Chevrolet Bolt EV Rated: 238 Miles Of All-Electric Range, Arrives This Year

SEP 13 2016 BY JAY COLE 504

GM bests expectations for range on the all-electric Chevrolet Bolt EV with 238 miles of all-electric range!

GM bests expectations on the all-electric Chevrolet Bolt EV with 238 miles of all-electric range!

One of the longest running questions on the upcoming, Chevrolet Bolt EV has been answered, as General Motors announced that its all-electric car will have 238 miles (383 km) of range via its 60 kWh battery.

In addition, GM announced that the Bolt EV receives an overall efficiency rating of 119 MPGe combined – 128 MPGe city, 110 MPGe highway.

Chevrolet Bolt EV WILL arrive at select dealers by the end of this year

Chevrolet Bolt EV WILL arrive at select dealers by the end of this year

“Chevrolet promised to offer the first affordable electric vehicle with 200 miles or more of range and will exceed those expectations when the 2017 Bolt EV goes on sale later this year.

With the vehicle’s EPA-estimated range of 238 miles, owners can expect to go beyond their average daily driving needs — with plenty of range to spare — in the 2017 Bolt EV when charging regularly.”

And as surely as GM solved that mystery, they kept us guessing at another – pricing.

The EV has been estimated at around $37,500 (or under $30,000 with Federal incentive applied), and the news of the 238 mile range was accompanied by this equally vague statement:

“Bolt EV buyers won’t be able to find a better value for an all-electric, thrill-inducing ride with an expected MSRP below $37,500 and before available federal tax credit of up to $7,500″

And while we don’t know the pricing – we do know that the Bolt EV will arrive in two trim levels – the LT and the Premier. With options like leather front and rear heated seats being standard on the latter. Check out the details on the two trim comparisons below.

Chevrolet Bolt EV Interior

Chevrolet Bolt EV Interior

GM North America President Alan Batey also put to rest those pesky “would they or won’t they” (Bolts EVs) show up at Chevy dealers for customers before year’s end questions.

Ample legroom in the upcoming, 238 mile Chevy Bolt EV

Ample legroom in the upcoming, 238 mile Chevy Bolt EV

“Chevrolet showed the world the production version Bolt EV earlier this year and in a few short months we’ve moved from that vision to a reality.

The Bolt EV is a game changer for the electric car segment and it will start to become available at Chevrolet dealerships later this year.

A further GM statement backed up that news, while promoting other automotive offerings that the General will have better stocked at the time.

When the Bolt EV arrives at select Chevrolet dealerships in late 2016, Chevrolet will offer a flavor of electrification to meet any customer’s needs. Whether it’s the pure electric Bolt EV, the Chevrolet Volt or the Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, Chevrolet dealerships are full of affordable options for an efficient and engaging driving experience. More information on the Chevrolet electric family and the benefits of driving electric can be found at

The Tesla Model 3, Announced From $35,000 And "At Least" 215 Miles Of Range

The Tesla Model 3, Announced From $35,000 And “At Least” 215 Miles Of Range

Currently, only the Tesla Model 3 is seen as a real competitor for the Chevy Bolt (although we anticipate seeing a couple other offerings throwing their hat into the ring relatively soon).

As a point of reference, at the launch of the Tesla, Elon Musk stated that the Model 3 would have at least an EPA 215 milesof range, so it would appear the Bolt will have the upper hand in at least this one regard.

Josh Tavel, the Bolt EV’s Chief Engineer also got in on the range announcement news:

“While range is important, we knew Bolt EV owners would want more — more space and more power — and the Bolt EV delivers.  Our team took special pride in optimizing every aspect of this vehicle, especially its impressive range and ride dynamics.”

Also of interest:  GM has put out a series of 10 short films (like the one below) on what the Chevy Bolt EV -and its 238 miles of range can do.   Check out all of them here. Also, the first long range (240 miles) test of the Bolt EV has already been accomplished – check out that video journey here.

2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV Trim Details: LT, Premier  (click to enlarge)

2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV Trim Details: LT, Premier (click to enlarge)

More details, including the pricing will be released at a later date.

Categories: Chevrolet

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

504 Comments on "Chevrolet Bolt EV Rated: 238 Miles Of All-Electric Range, Arrives This Year"

newest oldest most voted

Woohoo! My guess of 235 was pretty close! I’m assuming this 238 means the lighter footed among us will see 250+ for a good portion of the year. This also means I can count on this being my next car as I need about 200 (plus) cushion to drive around the Big Island and pass a charger if it’s out of order…

Great to see 383km range.

All this talk about Tesla Model 3 and Chevy Bolt.
Many are forgetting that the next gen LEAF will be an available 200+ mile EV too.

Would be nice if Nissan would give us some info soon on it…

Wait a few more weeks. The 2017 Leaf will ship in December. The Leaf won’t be the “Long Range Leader” among the ICE OEM’s. The Chevy Bolt has the “Honors” for at least the next 1/2 year.

But will Nissan put an active TMS (Thermal Management System) for the battery pack into the next-gen Leaf? So far, all the signs I’ve seen point to “No”. If that’s the case, count the Leaf out as far as being a real contender. People are going to thing twice about buying a car with such an abysmal resale value. However, leasing may still be a good option, especially if the next-gen Leaf is priced significantly lower than either the Bolt or the Model ≡. One thing that will help Nissan here is near-term production. Nissan is already producing the Leaf, so unlike Tesla, they don’t need to ramp up from a dead start to produce the car in large numbers. And unlike GM, Nissan has not locked in production limitations such as farming out the entire EV powertrain to a new and untested outside company; nor is Nissan dependent on a company they don’t control for their supply of battery cells. Nissan will be able to fully supply the market for the next-gen Leaf this year and next, however large or small that market is. That will almost certainly not be true for the Tesla Model ≡ or the GM… Read more »

If they didn’t need that at 24kWh they surely won’t need it at 60 unless they go for a more fragile chemistry like the one used in Tesla. Larger battery means less cycling (number of cycles, their depth and rate/power).

Ummm – they DID need it at 24 kWh.

LEAF has by far and away the worst battery degradation problems of any BEV. The new chemistries have helped, but have not solved the problem.

It’s OK for a 3 year lease, but the after that the value is in the toilet

There no major reliability problems with Leaf’s batteries. The main complaint is about continuous dc charging/driving on a hot day.

Resale value is mainly a function of technology progress. You pay extra to enjoy driving an EV earlier than others.

Um Mike, I know 3 leaf owners who have never charged level 3, and the car has never experienced even 90 degree weather. Hawaii is a very mild climate 60-85 degrees.. and yet, 3 LEAFS have received a battery replacement this past year.

mike said:

“There no major reliability problems with Leaf’s batteries. The main complaint is about continuous dc charging/driving on a hot day.

“Resale value is mainly a function of technology progress.”

Well, in a way, your last sentence there is correct. The reason the resale value of the Leaf is so abysmal, compared to other PEVs (Plug-in EVs), is because the car lacks an active TMS for the battery pack.

And you yourself mentioned one of the Leaf’s problems: That the lack of TMS limits the speed at which the car can be charged. For on-the-go charging, this presents a serious limitation, and is indeed an example of how EV tech from other companies has progressed… and left the Leaf behind.

They definitely need thermal management if they plan on selling that vehicle anywhere in the south. The Leaf’s 25% degradation of batteries in two years is unacceptable, people that bought the Focus Electric are way better off in driving range now even though they sacrificed trunk space initially.

I have lost very little with my 3 year old LEAF.

I guess it all depends on where you live, and how you use it, though I’m not crazy with fast charging or anything just wish thermal management was put in place to extend battery life

Yep. I bought a used 3yr old Leaf, which now has ~37,000 miles, and still has all 12 bars. Works fine. Bargain for under $10k.

My Leaf is at 37,000 mi. as well. After 3- 1/4 years, all 12 bars are still showing. I am experiencing degradation at about a 4% loss of total battery capacity per year. This is about what people are experiencing in moderate climates, that charge their batteries in approximately the 20-80% battery capacity window. The build date has to be after 03/2013. At least the all Tennesee built Leaves and batteries are showing this outcome. 2015 and beyond are “supposed” to be even slightly better. We will have to wait on that 3 year report in 2018.

The current Leaf isn’t very appealing in exterior styling. Unless the next one has better styling it will be hard to sell.

Any update on next generation Nissan Leaf?

If Nissan treats Leaf two owners as it does Fluence ZE owners in Israel and Denmark with deficient deteriorating batteries and churlish offers to kill the car for a gas burner I would not want to be Nissan owner. My first battaey dropped by 40 percent in two years and my replacement battery dropped to 70 percent in 9 months

I saw a guesstimate of 237 yesterday on another thread. You were close, but not the contestant closest to the actual range without going over. 🙂

What? 238? That’s really good.

Thanks for the late night (or early morning) news, Jay!

Wow! Phenomenal! Great job GM and Mary Barra!

Great scoop Jay!

Why wait on a Model 3, Tesla you loose the range game… Congrats GM, I didn’t expect such high range.

Ha ha ha.

At least 200 miles becomes 238.

We don’t know what at least 215 miles becomes.

238 does not necessarily beat “at least 215” miles.

Bolt is still a small Honda Fit type hatchback without access to a nationwide and worldwide 135 kWh plus fast charging network.

Tesla Model 3 is a luxury compact sedan with AT LEAST 215 miles of range with access to the Supercharger Network.

Congrats GM, the gauntlet has been dropped on not only Tesla Model 3 but LEAF 2.0.

The “3” supposedly is 55 kwh.

Remember all the GM-bashers – “NO WAY could a chevy ever have a 60 kwh battery in it for a reasonable price”.

Or, “150 mile range, if that!”.

Glad that GM stuck to their guns and consistantly puts MUCH LARGER THAN EXPECTED batteries in all their EV offerings.

If M-B ever put an 18 kwh battery in any of their PHEV offerings, I’d faint.

Or that ‘super range’ $450,000 M-B roadster with the wopping 140 mile range.

The Lowly BOLT just made all those crappy offerings from others, exactly that: Crap.


do you have a b#@z-o?

I’m one of those who made early predictions that GM’s BEV, what became the Bolt, would have only 150-160 miles of EPA rated range. It seems pretty clear that we were wrong on that prediction.

Where GM has chosen to limit the Bolt is in quantity, not quality. Farming out the entire EV powertrain to a new, untested company (LG Electronics’ new automotive division) is a pretty clear indication that GM has no intention of ramping up production of the car soon, or quickly. Likewise, GM’s refusal to make any plans to buy or build its own battery factories is an indication of the lack of interest in building compelling long-range PEVs (Plug-in EVs) in large numbers.

Would love electric Honda Fit designed from ground up for battery pack.

Best in class interior space and utility and electric drive O.O …. Where can I order it???

The Bolt is closer to the Honda Fit in size than you might think. True, it is 8″ longer than the Fit, but the WB is just 2.8″ longer and the height is less than 2″ higher. The Bolt is a bit wider, by 2.8″, but the Bolt also ends up with interior volume that is slightly larger than a Tesla S!
The Bolt reminds me of the Fit in a lot of ways. Check one out when they arrive in your area, you might find that the Fit is less of a car than the Bolt in a lot of ways.

Bolt EV is bigger than a Honda Fit.

I wonder if Tesla is going to pick their pencils back up to try to increase the range of the base Model 3.

Elon did say 215 minimum and that they hope to exceed that.

This is one place where being the second to production gives Tesla an advantage. They can respond to GM upping the ante regarding range, and note that Tesla hasn’t actually said how big the battery pack will be; only that it will be under 60 kWh.

But I don’t know that Tesla actually will actually increase their planned battery pack size. Sure, it sounds good for GM if they can say the Bolt beats the Model ≡’s range by 30 miles or so. But will that really matter much, when GM is only planning on making 25k-30k Bolts per year, while Tesla is planning to ramp up to about 400,000?

And let’s keep in mind that so far, all we know about the Bolt’s range is what GM has claimed. The official EPA rating for electric range may be lower, as it was for the Volt when it debuted.

Ah but wait, can you upgrade the range on the model 3. The Bolt is maxed out.

“They can respond to GM upping the ante regarding range”
And cut into profits

“But will that really matter much, when GM is only planning on making 25k-30k Bolts per year, while Tesla is planning to ramp up to about 400,000?”
GM has the capacity for much more than that. Those #’s are just guidelines. Market demand will determine production. Also, Tesla can promise me the moon, but until I see it, it’s just promises.

“And let’s keep in mind that so far, all we know about the Bolt’s range is what GM has claimed. The official EPA rating for electric range may be lower, as it was for the Volt when it debuted.”
Manufacturers do their own testing and tell the EPA. The Volt’s EPA range was not lower. Not sure where you are coming up with that.

“GM has the capacity for much more than that. Those #’s are just guidelines. Market demand will determine production.”

GM may be able to increase Bolt production somewhat, from 25k-30k to 40k-50k may be but not to 200k -300k if there is demand for it. Because there isn’t enough capacity for Li-on batteries from LG Chem.

LG has multiple plants and has more capacity at the Holland plant, which can put out 1.5GWh now. Their new plant in China, which only took 2 years to build, will produce enough batteries for 50K vehicles, and 200K vehicles by 2020. Who knows how many more plants they will build or expand existing plants.

Note; the Gigafactory won’t reach full production until 2020 (IF they stay on schedule). That’s 4 years for other battery companies to expand.

GM has the capacity for much more than that.”

Of course it does. And if GM brings production of the EV powertrain in-house (or assigns it to an automotive supplier which isn’t new and untested), then they should be able to ramp up production rapidly.

GM can also supplement its supply of batteries from other manufacturers; Samsung, Panasonic, and others.

What GM can not do is get that same sweetheart deal on battery cost from other supplier. It seems almost certain that GM got that low, low price of $145/kWh from LG Chem only by signing a contract with LG Electronics for the entire EV powertrain.

Bottom line: GM can ramp up production beyond what LG Chem and LG Electronics can supply only by cutting into their already very thin profit margin on the Bolt. And if you think GM is gonna do that… well then, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’m willing to sell you.

See above. LG is has the ability to continue to expand. They’re going to have to anyway with all of the contracts they have. EVs aren’t slowing down anytime soon.

238 is the EPA range, not GM range . .

This post is the announcement of the EPA range

“With the vehicle’s EPA-estimated range of 238 miles,”

Read the post.

I did read the article (not “post”), thank you.

And what I know, which apparently you don’t, is that auto makers conduct their own tests according to the EPA’s standards. What GM is actually saying here is that they’ve submitted a claim to the EPA for 238 miles of range. The EPA doesn’t usually reject such claims, altho the rejection of Ford’s inflated claims of range for its PHEVs (Fusion Energi, C-Max Energi) two years ago was certainly in the news; see link below.

My point is that this isn’t yet an official EPA rating, despite what the article says. We’ll know it’s official when we see news that includes an image of the EPA’s window sticker for the Bolt.

if tesla intends to meet its stated delivery goals, at this point, they are stuck with what they have got. if they try to start re-engineering the model 3 at this point, it will delay delivery. i don’t think tesla can afford that.

the bolt and the model 3 are substantially different marketing strategies. the model 3 is really positioned against the benz c-class/bm 3-series. to that extent, i would expect model 3 prices to range from $35,000 to $60,000. i would expect that higher end model 3’s would have more range than lower-end model 3’s.

the bolt is more of a “niche” car for gm, thus the comparatively modest sales projections. of course, if the bolt does prove that the interest in bev’s has extended beyond the ev enthusiast segment, gm can rearrange production capacity to produce more bev’s.

so, gm is in a pretty good position right now: being first to market, they are going to be in the best position to assess the real market for bev’s. there is a certain elon musk “cult” segment, that won’t buy anything but a tesla, but it also remains to be seen how “real” that segment actually is.

Does this really look like a Honda Fit sized vehicle to you? (Below is a Bolt EV next to a Gen I Volt)

Perspective can be misleading.

There’s about 800 existing CCS stations around the country, with, what, 300 superchargers?

And that’s without a flagship CCS car. Plus, Model 3 is going to at least have to put.


Most every Supercharger “station” has multiple stalls — 4, 6, sometimes 10 or more — located along major travel corridors. And there is natural incentive for people to charge (usually no more than an hour) and then quickly leave (since they are traveling).

Most CCS “stations” are single installations, most often uselessly located in cities, and always occupied by some greedy SOB and their Leaf all day long.

Haha the big difference is that its right here right now… the real thing !!! In 2 or 3 years when model 3 gets out the bolt will probably even be better… if you like to talk without any hard evidence !!!

The base Model 3 will be cheaper than the base Bolt.
The Model 3 will have multiple battery options. There might be even a 300 mile Model 3.
If there is a lot of demand for the Bolt you might end up waiting for it much longer than for a Model 3. (GM will build a maximum of 30k to 50K a year)

GM hasn’t actually said how many they can build. The only statement about that was on someone asking whether they could scale to 50K: “Yes”.

The model 3 will be available in volume at best 1.5 years after the Bolt.

Scaling production isn’t just about batteries — there are lots of other systems in a BEV, as well as logistics, QA, assembly etc.

Tesla has a lot less experience than GM in heavy-industry production, and it remains to be seen if they can scale 10x in 3 years, like they’re currently claiming (~50K cars in 2015 to 500K in 2018).

Tesla could only do 80k of 80kWh cars per year, with Panasonic that is 3 times bigger then LG.

Now tell us again how GM can build more then 50k 60kWh cars in a year?

Some of naysayers try to pretend that with EVs established ICE players have big advantage. No. Battery pack production is bottle neck. Tesla+Panasonic is way head of everybody in this regard.

Tesla+Panasonic is thus market leader and others simply can not approach the scale*.

BYD have huge investment plans, so they spend enough moneys to fight for Nr1 spot.
But one could say that its BYD+China 😉 So they do not need to care as much about CapEx nor about immediate profitability – two main reasons cited by established ICE manufacturers as to why EVs are not good investment targets.

LG are building more battery capacity in expectation of volume not only from Bolt sales but other undisclosed automakers who want in on the same battery tech.

50K is what GM can build in the first year of Bolt production if required. That’s based on actual scalable capacity of various suppliers. Oddly enough the Bolt batteries are not made in LG’s Michigan plant but in a Korean plant, but if sales volume requires it then LG can begin manufacturing them in the MI plant as well.

After the first year, scalable capacity can expand to 70K Bolts/year as a result of certain suppliers building greater production capacity. I cannot say which ones but GM are not their only customer.

wavelet said: “GM hasn’t actually said how many they can build. The only statement about that was on someone asking whether they could scale to 50K: ‘Yes’.” Not quite. The statement (which was perhaps nothing more than an off-the-cuff estimate) that GM could ramp up to 50k Bolts per year, if the market was there, came from a GM rep who was queried about how GM would respond to higher demand. Unfortunately for his rather optimistic statement, we know that LG Chem makes contracts for delivery of battery cell in quantity, two years in advance. So unless the contract with GM specifies that LG must be able to supply double what the initial order is, that is physically impossible. And given that LG Chem hardly increased their output capacity during the first half of this year, it looks rather unlikely that LG is ramping up to enable delivery of a significantly larger number of cells. “Scaling production isn’t just about batteries — there are lots of other systems in a BEV, as well as logistics, QA, assembly etc.” True, but a supply chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It doesn’t matter how many drive shafts or car… Read more »

In 1975 a company created Digital Camera for the first time..

its name is …..

Eastman Kodak.

…and texASS instruments developed the first personal computer. the reason why texASS instruments didn’t produce more personal computers than anyone else wasn’t because they *couldn’t* do so, it is because they didn’t want to produce personal computers because they believed that there was a market for them.

Nope, not TI (you’re presumably thinking of the 99/4, which I actually got to use when it was intro’d).

The first consumer-priced personal computers were either the Apple II (if a BYO-display-device is considered OK), or the Commodore PET (if the display is considered mandatory).

If price is irrelevant, the the 9825/9845 by HP were probably first.

if don’t consider the 99/4 to be a personal computer, then that’s your choice, a lot of people don’t share your opinion:

i definitely would not have considered the hp 9825 to be a personal computer; it was closer to a glorified calculator.

We’re straying from EVs (-:, but you misunderstood me, so I’ll just clarify.

The 99/4 was certainly a personal computer, but it was only intro’d in 1981. That’s 4 years after the Apple II, PET and Radio Shack TRS-80 (also launched mid-1977).

By 1981 I’d already been writing commercial software for the PET for a ouple of years.

ramping up production requires massive amounts of capital. even if one believes that panasonic has a massive production advantage over lg when it comes to battery production; tesla has a fairly massive production disadvantage relative to gm when it comes to automobile production.

Quite true.

However, it’s very well documented that Tesla is spending billions to ramp up both battery supply and its auto assembly capacity.

Contrariwise, LG Chem apparently is doing rather little in ramping up its own battery production, which is very odd considering the growing list of customers for its new, lower-per-kWh cost for li-ion batteries (see link below).

Yep, 50K in the first year is possible. Word is, they can then scale to 70K/year within a year.

The potential is there, GM engineering did everything right. GM designers not so much. GM marketers are incompetent. Thus I dont expect anywhere near 50K/year in sales.

Literally everything you just said is based on nothing but speculation. GM is delivering a 238 mile $37,500 EV later this year. Literally a mic drop.

Tesla has yet to deliver on anything related to the Model 3. It’s purely a concept at this point. (This coming from a Model 3 deposit holder)


They literally dropped the metaphorical mic.



you will spend 37.5k buy a electric chevy sonic ( msrp 15k ) lol

This GM bashing is just as untrue and inaccurate as statements made back in 2010-2011 about the GM Volt; claims it was nothing more than a Chevy Cruze with an electric motor.

Just because it’s built on the same platform doesn’t mean the overall quality of the car has to match.

True. For one electric motors are just so much better, though he has a point in that the body is the same.

The body isn’t the same.

Didn’t you hear? The Volt is just a tarted-up Cruze, and the ELR is just a tarted-up Volt, so really, the ELR and the Cruze are the same car. Which anyone can tell by sitting or riding in both of them.


It is way too soon to claim the range/price winner. Tesla products have always exceeded the promised range and acceleration. The Model 3 will most likely do the same.

And, as always, the big question for any non-Tesla 200-mile EV: where are you going to charge it? No intercity travel for the Bolt…

It is a nice bonus, but you STILL can’t travel with it. GM should’ve reduced the battery size AND the price to match or beat the Model 3. That would have been the smart play.

Awesome! I can get 62% of the way from Phoenix to San Diego. I better bring a LOT of water for that 146 mile hike.

The distance between the DCFC charger in Glendale, AZ and the one in Rancho Miarage, CA is only 260 miles. You could reduce speed and make it stop at any of the RV Parks and charge for an hour or so. You can walk if you want to but most people will choose to charge and drive.

No, most people would choose not to drive a BEV at all under those circumstances. Only BEV die hard will drive. Tesla Superchargers ideally spaced already test the limits of what most people are willing to do on long drives.

Thankfully there are plenty of people that can still buy Bolts and not need to drive them in this manner.

What circumstances? There’s no hardship here. Stopping and getting a bite to eat while you grab a few electrons is no hardship and is what most Tesla drivers still do if they venture away from home.

It looks like the Tesla worshippers are crawling out of the cracks. I think the 238 mile rating really cut at the heart of their idolatry. I expect them to say anything they can to discredit this serious competition to their idol.

Have you used RV park charging? I have. It’s a pain in the ass compared to supercharing. Last time I did it one park mgr had no idea what to charge and I spent half an hour convincing him to let me charge. I would have done it a week ago, but all plug spots at the RV park were full and guess what, RV’s don’t leave after a half hour of use, so I was forced to level 2 charging nearby.

Not to mention hours restrictions for checking in, the need to purchase and carry adapters, etc.

To consider RV park charging perfectly fine for average drivers is absurd.

Actually I have traveled between Texas and Colorado several times by EV charging at RV Parks most of the time. Some RV Parks are problematic but most are not. When you find an RV Park that has a friendly atmosphere you become a repeat customer, I think you need to try a few more RV Parks before you condemn them outright.

BTW most RV Parks have 24 hr drop boxes and I’ve used these drop boxes many times for late night charging.

I didn’t condemn them outright, I said they are not a comparable experience to supercharging. There are real disadvantage to RV parks vs supercharging, not to mention the speed of the charge.

Again, if you think charging a Bolt at an RV park is essentially the same experience as supercharging, that’s your opinion. I suspect you’re in the minority.

On a more general note, the 238mi range of the Bolt is great to see! If I wasn’t a Leaf owner, I’d consider one this fall. However, having an EV as my only vehicle and wanting to keep it that way, has me looking forward to the model 3. The supercharging network, along with AWD and winter package, that should come with it are advantages over the Bolt for me.

I hope Chevy sells ever Bolt and increases their production expectations. The more EV’s out there, the better!

I believe the point that koz is making is that most people wouldn’t reduce speed and charge at an RV park, and IMO he’s right. Most mainstream drivers won’t relish doing that.
But for those of us who would do that, fine.

EVgo has been installing CCS stations farther and farther into the desert between California and Arizona. I expect the DCFC gap between California and Arizona, at least in terms of the Bolt, to become insignificant in the near future. But I do disagree that Bolt owners won’t venture out into the desert, people are adventurous and resourceful and I don’t believe they will shy away from a minor charging gap if needs warrant.

There’s currently one at Morongo, which is like 120 miles from LA

There are some CCS stations near Palm Desert which are even further than Morongo Valley.

I read that EVGo has started installing 60 kW charge rate chargers, but I can’t find it now that I am trying to find it again. I hope they up their game and drag everyone forward with them. 75kW charging makes long distance driving much easier. 50 kW is nice, but faster is better.

Texas FFE said:

“Stopping and getting a bite to eat while you grab a few electrons is no hardship…”

If it was just a “few” electrons, it wouldn’t matter. Stopping every hour or 90 minutes to recharge for 45 minutes or an hour is a serious inconvenience. EV advocates like us need to stop pretending otherwise.

When you talk that way to someone who’s not an EV advocate, it just makes you look like a fanatic, and someone to be ignored.

The EV revolution will be better served if we EV advocates own up to the limitations of current EVs. The way to get more people to buy EVs is to convince them that their virtues outweigh their current limitations, not to pretend those limitations don’t exist.

Well said.

Push, I don’t think driving at 65 for 3 hours and stopping for 45 minutes then driving for another 2 hours is a problem. Obviously, more is better but this is pretty good.
In fact, I think the Bolt is a good bit better than I had imagined it would be for road-tripping. More importantly, I think the majority of people that would consider an electric car won’t see it as a problem, either.

Ziv, thanks for your input.

I see a lot of argument back and forth about the limitations of (apparently optional) 50 kW charging for the Bolt, as compared to Supercharging a Tesla car.

As SparkEV has pointed out, the tapering on Supercharging is quite significant. If, as has been claimed, tapering on the Bolt will be minimal or nonexistent (at least up to 80% charge), then perhaps the Bolt can truly challenge Tesla cars for long-distance travel.

However, as I think we all know, claims from companies selling a product refer to optimal conditions, rather than conditions most often found in the real world. So I think we’re going to have to wait to see actual reports from Bolt drivers — drivers who don’t work for GM — reporting on their actual, real-world experiences with taking the Bolt on a road trip, before we can have sufficient information to make an informed opinion about the capability of the Bolt for long distance travel.

I just read on the Chevy site that “You can charge fast enough to get 90 miles in 30 minutes or 160 miles in 60 minutes”.
So the Bolt may actually have a bit of taper before 80% unfortunately.
But on the plus side, 45 minutes will be virtually all at full speed and that will get you 130 miles. So 45 minutes gets you nearly 2 hours of driving. You won’t want to drive at 75 mph obviously, or rather, you may want to but it will trash your efficiency.
I think that is acceptable for most people that want to drive an electric car, if they don’t roadtrip every day.

“Stopping every hour or 90 minutes to recharge for 45 minutes or an hour is a serious inconvenience.”

It is very inconvenience for waiting anything more than 25-30 minutes every 2-3 hours.

Well unlike your anti-Tesla ravings TFFE, this Model 3 reservation holder says a big congratulations to GM for building the first non-Tesla long-range compelling BEV!

Like I said in an earlier post, this was Tesla’s master plan all along to force the laggard OEMs through its competition to start doing this.

For an hour or so???????????? I’m not stopping on a road trip like the one ‘None’ mentioned for 5.84 hours of charging (25 miles/per hour), just so that I could finish the remaining 146 miles. Not when I could drive a Model 3 from Phoenix to Mexicali, spend 20-30 minutes to charge, and then continue to San Diego.

You completely missed it didn’t you? It’s 23 miles, not 146 miles. But I guess you are to do your best to crtisize the Bolt no matter how dumb it makes you look.

You replied, “You completely missed it didn’t you? It’s 23 miles, not 146 miles. But I guess you are to do your best to crtisize the Bolt no matter how dumb it makes you look.”

Wow! Why are you getting personal? ‘None’ said the remainder of his trip would be around 146 miles (not 23), based upon the estimated range of the Bolt that you provided. Then you posted something about charging at RV locations and other locations. Even with a 240v charger, Chevy says the Bolt charges at 25 miles per hour. For the 146 miles that ‘None’ would need to complete his trip, that’s 5.84 hours of charging. I simply said, no way would I put up with sitting around that long to charge an EV. And for the record, I think the Bolt looks like a great BEV, but I would never use it for a road trip. Around town it would handle all my needs and more….but not traveling which is why I lean toward the Model 3. When you respond to people who question your conclusions, you may want to attempt to be civil.

Question my conclusion? You didn’t even read my conclusion or if you did you completely misunderstood it. What did you not understand about there is only a 260 mile gap between CCS chargers?

That leaves only 22 miles from the rated EPA range of 238 miles, not 146 miles. I don’t know I’m even bothering with you, you’re obviously not interested in logic or reason. You appear to be just another brain dead Tesla cultist.

BTW those RV parks are used frequently by Tesla owners charging between California and Arizona. There are also a few Tesla destination chargers that the Bolt can charge at with a $200 adapter.

One interesting note on Bolt EV Charging. The website states, “Up to 90 miles of range in about 30 minutes of charge*” for the Bolt EV, and it does NOT say any conditional statement about “when optionally equipped with DCFC capability”

So does this mean the Bolt EV may have DC charging standard?

Also, 90 miles range in 30 minutes sounds like 50kW charging to me.


DC Fast Charge capability is available to Bolt EV owners for an additional cost

Thanks, you’re right. I expected them to state that caveat as well on the link below, but they did not.

No, unless the concierge I spoke with was mis-informed. The Bolt website has been recently updated with new info, one thing interestingly is now the charge time is 9 1/2 hours up from 9. Perhaps because all the pics show it with a 30 amp wallbox.

But then, it does seem that the 32 amp charger will be standard, and it will be 120 volt compatible (but no info as to whether there will be the choice of 8 or 12 amps). And either Bosch or GM calls the outlet a ‘110’ which is accurate enough without splitting hairs. And its optimistic for my neighborhood as I’ve previously explained.

So I want an LT without the CCS, and without all the automatic crap that the Premiere has.

The site (link: ) states 25 miles per hour of charge, which seems to agree with what you said here. 238 miles divided by 25 miles would be about 9.52 hours. Slightly hand-wavy (ignoring the subtleties of potential nonlinear charging regions, and 25 miles/hour is “approximate), but it sounds like you’re right.


From the ‘b-roll’ vids on another article, the 8 and 12 amp level 1 charging rates ramain just as from the very first Volt.

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

This Exactly. There’s an upper limit of the Tesla supercharger network and advantage has been tapped.

Now with just as long legs and public format CCS that will build up naturally with demand, it will outpace and charge in logical areas. RV parks are a temporary (and mostly nice) areas to recharge.

That quick bit between Phoenix and PalmSprings? Enjoy that one Carls’ Jr. as your sole choice.

Most places in Cali, where there’s a supercharger, there’s 3x CCS chargers nearby — and growing. VW will be a large part of that going forward too with their settlement agreement.

Even if the Bolt only has 50kW CCS charging you would only need one charging stop of about 45 minutes for that 355 mile trip. Or you can split that charging time into 2 or 3 stops if you prefer or if there are no fast chargers in the middle of the trip. Remember you can do other things while the car is charging. Most people do not drive 6 hours non-stop without even going to toilet or grabbing something to eat anyway.

I am really hoping they “future proof” the Bolt and make it capable of charging at 60+ kW charge rates. Making a 40-45 minute lunch break every 2.5 hours isn’t much of a problem. For most drivers it is the amount of time they need to stretch their legs and grab a bite, as you note.
But going from 50 to even 60 kW charge rates would chop 15-20% off the charge time needed.
Given the likely 220 mile hwy AER this isn’t absolutely needed, but it would be nice.
238 miles is huge.


Just noticed something on the GM site. It says you can charge the Bolt and get 90 miles in 30 minutes or 160 miles in an hour of charging. So the charge rate taper at the end of the charging looks to start at around 40 to 45 minutes.

Imagine a world where you could buy any other car that would fit your needs…

I travel to Asia and Europe multiple times a year, guess the Bolt is not for me as it can’t fly or drive under water.

Some people should think before posting.

GM doesn’t need to beat vaporware, it is impossible. Sure GM and crowd will do it when vaporware will be become reality, if ever, but it will take long time, maybe GM will be releasing new model by then.

Exactly. This is the 2017 Bolt, the 2018 won’t change much, since there won’t be many model 3s (if any), but I could see a price drop and an option for a bigger battery. 2019 would be prime for a mid-generation refresh, then a brand new, true Model 3 killer in 2021.

Plus pickup trucks and SUVs, I’m sure.

GM hits it out of the park! 238 miles is massive! Great job! This sets a new standard for future “affordable” EVs. This also puts the model 3 under pressure. The 3 still has the Supercharger advantage but the other standards are coming along nicely although slower.

Tesla just got a huge competitor, I wonder what this will do to the 400k preorders?

Definitely not 400k anymore. Lol

Never really was 400k. Tesla posted only 380ish thousands.

Nor should we expect it to budge much without second unveiling event.

Fast charging rules supreme though. Both cars are affordable for both potential buyers groups. In fact both potential buyer groups are exactly same group 😉

So if on of the cars can post significant better fast charge times and enough production capacity, its over for the second one 😉

The question is, will Tesla have to accelerate part 2 of the M3 unveiling? Bolt EVs are rolling off the line now, with retail production ones, not far away. Once those hit lots at the end of the year and in Jan 2017, those sales could be taking sales from potential M3 buyers.

What does it matter if potential Model ≡ sales are “stolen” over the next 2-3 years? Tesla will sell as many Model ≡’s as it can make over that period. Only when Tesla’s production of the Model ≡ approaches demand, will competition become important.

Of course, it is prudent of Tesla to look ahead to the time when there will be real competition for the Model ≡, so keeping potential buyers thinking about the M≡ is a good thing. But in the near term, it doesn’t matter because nobody will be building compelling PEVs (Plug-in EVs) in the quantity that Tesla plans to.

“real competition”

I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

CUVs make me throw up in my mouth a bit too. But if they must be sold, and sold at a premium price, better they be EVs.

Meanwhile, I want a high-performance mid-sized luxury sedan for that kind of money. And better it be an EV.

So I’ll wait. I don’t see what crime I’ve committed in your eyes except to not hail the mighty GM as though it was somehow more American than Tesla.

Did not accuse you of any crime, and didn’t suggest GM is more American than Tesla.


In case it’s not clear from my other posts here and elsewhere, I think the Bolt is (or will be) a compelling PEV (Plug-in EV). My only serious complaint about it is that, in my opinion, GM very obviously has no intention of making and selling it in large numbers. I think I’ve given some pretty sound reasons for that opinion.

If you disagree, if you think GM will rapidly ramp up production of the Bolt… well, let’s wait a couple of years and see who is correct, okay? In the meantime, no point in aiming pejorative posts in my direction merely because I’m not a GM cheerleader like you.

If I slam GM unfairly, then by all means point that out and criticize me. But I don’t think I deserved that comment from you.

I get tired of those cliches. It’s as if, Tesla is the only company capable of making a decent plugin. I did miss the part of your post where you said “in the quantities Tesla is”, because I stopped at “compelling”. Sorry. I agree that GM will take it slow, at first, w/the Bolt EV, but I also think there is less market for GM electric products vs. the rah-rah Tesla group, regardless of the product. That can be a temporary situation. I also think it’s a concern for Tesla if they start losing a lot of sales to competition because they are building a gigafactory, and need to be able to sell all the cars/batteries they produce, in order to get the cost savings of scale. Right now it seems like that won’t be an issue, but it wasn’t long ago when no one knew there was going to be a 238 mile BEV for $30k after credits. Toyota engineers are saying it’s cheaper to build BEVs than hybrids now (just not the longer range ones). Once (if) they join the bandwagon, they could use their cachet to take even more sales. The silver lining is Elon is getting… Read more »

Come on! That roller-skate-looking Chevy thing will never be a competitor to a Tesla. Maybe a Cadillac could be, but not a Chevy. The Tesla starting price will be cheaper and it will be a more luxurious, better-looking car. Even if the M3 base range ends up being less than the Bolt, there will be at least one higher-range option that will be 250+ miles.

Don’t worry. It’ll all be OK.

You mock him now, but Tesla is going to revolutionize the tissue industry with the sexiest, highest performing Kleenex-killer on the market.

Tesla will redesign the tissue box opening and replace the oval opening with falcon-winged door lids. If you’re right handed and reaching for a tissue, the right FWD lid will open and the left FWD lid for left handed people. These FWD lid openings will be far superior because they are larger than tradition oval openings, and when used outdoors in the rain the FWD lids will even keep the tissues dry when opened. 😀

Brilliant! They’ve almost thought of everything!

I’m going to be holding onto my money though for the next model which has complex mood sensors and AutoDispense for when you are crying, sneezing, or watching the Model Y unveiling.

The problem is even there is no model 3, who is stupid enough to buy 37.5k electric chevy sonic??!!

And top speed is pity 90mph which is even worse than its ICE version’s 125mph

bolt’s horsepower definitely smaller than 120HP

How dumb to buy this crap

37.5k you can buy a top trim pilot highlander

30K you can buy a top trim accord

Well, my supposed DOG of a car, the 2014 ELR was test driven sunday by a guy who floored the accelerator while it was in its slower EV mode, and he said “Wow! That’s plenty fast enough for me!”.

Zillions of VW microbuses with 53-57 hp engines were purchased. Of course all the ‘big experts’ at the time said such a vehicle was unusable and that ‘no one’ would buy it. The ones from the 1960’s in good shape go currently for more than $100,000.

So much for big experts.

Nearly 200,000 people bought the “$40k electric Chevy Cruze” or the “$35k electric Nissan Versa.”

Amazing what an EV drivetrain can do.

“30K you can buy a top trim accord”

Who the F want’s an Accord??

Take your meds

Rick (no, not that Rick)

My wife loves her Accord! And it only cost $29K.

But don’t you see the lunacy of going onto a pro-EV sight, and in response to an article on the first affordable long range EV, posting “How dumb to buy this crap”?

Then suggesting people buy a Honda Pilot or Accord?

The same reasoning can be used to dismiss the Model 3.

Well, this is InsideEV’s right? I don’t think the comparison vehicles you suggested would be good alternatives for anyone who was considering an EV in the first place.

I will love my future Bolt EV. I’ve had two chevy EV’s now and they are fantastic. But I hold no ill will towards any Leaf, Tesla, BMW i3 owners. 🙂 The end goal is the same.

Dr. Miguelito Loveless

Obvious troll is obvious

Are they still using the 60kWh battery, or did they up the size? I know it’s a small car, but with how tall it looks I would have assumed the coefficient of drag would prevent it from getting that much range.

There was info about them modifying the design through standard wind-tunnel-testing to decrease the horsepower requirement, and, of course, it uses more a more efficient motor than the old fashioned induction job used in the Tesla Products.

So if the “S” 60 kwh model could go 206 miles, it no great surprise this vehicle can go 238, and its boxy shape and flat floors mean a huge amount of usable space inside for people and cargo.

Bolt is ———1,624 kg (3,580 lb)
Model S 60kWh is 1,961 kg (4,323 lb)

Model S steats confortably 5 adults and have best safty ratings ever.

Its to be seen weather Bolt can deliver those two, or maybe they where sacrificed for the weight efficiency. 😉

(big) tesla supporter here.
You cannot compare the two, MS is about twice the price, it’s in a different class.x

“different class”. It is very different car, yes. But you can’t define class just by price tag. You need to provide features to justify price tag, or competitors will eat you.

Yeah, just ask MB as the Model S destroys their S Class market share.

You don’t understand how luxury cars work. You’re like the Big 3-loving yokels who bought into Ford’s 1975 advertising campaign comparing their new crypto-luxury Granada with the Mercedes C-Class of that era based on “features” and the Mercedes being triple the price.

No one even remembers the Granada today. It was simply a boring intermediate American car meant for a completely different owner than the Mercedes.

I’m getting sick of EV sites drowning in brain-dead commentary by treehuggers and right-wing trolls who have no real interest in the evolution of the automobile or the auto industry. For EVs to matter, there can’t be a single EV market, there must be many EV markets and the Bolt and Model 3 are just trying to serve two of the ones we hope will be huge.

Jay’s writeup says the Bolt EV has a 60kWh battery.

“Model S steats confortably 5 adults and have best safty ratings ever.”

It doesn’t seat comfortable more than 2, and even these 2 should take rather low seating position, which may be uncomfortable for older age people. Seating in the back of Model S is not comfortable, your head is too close to roof unless your height is below average. And yes, you can add 2 more child seats in luggage compartment – but I would not want to risk my child lives placing them there.

Bolt on the other side didn’t compromise head space for marginal aerodynamic improvement, and as EPA rage and mpge shows, the outcome is significantly better than Model S anyway.

Your views are prejudicial, and though I think there is less head space than there might be too, your continued unabated, slanted, and wholly unfavorable view of Tesla, the premier ev car company in the world, is unwarranted.
Personally I find most of your comments to be so, funnily excluding this one.

Drag doesn’t have such a big influence on driving cycles. City driving is more valued than highway and at low speeds aerodynamic drag is neglegable.

Looks to me like GM lowered the rear roofline of the Bolt. That would improve streamlining, which would enable improved range. No increase in battery pack capacity necessary.

Here’s what the concept car looked like:

And the production version:

Is there any news as to whether it will be available in Australia?

No rhd version, the only bolts in Australia are the early design prototypes in port Melbourne.

You would expect they will bring one out eventually, otherwise they miss a huge market of lease vehicles coming off lease on the UK soon.

That number isn’t huge by GM standards (-:
Anyway, I’m sure they’ll wait to see how sales go for the first year, in additional to fixing any engineering issues, before they go to the additional expense of a RHD version.

Recall, the majority of the worldwide RHD market for cars in general is in Japan & India; both aren’t relevant for the Bolt, Japan because it’s not a Japanese car (and Japanese basically don’t buy non-Japanese cars, except for a few luxury models) India because the Bolt is too expensive.

What about the Opel Ampera-e? I would imagine that’s right hand drive since it’s destined for Europe?

No, GM has clearly stated that there will be no RHD (Right-Hand Drive) version of the Bolt, nor its European version, the Ampera-e.

Is there any country in Europe other than the UK (and I suppose Ireland) that uses RHD?

My sympathies to EV enthusiasts in the UK, Australia, Hong Kong, and other current and former British Commonwealth countries which will not be among the countries where the Bolt (or Ampera-e) will be available. Hopefully in future years GM will choose to expand production of the car, despite the clear signs that they have no intention of doing so in the first year or two.

Nice job, Chevy. It’s cute, not sexy, but super-practical. Can’t wait to test one. I’d love to have both it and a Model 3. Would love to see a performance version with lower efficiency but blazing fast speed.

I used to think there would be room for several manufacturers, but 238 miles in a very practical (supposedly larger than a Model S) family hauler that is comfortable for driver and passengers alike, is probably going to mean EVERYONE is going to go after this vehicle and the other EV makers (except Tesla, who still wins the range game with its new 100 kwh products) are going to be left ‘holding the bag’. As long as cars only went 80 miles, this would discourage whole numbers of people away from them, calling them ‘golf carts’ or ‘toys’. But now, 238 miles – you can really go somewhere. So why in the world would someone buy a competitor’s 80 mile range product? I think GM just raised the bar for the industry – after all if naysayers say desparigingly that even a lousy chevy will go 238 miles, any pricier vehicle will have to go at least as far, or farther. So if people decide they ONLY want GM electrics, it will be an earthquake under the other companies – they’ll have to scramble or make deals with LG or others to get a semi-competitive product going, or else they’ll… Read more »

This GM offering really demands a response from all the other EV makers. Its just a question of when and how they respond. GM can enjoy getting back some of the market share they have been loosing.

There does not seem to be any unique GM tech breakthrough in the Bolt. So, there are going to be fast followers in the affordable 200 plus mile range. Its going to be great for EVs. The only limits will be in the charging networks.

Remember Bill, dealers will still need to want to sell them for this to be successful, haha.

With the new Chevy website (referenced above in Jay’s article) dedicated to describing various hybrid and electric options, I hope they have a similar brochure available at all dealers that succinctly describes the benefits of each offering: Bolt EV, Volt, and to a lesser extent, the Malibu hybrid, etc.

PS – Good to see you at the NDEW event this past weekend! Your ELR got some “camera time” on the Time Warner news story.

Good seeing you too.

As far as dealers go, a minority of Cadillac dealers in my area sold the ELR. So be it.

Chevrolet dealers in my area will gladly sell you a VOLT, and assuredly, a BOLT.


They oscillate between being the largest and second largest chevy dealer in the country.

So much for them not wanting to sell electrics.

They will give inaccurate information (unknowingly) about how the VOLT really works, but I can’t blame any dealership that was lied to by GM for 18 months straight, even to their service managers.

I can’t blame them that they Memorized deliberately deceptive information from the corporation.

“I think GM just raised the bar for the industry – after all if naysayers say desparigingly that even a lousy chevy will go 238 miles, any pricier vehicle will have to go at least as far, or farther.”

GM set the bar for PHEVs too, with 38 miles, and then 53 miles of EV range, but the naysayers didn’t stop chirping. There still isn’t any other PHEV even close to the Volt. (not counting the oddball i3)

238 is impressive. Good to see GM raising the bar.

However. The range is based on 50/50 highway/city.

You need the range for longer trips which are usually 90% highway and then the range 238 will be harder to achieve. Highway consumption of the Bolt is ~15% higher than city consumption. In the inevitable comparison to the Model 3, that will be a different story since it has much better aerodynamics and thus will perform relatively better on the highway. The Model S has lower highway energy consumption than city, and I expect the Model 3 to be the same.

Standard EPA efficiency is 55% city, 45% highway.

Ok, thanks for the exact numbers.

That explains the 55%/45% split on fuel economy and from the range description it suggests that they do the same.

Bolt EV numbers work out to ~256 City and 220 Highway.

You can guesstimate hwy range based on MPGe. 238 miles is based on combined (119 MPGe). Hwy is 110, so it would be

238 / 119 * 110 = 220 miles hwy

Doing similar for city (128 MPGe),

238 / 119 * 128 = 256 miles city

238 miles must be the city range.
238 mi / 128 mpge x 33.7 kwh / ge = 62.66 kwh drawn from outlet.

Assuming 90% charging efficiency yields battery capacity of 56.4 kwh

238 miles of range is indeed impressive. However, I still think the Volt is a more practical electric car. We still lack a national charging infrastructure for anything not named Tesla and without it the Bolt will not be a functional long distance vehicle. If all you want is a city car, then 238 miles just isn’t necessary.

The Volt offers long distance travel plus all electric driving 99% of the remaining trips. The only downside of the Volt is that it is a little small for some of us, but the Voltec technology is, I think, brilliant.

I think you may find it’s not as small as you thinkg, given how they re-imagined and designed the car. It is rumored to have more space than a Model S, which is certainly enough to give me pause and go look at one.

Bolt has about the same passenger space volume as Model S or Leaf, it was already announced. Model S however is lower and wider.
Cargo volume (cu ft / L):
16.9 cu-ft / 478 L
Passenger volume (cu ft / L):
PV1 52.2 cu-ft / 1478 L 1st row
PV2 42.2 cu-ft / 1195 L 2nd row

I am a 2016 Volt owner and it is a little small for me. I actually found the Leaf more spacious, though the Volt is a much better car in just about every other respect.

Hi Tom, my bad.. I was referring to and was thinking of the Bolt, though he was discussing the Volt.

The pains of having similarly named vehicles, my brain didn’t process the right model. 😉

“If all you want is a city car, then 238 miles just isn’t necessary.”

I need a “regional” car. Meaning, I need to be able to go on ~200 mile round trips every so often. This is usually to a town that is about an hour away, then back home. With 238 miles, this is possible without having to concern myself with destination charging.

Also, if you live somewhere where you can’t charge at home, you might be able to drive for a week or more on the Bolt’s city range.

This is a point that does not get enough attention. The Bolt is a GREAT city car for apartment dwellers who lack charging at home and whose city includes a DC quick charger.

With 238 miles of range you could go to the quick charger once or twice a week and wouldn’t have to worry about charging at home.

Tom said:

“The Bolt is a GREAT city car for apartment dwellers who lack charging at home and whose city includes a DC quick charger.”

This is absurd. This is precisely the sort of magical thinking, firmly ignoring reality, that true EV advocates should avoid like the plague.

No PEV (Plug-in EV) is “great” for anyone who can’t charge up at home, period. Those who can charge up at work but not at home might be able to struggle through, altho obviously they’d have to put up with some inconvenience unless the PEV is a second or third car.

The proper way to address the problem of people not being able to plug their car in at home is to advocate with your local and State elected officials to revise building codes to require landlords installing, or at least allowing to be installed, L2 charge points in their parking lots, and to get municipal governments to start installing curbside L2 chargers in areas where offstreet parking isn’t available.

Despite labeling my conclusion “absurd”, you fail to even attempt a demonstration of any absurdity, substituting mere assertion for argument. I think you confuse that which is absurd with that with which you simply disagree. Using exaggerated, overheated rhetoric such as “absurd”, “magical thinking”, and “ignoring reality” advances no identifiable agenda beyond the eagerness to sound obnoxious.

With 238 miles of range and access to a public DC charger, one or two lunch breaks a week is all you would need to keep the car charged.

Yes, government-required level 2 chargers would be a better solution for EV users. It is also a very unlikely one, at least until EVs achieve a significantly larger market share. Until then, it is useful to discuss reasonable alternatives, and using public DC chargers once or twice a week sounds reasonable to me, at least as reasonable as using DC chargers for long-distance trips, which can add hours to the travel time compared to an ICE alternative.

Tom, keep in mind too that the Bolt is being marketed (and with its range is well suited) for ride sharing and taxi service.
But yes, it’s not suitable as a long range travel car yet. Not until 2023 possibly. Then next gen reliable comprehensive fast charge network should exist to enable long distance travel.

Range is just ridiculous, no insane!

Ludicrous even. 😉

How ‘Plaid’ of them to Go So Far!
Do the not think King Elon Just noticed that Number?

Even if the Model 3 Base does not go as far, it might just have a (Secretly) Bigger Battery, that is initially software limited, then they offer buyers an extra 5-10 kWh, for an over the phone upgrade!

They will also be offering a further battery selection, Supercharging (If not included, likely for cheap, as credits!), and a Country Wide Network, in USA, Canada, many European Countries, China, Japan, and so on!

Tesla is already testing the structure of their new cooling system in the battery of the new P100DL! If they ended up with a 65 kWh pack as base Model 3, they would likely drop a Highway Range on us of 265-275 miles! The could software limit that to give just 240 miles, and later open it up for the longer range, if needed!

GM could gave delivered just 220 miles for now, and later offered an upgrade of the extra 18 miles, for something like $500! That would have shown they learned something from breaking down the Tesla’s they bought!

Robert Weekley said:

“GM… would have shown they learned something from breaking down the Tesla’s they bought!”

Looks to me like GM already did. At least according to what I’ve read, the Volt 2.0 battery pack’s TMS (Thermal Management System) seems to operate more like the Tesla S/X than the one in the Volt 1.0 did.

You keep getting this wrong. GM has always had superior efficiency in charging to Tesla. Your electric bill will always be lower driving GM products unless as a Tesla Dude you hang out at the supercharger.

Good grief, Bill. You’re just embarrassing yourself. You also claimed in this discussion that: “[GM] uses more a more efficient motor than the old fashioned induction job used in the Tesla Products.” Reality check: The modern, efficient integrated motor controller for AC induction motors was invented by Alan Cocconi when he worked for GM, and was first used in the 1990 Impact concept car. That car became the prototype for the GM EV-1. Alan Cocconi went on to help found AC Propulsion, which made the tZero EV sports car, which became the prototype for the Tesla Roadster. Tesla licensed AC Propulsion’s EV tech. So the EV tech from GM and Tesla came from the same source. GM has certainly demonstrated it has excellent engineering ability when it comes to PHEVs; Voltec is completely unrivaled by any other company. But for BEV tech, it’s quite clear that Tesla is years in advance of any other company. For example, the Bolt is going to be limited to only 50 kW charging! Tesla’s technical superiority will become even more clear when we can compare the energy efficiency of the Tesla Model ≡ to the GM Bolt. If you honestly think that the Bolt… Read more »

I don’t care what wikipedia says – but you are probably taking things out of context anyway – and I say this as a wikipedia author myself.

This stuff has been used for much longer than the car industry used it.

As far as me stating that the Volt’s charging system is more efficient, prove me wrong.

I’ve had a 2011 Roadster, and a 2011 volt in different stalls of the same garage. Plus I’ve read the charging specs of the newer Rav4EV, and charge times of the “S” from the calculator. So you want to say even Tesla doesn’t know how to measure their own car ??? |!!!. I’ve measured capacities, power levels, and times. I was also the first person to theorize problems with 120 volt charging the “S” in cold weather; this was then proven later by the minnesota woman that I’ve rehashed several times.

Since you are rarely even near an EV, I doubt you have even gotten to square 1. Do you even know how to perform basic measurements?

What supreme arrogance!!!

How dare you critique other people’s expertise since you have none of your own?

My response went totally over your head.

You are like a kindergartener arguing with a teacher who obviously knows nothing since the 4 year old said so..

Btw, you have just confused a “MOTOR” – which converts electricity to mechanical power, with a ‘controller’, which controls the electricity. So its pointless to try to even try to instruct you. The efficiency of the motor is unrelated to the efficiency of the motor’s controller, all other things being equal.

Gen 2 Volt TMS is just like the Gen 1 Volt TMS, CT6 PHEV TMS and the Spark EV(2015 and newer). Active glycol cooling circulated through the pack and through channels in thermal plates between each cell.

Not at all like Tesla’s “snake” based TMS.

Also not like the Bolt’s TMS, which uses glycol circulated through channels in a bottom base plate and has passive aluminum plates sandwiched between each cell to conduct the heat down to the cooled bottom plate.

The 2014 Spark EV with the A123 battery pack used a similar bottom plate cooling concept and the BMW i3 uses this concept, except the bottom plate is cooled directly by the refrigerant instead of glycol.

HVACman said: “Gen 2 Volt TMS is just like the Gen 1 Volt TMS…” Hmmm, well I guess the bone of contention here is just how much change there was between the Volt 1.0 and the Volt 2.0. Quoting from “The Chevrolet Volt Cooling/Heating Systems Explained”, Dec 9th, 2010 (source 1): “The Chevy Volt is equipped with four fully independent cooling systems or ‘loops’ ” Quoting from “BMW and LG Chem Trump Tesla in Battery Thermal Management”, Dec 7, 2015 (source 2) (I quote from this article to cite details, not because I agree with their conclusion that Tesla’s cooling system is inferior): “We saw from a previous article that Tesla has four different cooling loops. “The Chevy Volt has five different cooling loops.” I inferred from these statements that the Volt 2.0 had a substantial change in how the battery cooling system works. However, it may be that what the second citation refers to is, in part, a heat exchange between the Volt’s glycol/water based cooling system, and the Volt’s cabin A/C, which is refrigerant-based. In other words, perhaps the Volt 2.0 doesn’t have an additional cooling loop; perhaps the reference to “five different cooling loops” refers to all… Read more »

You are splitting hairs, getting hung up on irrelevancies.

Some actual facts or authoritative citations to back up your assertions would help your case. As it is, it looks like you just don’t want to admit you’re wrong… and unfortunately, that’s a habit with you.

Your neighbors must have all told you to dummy up since they don’t feel like responding to fights you constantly try to start with them. SO then, feeling like a brave keyboard warrior, you decide to do your childish stunt here.

Ever think: People here who have bachelor’s and master’s degrees in electrical engineering or mechanical enginneering rarely have any serious disagreement with what I say, and then I respond to them which seems to satisfy them.. But then you know better.

Look you want detailed info on here it works. Ok – the LOOPS you are worried about in the volt are like this: from the front of the car (coldest outside air), the fan-forced (2 electric fans) pull air from the outside in this order. 1). Electronics Loop , and paralleled battery loop, with individual surge tanks. 2). Air conditioning condenser. 3). transaxle (transmission) cooler 4). Engine coolant (works on the hottest air). So that is 3 water loops, one oil loop, and one refrigerant loop. The battery loop also has a chiller tap off the air conditioner, and a roughly 2000 watt electric heater, with a 12 volt circulator pump. A 3 way valve controls whether the battery is cooled or heated. The chiller tap also has a refrigerant 3 way valve to chill the water should the fans not be enough, say on a superhot day. The heater loop has a small additional 12 volt pump to force water through the 6 kw heater when the engine isn’t on. When the engine is on, a belt driven water pump provides the circulation. The transaxle has an electric pump in it to provide cooling for the 2 motors and… Read more »

The electronics loop is the simplest. It is merely the water flowing through the inverter then to the plug-in charger then back through the radiator, run by a small 12 volt pump.

One correction: the Tesla had the 3 way expansion valve; the volt has 2 paralleled expansion valves so that cooling of the battery and cabin can happen simultaneously.

Ok you want specifically why the volt is more efficient than say, a Tesla Roadster when charging?

There are others, but here is a big one:

With the roadster, to cool the battery when charging the air conditioner HAD to run.

In the volt there are 3 ways to change the temperature of the battery since it is done with either electrically heated water, radiator cooled water (the coldest air), or refrigerated water.

So while the roadster had to use the air conditioner, the volt could do it with a tiny pump and fans.

They learned to put batteries in the floor from Tesla.

Who learned it from GM.

Where is the battery in the 2006 Tesla Roaster ?

Behind the seats

Regarding the lack of a supercharger network, in my area of the country its not so much of a disadvantage.

Once the novelty is gone, how often is someone going to want to drive way out of their way to use the SC’s when the route you would normally drive is hundreds of miles more direct?

And in some areas of the country, CCS stations are at least starting to be installed – which can obviously be made much cheaper than a Supercharger Complex.

I seriously suspect there will be much more drive for more CCS chargers, once the Bolt really starts appearing in numbers.

I’m fairly certain that no one drives hundreds of miles off their route to use super chargers, especially considering how ubiquitous they’re becoming on most of the major routes. But, the more charging options out there, the better.

All you have to do is look at a map. I live in the second biggest city in the third biggest state, and most of the places I want to go are SC-less.

Will that still be true, two years from now?

Probably not.

Well, forget about any direct route from my joint to friends in the capital of Pennsylvania, normally around 300 miles.

Other trips are out of the question, as there are some entire states and provinces without any supercharger facilities.

I would guess two years from now there will be more ccs facilities.

Winnipeg is out of the question.

Buffalo – Erie – Cranberry – Somerset – Harrisburg is 327 miles, which is only 45 miles further than the most direct route and it is Interstate the entire way.

To get to Winnipeg from Buffalo requires driving through some very lightly traveled and sparsely populated areas. You can get to Minneapolis easily enough, but from there you have to go via North Dakota for 456 miles.

You might want to consider a Volt.

I agree with Tom, Bill. You should consider a Volt. If you want something a bit nicer, maybe an ELR will do? 😉

Bill should also consider a pre-owned Tesla Roadster with the new extended battery pack. With 330 miles of AER, he should be able to make that 300-mile trip from Buffalo, NY to Harrisburg, Pa without having to charge along the way. But he should probably research the Roadster’s reliability before buying one. 😉

What do I do if perhaps I want to get back home? Hang my TSL-01 connector out with maybe 30 miles range left and hope a tow truck will stop by that has one – Or maybe I can phone the president of AAA and get one of their generator trucks to stop by for a day? Or get an apartment for 3 days to recharge the thing to get back home?

Humm, people are all suggesting I buy a VOlt and ELR? What do I do with the ones I’ve Got?

Oops. Sorry Bill, that was meant as humor/sarcasm (and I assume upstate Brian was also joking) in response to the “You might want to consider a Volt” comment above by someone unaware of the EVs you currently own and previously owned. No offense intended. 🙂

Maybe I should buy what now?

1). A Tesler Ridester?
2). Cheby Voltage?
3). Elr – ok that means Electricical reborn?

ummmmm — I got the joke already – the funny part is that you thought I didn’t. Love your green eye shade analysis of things, btw.

Buffalo, NY?

Tesla tries to put the Superchargers in locations that provide the fastest routes. Whether they can agree a location is a different matter.

Well let us see:

1). You’ve proven you have zero familiarity with charging and discharging ev’s. You certainly aren’t aware of ANY of the nuances EV drivers encounter all the time. You don’t know how EV air conditioning systems begin to work, or even which cars have what types of systems in them. The system in the GEN 1 VOLT is plenty good enough since there have been no batteries dying in them, EVER.

2). You have proven you have problems with ‘Reading Comprehension’, otherwise known as ‘Reading for Meaning’.

My “Novelty” comment was referring to those Tesla drivers such as the ‘black hat’ guy going from supercharger to supercharger. This will tend to decrease in time, unless the SC is on the route they’d go anyway.

Most people, eventually will want to pick the route they’d take with an ICE vehicle.

OF COURSE Supercharger use will increase.

You always try to shoot down the person, instead of talk about characteristics of the car. You must be a really spiteful person.

🙂 Now all they need is an agreement on charging, to make it not-a-pain to pay for charging en route.
And when the Tesla 3 comes, they can drop the price on the Bolt by 10,000,- and still have good sales.

Good job GM! Welcome to the 200+ mile club! Ok Nissan, your turn!?

Yes, true in regards to range, but GM is the first in regards to range and “affordable”.

I placed a deposit today!

Amazing work from a real American car company, not just a Silcon Valley arrogant startup that loses money and lies constantly.

Well done GM.

Tesla you accelerated the move toward vehicle electrification. Now declare bankruptcy since you are the least efficient auto manufacturer on the planet.

Didn’t Sarah Palin say some stuff about “Real America”?
Your ranting reminds me of hers, complete BS.?

Hey, at least Sarah Palin has other talents. For instance, she can shoot the nuts off a Russian moose at a thousand yards! 🙂
But your point about David Smith’s rant is fair. I am proud of GM for this, and I am also proud of Tesla for what it has accomplished. Both very American car companies.

Didn’t GM almost go out of business and require a federal bailout?

Yes, GM was bankrupt during last financial crisis, automanufacturing is cyclical business. It went back to business afterwards. For Tesla “almost go out of business” is permanent condition though, they require financial injection of billions / share sale every year to cover losses and prevent bankruptcy. This year it will be 7th, or 2nd time over the same year! Ludicrous mode indeed.

The only one bankrupt here is your anti-Tesla FUD zzzzzzzz.

In about 2 plus years Tesla will be making more BEVs then the rest of the western OEMs combined.

Jason said:

“Didn’t GM almost go out of business and require a federal bailout?”

SHHH! Don’t disturb DavidSmith’s fact-free bubble-world thinking. Help make America great again by trashing all-American auto maker Tesla, in favor of a company which has been repeatedly bailed out using taxpayer dollars, and “thanked” us by outsourcing much of its auto assembly work to China and S. Korea!

(WARNING: The above post may contain traces of sarcasm.)

(WARNING: The above post may contain traces of sarcasm.)

And falsehoods

I was willing to let my tax money be used to bail out your favorite car company. Remember that when you bash “Tesla fanboys” and “subsidies.”

I want both these cars to succeed, and many others besides.

Complaining about the auto bailout, in the context of the related banking bailout, is like complaining about a guy that stole your bicycle while another guy drives away with your car.

I want both cars to succeed too, but when I see false information, I’m going to point it out.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what in my post do you regard as a falsehood? ‘Cuz I don’t see any there.

“repeatedly bailed out”
It was just the one Government sponsored bankruptcy when Wall Street destroyed the economy and we didn’t want US jobs to go into a death spiral.

“outsourcing much of its auto assembly work to China and S. Korea!”
GM has had a large presence in China & S. Korea well before any bankruptcy. I’m not sure what you are referring to here specifically, unless it’s the PHEV CT6 which is being made in China mostly for the Chinese market. Only small numbers MAY be imported into the US, maybe in the future.

Yeah, that American Car Company was pretty smart to get South Korean help with the Bolt’s electric drivetrain, batteries and control systems.

Think of all that money they saved, outsourcing American Jobs!!!

I assume you have equal disdain for Apple, since iphones are made in China.

Hey now, don’t go shooting his biases down with that silly thing called “logic”… 😉

Hmmm, no, that was in fact exactly the opposite of logic; it was a logical fallacy. Specifically, that is an example of the “Two wrongs make a right” fallacy.

What Apple does or doesn’t do is not even slightly relevant to GM’s actions in outsourcing much of its auto assembly jobs overseas. That was merely an attempt to change the subject by someone who’s lost an argument.

You are correct, but bro’s comment still has a lot of merit. Tesla’s cars are not 100% American sourced either. Both the Teslas and the Volt/Bolt EV are manufactured stateside.

GM seems to get all the flack while other companies are forgiven.

To bro’s point, I’m certain Anon has several pieces of technology made in other countries. Since Tesla also has parts content from overseas, why single out GM?

I have the answer: Bias.

Quote from Tesla’s latest Quarterly filing with the SEC:

“Gross margin for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 was 21.6%”


Tesla accesses the world’s deepest and most liquid capital markets – they enable the US to give rise to more than inconsequential boutique firms.

The mainly Lucky Goldstar built Bolt is wrapped and sold by GM, but all the main drive components and many ancillary parts like the battery cells and pack, motor, power inverter and distribution modules, onboard charger, climate control and instrument/infotainment are built in South Korea.


A whole bunch of Tesla’s parts are also not made in America. Just sayin, global economy and all that.

I love to buy American, but don’t fool yourself. Tesla buys a lot of parts from overseas too…

I care most about the engineering and the final assembly of cars. Where a piece of plastic is fabricated…. not so much.

Although I am glad LG opened a large plant in Michigan, since that is a large portion of EVs.

I agree on all points Kdawg. It would be great to see more battery manufacturing stateside as well, I hope that landscape continues to evolve beyond the LG plant in Michigan and the Gigafactory.

At least Nissan is making their batteries locally too. For some reason though, I feel China will become battery central. They will need more of them sooner, and we all know how cheap China can make things.

GM has a fantastic history of lies, and worse, the use of the mass media to manipulate styling fads and class envy (the entire basis of GM’s divisional pyramid under master manipulator Al Sloan) at the expense of actually sticking with new technology until it works properly. Which is why GM’s US auto market share is a fraction of what it once was.

But all this has therefore become the norm in the auto industry, so I was willing to forgive and gamble my tax money on the New GM.

What’s very revealing is your attitude that “Silicon Valley” isn’t American. When corporations don’t fit the Brooks Brothers-uniformed class pyramid mold, they’re seen as alien. The only thing about GM that’s all-American now is the portfolio of Congressmen and Washington lobbyists it maintains. Otherwise it’s just another multinational with no loyalty to anyone. GM President in 1940 (when asked about WW2 while his German division was being cynically passed off to Nazi-approved front men while making vehicles for the Wehrmacht): “When a company is our size, it’s not really affected by such matters.”

It was only a matter of time.

Godwin’s law:

Or maybe they’re just a car company.

Without $50 Billion bailed out money in 2008 by Federal Government could GM stand on its feet today ?

How much did GM paid back ? The full amount or only $40 Billion, American Taxpayers lost $10 Billion bailing out GM 8 years ago. American Taxpayers made some profit for making a loan of $400 Million to Tesla in 2011.

Do your research before posting false info.

Time to trade in my i3 REX

On this? Exactly! This is why BMW is skipping the Paris Auto Show! They need to get out their Big Boy Pants, and get with the EV Future!

The Bolt EV gives you a Real 4-Doors, that don’t trap back seat Pax, behind front seat drivers and Pax! This range, is about 50+ miles more than a New 33 kWh BMW i3 Rex, AER Plus Gas!

It is 2016, and this is pretty much what the President of the Electric Vehicle Society of Canada said, was ,The Future’, even while driving the little Geo Metro EV Conversion, built by High School Students back in 1994, before I bought it from him in 2006, when he was being interviewed on TV! This car has more than 10X the AER of that little EV Conversation, and it just might make Tesla even more serious and committed to getting production actually started by July 1st, 2017! Here is hoping so!

So that gives us 220 highway miles and 256 city miles. Definitly more than enough to play with.

So 3h of driving at 70mph and then 1h of charging for the next 3h. Definitly road trip worthy, especially considering you’re heading off with a full battery.

You’re certainly not going to get three hours of driving at 70 MPH, even when the car starts out fully charged. More like two hours, or even less. If you want to go three hours on a single hour’s charge, you’d better drive at 45 MPH, or even less if you want to run the A/C or the heater.

Even a Tesla Model S won’t go three hours at 70 MPH, and this car’s range is less than that.

If you drive at 70 mph on a European freeway or the autobahn, you are going to have a lot of semi-trucks passing by and almost all the other cars. 75 mph or 80 mph is much more the norm. So it would also be interesting to know the range of the e-Ampera at 80 mph.

Where are you seeing the separate City & Highway numbers?
They should be available, given the overall number has been published, but I can’t find them anywhere.

Simple math.

overall EPA range = 238
MPGe combined: 119
MPGe city: 128
MPGe highway: 110

EPA city range = (128/119) * 238 = 256
EPA highway range = (110/119) * 238 = 220

Yep, that’s what i did. Think it’s pretty spot on.

At speeds greater than 65 MPH range (70+) will likely dip below 200. Still very decent – able to get from one side of ATL to the other and back easily on a charge.

The results may be more impressive than you think, at least in temperate weather.

This reviewer got 240 miles of range with many highway miles:


The article you linked to says, in part: “Our six-hour drive route took us 235 miles…”

That averages 39.2 MPH. Not exactly something to write home about. We all know that EVs will perform quite well, much better than gasmobiles, at speeds of 45 MPH and under, especially in stop-and-go driving. I’d be far more interested in a report on steady, non-stop driving on a level highway at 60 MPH, and at 70 MPH. That’s where the differences in BEVs’ energy efficiency and range will show most clearly.

Altho to be fair, the trip described in that article included an ascent to 2000 feet, and a significant climb in altitude change does cut into the range somewhat.

I suppose if you assume that they didn’t stop anywhere and that they didn’t hit any traffic, then your simple average could be accurate.

However, if they stop for 30 minutes, that increases the average to 42 mph, and stopping for 60 minutes increases it to 47 mph. And that’s still just average speed. I would keep that in mind, as a 6 hour drive nonstop seems unlikely.

Assuming the 238 miles are combined, not city 🙂

Otherwise it is 220 miles combined and 204 highway. Warm weather.

Of course it’s combined. GM doesn’t do like Tesla does by publicizing the best EPA figures first.

Accept it and move on.

” GM doesn’t do like Tesla does by publicizing the best EPA figures first.”

Actually they are quite well known for doing that. See the Malibu & malibu hybrid figures posted for a recent example:

Do you have proof ?

bro1999 & Martin, thanks! I always ignore the MPGe numbers because I think the concept is stupid (and of course ignores the rather large efficiency idfferences).
I think doing this reverse-calc of the EPA AERs is the first valid use of MPGe I’ve seen (-;

How fast can be loaded via Type2(Europe) or Type1(USA) 11kW?

50 KWh is (until further) standard in Europe. This will be upgraded to 150.

50kW is CCS (*not* Type2), and the faster, upcoming versions of CCS does not apply to the Bolt/Ampera-e, they will be stuck on a max 50kW charging rate.

How do you know this, has GM stated the Bolt will not be compatable with future CCS revisions?

He’s asking about AC Level 2 charging, not DC fast charging. Not sure if there will be an 11kW on board charger option, AFAIK it accepts up to 32A at 240V; so it would be up to 7.68kW. 60kWh/7.7kW = 8h for a complete charge.

Their web site states 240V, 32A, whick should translate to 7.2kW and a empty-to-full charging time of ~10 hours at home!


– which again implies a max charging rate of 3.6kW at 11kW Type 2 AC charging stations, and a max charging rate of 7.2kW at 22kW Type 2 AC charging stations.

Its very apparent that the Ampera-E will have a different arrangement since some Euro countries have 15-16-20 amp single phase limitations, which the 32 amp BOLT would violate if more than 3.6 kw charging rate was desired.

Just as Tesla provided 3 phase charging for the “S”, it is more than likely that arrangements will be made in countries where 32 ampere single-phase charging is disallowed.

By virtue of being more efficient, Bolt will “load” more miles per hour, but Tesla owners are apt to be confused if GM retains its predictive range algorithm, as used in the Volt.

Tesla range has always been an inaccurate proxy for a state of charge meter. You, or your spouse (!!), never realize the indicated range if you go 70mph, or use heat or a/c. It will be interesting, for long trip use, how people will gauge SOC in the Bolt. In winter, the dash will heavily understate available long trip range, unless they’ve approached things differently.

I appreciate GM using the last several trips to predict available range. Tesla’s method earned them the “Broder” criticism, and the only material change since has been more superchargers. 60kwh and their SC network are far superior to Bolt, but then there’s the price.

…meant to say Tesla range IS effectively an SOC meter.

pjwood1 said:

“It will be interesting, for long trip use, how people will gauge SOC in the Bolt. In winter, the dash will heavily understate available long trip range, unless they’ve approached things differently.”

I certainly hope that will be true. Are you just speculating here, or citing direct statements from GM reps, or something in between?

If the Bolt’s onboard range estimator actually takes external temperature into account, that will be a vast improvement. One of the few places where I’d “ding” Tesla’s cars is in not taking that important factor into account for the onboard range estimator. (But Tesla’s estimator is still better than Nissan’s “Guess-o-meter”!)

In fairness, Tesla has a ‘Projected’ range option, and if you really have to hyper-mile your past ~30 miles efficiency is used in a number you would keep above navigation’s “miles left”. That’s the game that has had me drive ~58mph on 70+ highways. Otherwise, Tesla’s main display consistently over-states what you’ll see in normal use.

I have no basis on how Bolt will represent range, beyond how the Volt does it. There, the main display, without having to look more closely at Trip and Energy displays, simply shows about how many miles you’ll get. It knows the battery is cold. It knows temps are apt to be near where they’ve been (Fall/Winter), etc.

I’ve had the Tesla come back to the garage at ‘0’ range. Not every EV driver is a graduate of “Hypermile Univ”. Tesla’s over-stating range almost invites the stranded “Broder”.

Charging speed at 90mi per 30 min is not adequate for longer – distance travelling. Hold your horses with those preorders, I say. Seems like the Bolt ends up being a city car with longer range to combat range anxiety, as in competition for the nextGen Nissan Leaf, but no long-distance competitor to a Tesla…

Joe, 120 miles in 40 minutes is good enough considering how rarely you would take the car on a long distance roadtrip. Drive for 2.5 hours, stop for a sandwich and charge. Drive away 40 minutes later and go for another 2 hours. Repeat as needed.
Not a bad road trip car unless you want to punish yourself and drive all day instead of just flying to your destination.
Probably 220 miles of hwy AER, that is good enough for most drivers.

Joe, 120 miles in 40 minutes is good enough considering how rarely you would take the car on a long distance roadtrip. Drive for 2.5 hours, stop for a sandwich and charge. Drive away 40 minutes later and go for another 2 hours. Repeat as needed.
Not a bad road trip car unless you want to punish yourself and drive all day instead of just flying to your destination.
Probably 220 miles of hwy AER, that is good enough for most drivers.
Can’t wait to see the next 200+ mile BEV under $40k!

Here is that “good enough” on range and charging speed again, while they are essential parameters.

Why can’t we have a “good enough” discussion on cruise control and tissue seats?

Thank you for the timely news, Mr. Cole. Here at work overnight as I am, I’ve been watching the Internet for the big announcement. And like everyone else visiting this website this morning, I am overwhelmed and overjoyed to read your words.

Does this mean that the usable capacity is 60 kwh? I mean it sort of have to otherwise it doesn’t make sense to me. Or are they being overly optimistic. The leaf seem so comparable in every metric but it only gets 107 with half the capacity. Don´t get me wrong if true its great news but what am i missing? 🙂

The most probable answer to that question is that the Bolt’s battery chemistry allows for a deeper charging cycle (you can discharge to a lower level and charge to a higher level) than on Nissan’s Leaf battery chemistry.

The upcoming ‘Leaf 2.0’ has been announced to be on the same battery chemistry as LG uses for the Bolt (at least Nissan licenced this chemistry from LG).
With the same 60kW battery on the same battery chemistry, the new Leaf should have similar range.
– although Nissan’s IDS concept vehicle had a much lower drag coefficient, so if this applies to also the production cars, Nissan should get even better range than the Bolt.

niklas said:

“The leaf seem so comparable in every metric but it only gets 107 with half the capacity. Don´t get me wrong if true its great news but what am i missing?”

One thing you’re missing is that the Leaf has a large frontal area and only moderately good streamlining, which means the drag is terrible, and that really cuts into the Leaf’s range.

In fact, in years when the Leaf and the Model S85 were tested on the same testing cycle, their miles per kWh rating (based on range vs. battery pack capacity) were almost precisely the same, despite the fact that the Model S is a slightly larger and much heavier car.

As Knut Erik Ballestad already noted, it’s also possible, and perhaps likely, that the Bolt is making more of its battery pack’s full capacity available as usable capacity. Deeper cycling is supposed to be one of the advantages of LG Chem’s new cell chemistry, which I guess means more use of NMC in the mix.

Impressive. And I’m really glad. But I still want to know this. Range at 120/130 kph (75/80 mph), fully loaded (cat, luggage, dog, kids, pet food etc.) and air conditioning on.

Air resistance increases with the velocity squared, so range will decrease rapidly when increasing speed – this will be especially so on a vehicle like the Bolt, since it is not very aerodynamic in shape.

Air resistance force is proportional to square of speed. But when you’re talking about range, you need to consider power, which is cube of speed.

It would be wonderful if the EV industry moved to the various EV makers publishing a table of their PEVs’ (Plug-in EVs) ranges at intervals of 10 MPH of speed, instead of just a single number (or two, for nominal city & highway ranges). That would be much more informative.

Unfortunately, I doubt they’ll do that unless the guvmints force them to, as it would really emphasize just how much range all cars (including gasmobiles) lose at higher speeds.

Drag increases as the cube of the speed! That’s quite a hit to range at speeds above 55 MPH.

Given that MPGe ratings are almost the same as SparkEV, the “hit” can be extrapolated from SparkEV test. 19 kWh, 62 MPH (100 kph) = 98 miles in temperate San Diego. You can see what happens at higher speed and AC/heat scenarios in my “range polynomial” blog post.

Taking the 70 mph range and dividing it by the square speed ratio (70²/80²=0,7656) will give a good approximation of the 80 mph range.

If 70 mph range is 210 miles than the 80 mph range would be 160 miles. The return range is 80 miles.

Seems i’m the only person who cares about efficiency 🙂 For me 119MPGe seems very nice since 60kwh battery should be havier than Leaf battery and others.
For current technology it’s an ideal balance between range and efficiency.

I’d like to know where people get the 55 kWh figure for the Model 3.

It’s an estimate. Elon said the Model ≡ will have a pack size smaller than 60 kWh, but real-world constraints and engineering principles mandate that, presuming the Model ≡ really does have more than 200 miles of EPA rated range, then battery capacity can’t be all that much less than 60 kWh.

However, with this announcement, it wouldn’t surprise me if Tesla inches up the Model ≡’s pack size to something closer to 60 kWh than 55 kWh. It depends on whether or not the M≡’s pack capacity is fully locked in or not. Did Tesla “bake” some wiggle room into the pack design, or is it fully finalized at this time?

Impressive, 238 miles from a 60 kwh battery. Good work GM. I think OPEC members waking up feeling a little ill this morning.

Can’t wait for Paris, Zoe 2 and leaf 2 (I assume will come in Tokyo) should rock.

I am so disappointed that GM are not taking this car global. Really shows a lack of ambition. They should fit this with a chademo and take it to Japan. They should also try and dominate the uk market.

They *do* take it to Europe at least!
– with a different grille though, and badged as an Opel Ampera-e instead of as a Chevy Volt.

Probably only in token numbers, though. Only 25k-30k annual production isn’t going to go far, considering how much demand there will be in the USA and Canada alone for compelling 200+ mile BEVs.

They won’t be able to cover demand as is so there’s no use opening more markets.

Sadly, it looks like GM learned their lesson with the Volt. The public said they wanted EVs, GM made the best car they’ve ever produced and the most awarded American car in history, predicted big sales… and fell far short of sales goals. Meanwhile, Tesla – a company that doesn’t even run ads – gets 400 million in donations for a car that doesn’t even exist yet.

So GM is going to err on the side of low demand until the demand shows otherwise.

Allies of Pushmi-Pullyu

Great job GM! This is my sort of future car. And the range is really impressive!

Nicely done GM — I wish I could get one before my lease expires in December on my Leaf…..

If July was truly “pencils down” for Tesla, this news comes too late for them to increase their range significantly. If they’re sticking to a 50-55 kWh battery, should be interesting…

The “pencils down” would probably not affect the internals of the battery pack. If this is designed in a way like on the Model S/X vehicles, Tesla most probably can support a wide range of battery sizes inside the battery compartment.

So the decision of battery size can most likely be deferred to very close to production start on the cars.

Pencils down, is likely a reference to physical design, for internal, and external, parts design, since they likely have no copies if the actual 21-70 cells yet, I would guess the computers are still crunching the CAD on that, with no physical copies to test, until about October or November!

Also, Tesla has multiple copies if experience in putting in bigger batteries and offering less capacity by software limit, gaining bigger buffers on range options, and multiple battery size/range choices for customers! GM seemed to have missed this potential!

It is definitely an interesting time to live in!

I’m sure they have 21-70 cells to play with already, even if they aren’t the final production version.

They are just a new format using the same old materials, not a new chemistry or new breakthrough technology being developed.

Knut Erik Ballestad said:

“the decision of battery size can most likely be deferred to very close to production start on the cars.”

Well, yes and no. For BEVs, to some extent the entire car has to be designed around the battery pack. The energy and power available from the pack limits acceleration and top speed; it indicates how powerful an electric motor it needs, and that in turn dictates how robust the drivetrain needs to be. Physical pack size and shape is also very important in Tesla cars, where it provides part of the car’s structural support and stiffening.

On the other hand, if Tesla is as smart as they appear, then perhaps their car designers left a bit of wiggle room to put in a few percent more or less batteries, to accommodate late design changes. Note Tesla has not specified the exact capacity of the Model ≡’s battery pack; just that it will be less than 60 kWh (for the base model). Maybe Tesla was just being coy about the exact pack size, to keep competitors guessing… and maybe they did allow themselves a bit of wiggle room there.

Since there is already talk of Tesla offering different range battery packs, upsizing the smallest of their planned battery pack sizes is probably the easiest change they could do. Even if they are already “pencil’s down” on design.

“pencil’s down” on design doesn’t mean everything is set in stone. There is always still time for re-engineering to resolve critical bugs. That’s what the entire QE cycle is there to catch. Catch what needs to be fixed and re-engineer the fixes.

Growing a battery pack into space that has already been set aside to fit a larger battery pack is entirely doable even after pencil down has passed.

If they were already completing Validation Prototype testing, it would be too late. But I haven’t heard of VP units being spotted yet, much less completing Validation Prototype testing.

I see no problem with Tesla book-ending the Bolt by offering multiple ranges, with one less than 238 miles and one or more with more than 238 miles.

Especially if Tesla book-ends the Bolt price, with the base M3 price slightly below the Bolt, and the optional version above the Bolt.

The more choices the better. Because when it comes to EV’s, the “best” EV is the one that suits each person’s own personal driving patterns.

I know that Tesla has never wavered from their stated $35k price for the III. But I just don’t see how they are going to do it. I know they will have the cheapest battery pack in the west, but the rest of the car has to be pretty high quality for Tesla to consider delivering it…
Even if they get the cells down to $5000 that leaves just $30,000 for the rest of the car and a little profit. I imagine they will want a profit even on the base model. $30k isn’t a lot of money for a Tesla quality car, sans pack.
Tesla has usually delivered the goods, a bit late, but they deliver the goods. So I won’t be totally shocked if they pull this off, but it will be a bit of a surprise.
My guess is that the base III will be around $39k.

+1 for GM on Bolt 238 AER-EPA!

I hope they sell sell a bunch of them.

… I do believe though that GM is big-time underestimating the leg-up that Tesla has smartly created for itself by building out a robust and reliable supercharger network. Having spent considerable time with both Chevy Volt & Tesla Model S I’d choose the Volt over the Bolt (as my primary driver) until such time the Bolt has better supercharging access. Owning a car is about having access to freedom…the freedom to go where you want to go when you want to go…with minimal hassle. The EV car maker that best delivers that freedom with a good car at a good price wins. It’s that simple.

Whoa, that’s going to be like 1000km in Europe!

The European range (NEDC) in most cases equal 1.45 times the US range.
– Meaning that the Ampera-e most probably will get ~550 km range according to NEDC.

Color me impressed! So if this math is right, the highway range is 110/119 * 238 = 220 miles. I was sure that the Bolt’s highway range would be under 200 miles. I’m glad to see I’m wrong, and by a good margin! Looks like this car could be a decent road trip car. Now let’s see if they up their game with respect to DCQC rates…

Hi Brian, check out the related stories on the other articles. One reporter (in a group) got effectly 290 miles range, and it was rumored (I forget by who) during testing they showed over 300 miles.

So my rather ‘tongue in cheek’ guestimate of 324 miles (based on my ELR) isn’t so bad after all – the caveat being that is only East to West travel. Its usually about twice as hard getting back home, but then I’m driving faster since I wont to get back home from a trip worse than I want to get TO some place, hehe.

Just cannot wait until Bolt and M3 are side by side testing the real life range! To be honest, this is a really big step in whole car industry.

Mary Barra be like..


Very nice, but I’m not cancelling my Tesla model 3 deposit.

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

How about ADDING to it? Different vehicles with different missions. M3 is pending to replace our G37+Fiat 500e if all goes as planned.

Bolt is the same for our CR-V+Spark EV if it hauls enough.

How soon did you get your deposit in, and how far do you live from California? If you are a ways down the M3 wait list, you could do a 2 year lease on a Bolt and then get your M3 once your lease is over.

Same here!

Neither am I:
-It’s parking only $1,000
-I’d guess resale on a new Bolt/M3, after credits, wouldn’t be a big loss.

I hope the Bolt sells like the latest Apple i-Phone. And I hope every single one takes over the driving chores of a Tahoe, Suburban, Silveradao, F150, Ram….. While I’m at it, I hope the new owners put in a solar array to charge them as well.

As the Air Force commercials said, “Aim High!”

I really hope fleets jump on this too. The Bolt EV would make a great taxi, mail delivery vehicle, etc.

Airport Green Shuttle/Limo Service Businesses could work this in, in many Cities!

Great Car Pool Commuter, as well! Fill it with 4 people going to work at the same place, and you get over 400 SMPG! (Seat Mikes Per Gallon, a number airlines use!)

With access to 25-30 Amp x 240 Volt EVSE’s at workplace charging, this car could handle commutes of 80-100 miles, each way, all year round! Maybe even with 20 Amp service, in less cold climates!

I could see a lot of Uber drivers going with Bolt EVs.

(and Lyft now that GM invested)

Bravo GM! Well done.


Will be sold out 2017..

GM Bolt, currently Sold Out in 2017. But, just wait, you will be able to get a 2018 this time next year, if you get on the waiting list!

…and sold out 2018, too, unless GM makes some drastic changes in production.

Hoping it isn’t months before states away from California see this thing, like Q1/Q2 2017 and no discounting. Compared to discounts currently available on the Volt, Bolt could be up to $10k more expensive pretty easily.

What remains to be seen is how much consumer demand there will be. It seems like no matter how many of the naysayer’s problems are overcome, they still always have a new excuse why electric vehicles won’t work.

So now range is solved, for the most part. Charging infrastructure is still a big question mark. I am hoping that with the Bolt and Tesla coming onto the market, that maybe some 3rd parties will finally build some fast charging infrastructure along the interstate routes. I would love to be able to drive between Dallas, Houston, and Austin. But right now, Tesla is the only one that can do it.


Yes, breaking into the mainstream market is more of peeling an onion than taking a big bite out of an apple. Each generation of EV’s will suit the needs of more people.

This range and charging capability will “only” work for millions of drivers around the world, while other drivers will still need something more like a Volt with a PHEV drivetrain.

But GM can’t make millions of Bolt right away, so the technical numbers aren’t the main choke point anymore. And the Bolt doesn’t need to suit everybody’s needs in order to still be wildly successful.

If GM can actually deliver 238 miles of EPA rated range for the Bolt, then that will establish a very strong position in the field. Of course, that’s only “if”. We’ll have to wait to see what range rating the EPA actually gives the car.

And again, it’s sad (and, as an EV advocate, frustrating) that GM has locked in choices that will severely limit how much production can be increased, at least for the first year or two. As I’ve said, I hope that GM moves in future years to enable significant increases on yearly production of what looks very much like it’s going to be a compelling BEV.

It’s too bad GM’s commitment to quantity doesn’t match their commitment to quality on this car. 😐

238 IS the official EPA range. Even final, certified EPA figures are listed as “EPA estimated”.

Look at Every range number has “EPA estimated” verbage next to it.

You’re pretty firmly ignoring the fact that the usual trend for EVs is for estimated range to shrink and estimated price to increase, as the cars get closer to actually going on sale.

GM has given people sudden hope that they’re bucking the trend, with the Volt 2.0 actually exceeding predictions on range. But so far that’s just an anomaly, and no rational reason to believe what GM is currently touting as the Bolt’s estimated EPA range will be the actual, final one.

And another point: The EPA keeps fiddling with their test cycles. So what GM currently reports may be outdated by the time the Bolt actually goes on sale in a few months.

The big asterisk though, is like with every vehicle, range will be less in the cold winter months.

So what happened with the Volt could happen with the Bolt EV too… People buy it in December and January, and then complain to no end that they aren’t getting the advertised range.

Hopefully GM has been conservative, as you say they have, so that this “winter effect” is muted.

Actually, at this point, these EPA numbers can be considered locked in stone for the next 2 model years.

While each company does their own testing, they still have to get reviewed and approved by the EPA. Once they get that EPA release, the numbers for that Model Year are what they are, even if the test cycle changes over the next year.

And then for the next model year, GM isn’t even required to retest. Even if the test changes. They are allowed to re-use the previous model year’s test numbers, as long as there are no significant changes to the drivetrain.

The window for the phenomena I talked about in the last story is now closed until the 2019 Bolt.

GM has only commented on first year numbers: up to 50K. However I find it hard to believe that GM won’t be able to scale this up if demand is strong. That’s just a matter of money. Remember, GM doesn’t want lose two billion on this car. It’s foolish to build out capacity when demand is unknown.

While not fully known it’s obvious there is tremendous demand. GM will build nowhere near 50k Bolts next year regardless of what demand is.

Which may actually get more dealers to want to sell it… with that ultra-attractive $5000 dealer markup added on top of it.

Yes, if they have a hit on their hands the dealers are not going to sit on theirs when it comes to marking up the price.

Four Electrics said:

“However I find it hard to believe that GM won’t be able to scale this up if demand is strong. That’s just a matter of money.”

Well, if by that you mean that GM doesn’t care how much money it loses on the model line, then yes it’s “just a matter of money”.

But if you think GM doesn’t care if battery makers other than LG Chem won’t give them that low, low price of $145/kWh… and if you think GM doesn’t care that in order to quickly ramp up production of the EV powertrain, they’ll have to take it out of the hands of a new, untried company like LG Electronics’ new automotive division… then you’re engaging in wishful thinking; wishful thinking nearly as unrealistic as your incessant “fool cell” fanboy posts.

Read the Green Car Report’s real world drive and they got more than 240 miles…

Nice well done GM, this is the beginning of the end of ICE cars if:
1- GM is seriously producing and selling this car all over US not for compliance.
2- GM change the dealership strategy for sale the Bolt

And last but not least Bolt is not mode 3 competition, the problem is for BMW i3, I only can see been fan of BMW to buy one i3 after Bolt release. Now I would take a Model 3 basic 35K than a Bolt, due design and knowing Tesla performance history with their cars.

For those lamenting the lack of Supercharging network consider this. In the two (or more) years that it will take the M3 to come out how many CCS chargers could Chevy install? Go to Google maps for your state and type in “Chevrolet Dealer” and there you have your network. In my state there are Chevy dealers along all Interstates with easy off-on access and in a lot of small towns on smaller routes. It would make a better network than Tesla SC!

You can use and filter for CCS chargers. There’s quite a few, nationwide.

Read the comments on PlugShare, too. Those CCS chargers, like CHAdeMO, get some pretty poor reliability ratings. They rarely show up in more than 2-stall configurations, as well. Tesla’s are integrated into their map, but show up better at

Personally, I think CCS’s availability problems hide what will also be greater, per capita, reliability problems which are yet to come.

In my experience, when a Tesla SuperCharger “breaks”, it still puts out 50-70kw. They sell too many Model 3’s, it immediately falls on them to build more. The democracy of long-range BEV infrastructure, for all the others car makers has the makings of chaos, if long range driving is significantly in your plans.

Yes, the CCS network has a LONG way to go, but just pointing out that it’s not non-existent.

I wish we had a company like Europe’s Fastned here in the US. Maybe someone will take up the reigns now that affordable 200 mile EVs are starting to show up.

You really want to hang around for half an hour at a dealership every 90 miles?

The current dealership model isn’t suited to fast charging for anything except emergencies.

Coulombic said:

“In my state there are Chevy dealers along all Interstates with easy off-on access and in a lot of small towns on smaller routes. It would make a better network than Tesla SC!”

People who claim that dealerships are conveniently located for supporting long-distance BEV travel, are ignoring reality pretty firmly.

A reality check:

1. Dealerships are not, in general, conveniently located right beside major highway corridors, and spaced a maximum of 120-150 miles apart.

2. Dealerships often (usually?) have their EV chargers behind closed gates at night; and during the day, they may be blocked by parked gasmobiles.

3. How many EV chargers does the average dealership make available to customers? One or two? The average number of stalls at a Supercharger station was five when the network was new, and I think by now it’s more like 6 or 7.

But go ahead, Coulombic, prove me wrong: Post a link to just one road trip diary from someone who took a long trip in a BEV and relied exclusively, or even mainly, on EV chargers located at dealerships.

Just one.

A more interesting point is that unlike Superchargers which can only be installed by Tesla, anybody could install a CCS unit anywhere.

It is quite conceivable we get to a critical mass point where they start popping up everywhere, even if it was not on a network and you had to pay a couple of bucks to use one in those cases.

current CCS charges up to 50kW (180mi/hr)
current SC charges at 120kW to 135kW (340 mi/hr)

which one do you want to sit at?

Why did you make it so UGLY?!?! The second generation volt is beautiful and selling like hot cakes! Then you make this??? Come on Chevrolet! I just want a BEV Volt with this type of range! #Disappointed

I know, I much preferred the concept Bolt; it lost most of it’s looks in the production version.

I still prefer the look of the model 3, the hatch doesn’t mean much to me, whereas the supercharger network does. BUT I will say, I think they did a great job on the tech aspect and I’m very happy to see that they are playing the game and lowering the price. This car will make sense for many.

+1 That says it all.


Can’t wait for my ≡65D, or whatever the kWh will be.

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

Driver Confidence Package II : No auto park 🙁

This is one feature I’d really like to see and find very useful for my dear wife and parents.

Shouldn’t be hard with all the sensors — just a matter of programming.

First OTA update 🙂

I have autopark but only use it a few times a year. I’d MUCH rather see ACC availability. I think that is WAY more useful and valuable.

Fantastic Job by GM. They are not only pushing the design envelope of affordable EVs; they are also providing a real reason for private companies to seriously establish CCS charging station network nationwide.

It’s a great time for all EV proponents.