very much under-delivered the expectations GM had set, specifically in MPG with the battery depleted (MPGcs). An expectation that the GEN II Volt thankfully delivered. But again, I’m not trying to single out GM, I’m simply stating the obvious that all EV fans who have been around for a… Read more »

I’m well aware of the trials and tribulations of automakers announcing incorrect values over the years. My point was that GM has been on the under-promise over-deliver side. So when Mary Barra and other GM outlets said “More than 200 miles” for the Bolt EV, and all the naysayers came out and shouted “BS, it will be 150 miles when the EPA gets to it”, they all forgot that GM has always hit the EV #’s they promised (and then some). They even increased the pack size on the Volt and didn’t even bother upping the EPA range.

Now we have people saying 250+ miles, which I think is unrealistic, unless you are just talking city miles. I don’t want them to set themselves up for disappointment and take it out on GM which never promised that number. GM only said “more than” 200 miles.

Well, I’m not sure what you are going on about, since I’ve already covered that.

But I’m claiming victory in my estimates, because 238 is indeed somewhere between my most optimistic high number in the 250’s, and my most pessimistic estimate of right around 200. So I don’t see what the fuss is about.

201, LOL

211, it is always a prime number, always.

Instead of trying to peg the number, I’ll give my reaction based on ranges:

200 – 210, Meh, feels like a letdown after the hype.
211 – 220, Good job golf clap, back slaps all around.
221 – 230, Wow, stunning job, round of beers on me.
230+, I hope you showed your work on that math, can I review it before offering my congratulations.

In reality any of these numbers completely crushes every non-Tesla offering out there. Super-commuters will gobble these up, even at current gas prices.

If GM can’t sell 30k of these in 2017, I am going to be stunned.


It really wasn’t much hype, just a FB post. It’s not like we are at Elon-tweet level 🙂



“220, 221, whatever it takes…”


I use that movie reference quite frequently but very few get it.

Another one from the same actor, different movie we use in our household when asked what’s for dinner, “Pizza Steve”. 🙂

All this drama is giving me “range anxiety”.

Haha, maybe GM should have ended the caption with “Are you Anxious™?”

219 EPA combined

Ok Salkin I will join you on 219.


245! If they (testing engineers) are seeing “more than 300” on the dash at times then it’s gotta be closer to 250 than 200.

More than 300 ??? !!!!

That’s what I mean about GM’s conservative rating system.

If in the real world it is anywhere near that, Carlos Ghosn is going to need his stomach pumped.

Haha! Well said.

216 miles, just to beat the Model 3’s claim, but then GM will unleash more range when the Model 3 comes out for real.

237 – along with an announcement we can buy it outside California in 2017!

I’ll go along with both of those predictions

I think the Bolt EV will have a EPA range of ~240 miles.

Here’s why: the Honda Fit EV has a 20kWh pack and goes ~82 miles on a charge. The Fit EV is very similar size and shape as the Bolt EV, so its 60kWh pack will take it ~3X as far (rounding down a bit).

I was doing something similar with the 30 kWh Nissan Leaf. It is 101/112/124 hwy/combined/hwy. Similar design, weight and aero is not dis-similar. (0.29 vs. 0.32)
Figure the Bolt will be slightly more efficient since it is a generation newer. Still going to take a hit due to the aero.
So what is the multiplier? 0.95 or 1.05? I figure the multiplier will be positive despite the CdA disadvantage due to a more efficient drivetrain and due to the fact that Chevy will dip slightly deeper into the pack capacity.
Hence my 210/222/230 guesstimate above. I think the combined number is 60% city/40% hwy.

LEAF is 107 miles combined. BMW i3 2017 is 114 miles. Not sure where you got the 112 miles from.

The Leaf Cd was tested by Car & Driver at 0.32, so that cancels that out. I think the frontal area is very similar.

So, that is 214 miles.

I think the new LG batteries will have a higher usable capacity than the Nissan cells, so I will stick with my 240 miles! 😉

Or take the Spark EV. It officially has a 19.44 kWh battery, good for 82 miles of EPA range. Aero numbers are slightly worse than the Bolt, but it is lighter, so those probably even themselves out.

60/19.44 = 3.09 * 82 = 253 EV miles!

I doubt the Bolt will actually have a 250+ mile range, but perhaps the final number will be much closer to 250 than 200.

I really hope so!

247 miles. Book it.

206 combined EPA miles. There was a market research some years ago, for short time here on insideevs and 206 Epa were in the article.

That is too low for a “big announcement”.

It’s just a FB post.

I’ve been guessing 210 miles, mainly because it needs to be above 200 and it seems implausible it gets more than twice the 30 kWh LEAF (107 miles).

But would GM make such a hoopla if they aren’t going to beat the widely-talked-about 215 miles of Model 3 (even if that number could go up)..?

Still. Physics rule other considerations, so I choose to stand by my guess. While hoping for a positive surprise. 225 or more would be AWESOME.

“It seems implausible it gets more than twice the 30 kWh LEAF (107 miles). ”

I don’t know the real numbers or specifications yet, so this is purely speculation. But here are the factors that could make it “plausible”:

1) Less reserve for the battery. For example, if they each had 1 kW reserve at top and bottom, that would leave a higher percent usable battery for the Bolt, and more miles of range per kW.

2) More efficient gearing and motor.

3) Anything that changes the rolling resistance, from different tires, to weight, to aerodynamics, to less aggressive toe-in and camber settings, etc.

There is much more to range than just battery size. No different than expecting all cars with 2.0 liter gas engines to get the same mpg.

I do not expect an EPA rating above 214 miles. However I do expect a range of 300+ miles at reduced speed. I have traveled 102 miles at 40 mph in my 2013 FFE and that’s with an 18% degraded battery.

I have averaged 5.7 miles / kWh on our ’15 Leaf S, so that would be ~314 miles (I subtracted 8% capacity and multiplied by 5.7). I average ~40-45MPH.

well since I’m in a hotel room 222 I will go with that!

SparkEV range = 82 miles
SparkGas MPG=31 city, 41 hwy
Sonic MPG=28 city, 38 hwy
Bolt battery = bit over 3X SparkEV

Doing the math,
82/31*28*3 = 222.2 miles city
82/41*38*3 = 228 miles hwy

I’m guessing that EPA rating will be about average of above 2 numbers, 225 miles.

But EV gets better city miles, especially something like Bolt and SparkEV that have Cd of about 0.32; SparkEV got almost 140 miles at 25 MPH, which means Bolt could exceed 300 miles under those conditions.

SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

This. Using Spark EV is the most logical extrapolation since efficiencies are most apt to translate.

They’ve been consistently testing ~214 per their reports; so one would think that it’ll be significantly higher in the 225+ range to put a PR release on it.

Real life 4+ Miles/KWH on our Spark combined driving consistently. That should put Bolt in the 230+ range and MUCH happier for us– and hope there’s room for our Golden in the trunk to put the final stamp of approval on this.

If you only use SparkEV, you’d get 250+ miles as Bro1999 shows above. Since Bolt will be larger, I combine Sonic MPG (efficiency) + SparkEV range.

After 13K miles, my SparkEV shows 5.3 mi/kWh battery to wheels. I still haven’t reset my trip meter since getting the car. If Bolt got the same under my “open the windows for the dogs” driving style, 60 kWh would get 318 miles!

SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

238. Nice. Good for everyone. Another check box completed.

My guess is for 225 EPA combined miles.

Agree. Since GM is making an announcement, it’s very likely to upstage Model 3’s current predicted range.

Whether it was 240 miles or 201 miles, GM would have to *announce* that information.

As a matter of course. But announcing separately, may mean it’s higher than what’s currently listed for Model 3, so they may want to crow about it.?


223…. Even though you’ll be lucky to get 150 at legit highway speeds.

217 . . . enough to be more than Tesla but keep the costs to a minimum.

I like the odd number of 217 and the fact that no one else picked it. (BTW, Enough to beat the 215 that Tesla promised for the Model 3.)

Don’t forget Model 3 only gets 215 miles because you sit in a extreme flat car, if GM puts Bolt battery in Model 3 they could get 240-250 miles, but with this CUV styling it should be less than twice of the Leaf range, about 210 EPA.


remember the volt was supposed to be 230 MPG… i bet 230 is the number.

Just for the heck of it, how about:

24 MPG

24 is the highest number.

It’s definitely 230, because they want to re-use this poster from when they launched the Volt:

It wouldn’t take much to fix it, LOL.

In the 1960s a Chicagoland dodge dealer took a Dodge dart and drop the 426 hemi in it and sold the crap out of it. Chrysler refuse to do it. One Chevrolet dealer needs to start taking orders for the bolt and show all the other dealers how you can make a boatload of money by Being the different one. 234 miles

Maybe they’ll surprise us and have a feasible fast charge capability instead of ignoring the issue.

Didn’t they say 50kW charging?