Detailed Range Ratings For Chevrolet Bolt EV – 255 Miles City

1 year ago by Eric Loveday 216

2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV Priced Under $37,500 As Promised

2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV Priced Under $37,500 As Promised

The Environmental Protection Agency’s internal database has been updated to include detailed range ratings for the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt, which was just priced from $37,495.

Chevrolet Bolt EV Offers 238 Real World/EPA Rated Miles Of Range

Chevrolet Bolt EV Offers 238 Real World/EPA Rated Miles Of Range

Though Chevrolet focuses on the combined range rating of 238 miles, thanks to the EPA’s database, we can provide a more precise breakdown of the numbers in city, highway and combined format.

The most notable figures is the Bolt’s 255-mile range rating in the city.

To put this figure into perspective, the much heavier Model S 60D gets only 221.1 miles on the city rating chart and the 70D is rated at just 242.8 miles city. The Bolt’s 255-mile rating is also exactly the sames as the Model S 75D and just 4.6 miles less than the P90D.

Where the Bolt fails to shine though is on the highway where its “disaster for aero” (Bolt designer’s words, not ours) coefficient of .32 comes into play.

The Bolt is rated at only 217.4 miles highway, a figure that’s easily beat by every Model S (Cd of .24) and most of the Model X SUVs out there – except for the RWD Model S 60 (214.8 miles highway).

Imagine what the all-electric Chevy could have accomplished with a more slippery design, optimized for an electric platform.

Chevrolet Bolt EPA Range Ratings - From Left To Right: City/Highway/Combined

Chevrolet Bolt EPA Range Ratings – From Left To Right: City/Highway/Combined

We should point out that the EPA”s testing methodology excludes the use of the “Regen-On-Demand” paddles, which Chevrolet says is capable of increasing range by up to 5% in stop-and-go city traffic.  The ratings are generally tested via the “out of the box” settings.

Also of note in the EPA report is the listed Level 2 charge time of 9.3 hours for the Bolt on 240, which given the lack of other long range EVs on sale in the US, is also the longest listed charge time of any non-Tesla 2016 or 2017 Model Year EV in the EPA’s database.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

216 responses to "Detailed Range Ratings For Chevrolet Bolt EV – 255 Miles City"

  1. VazzedUp says:

    217 miles highway is no slacker, and covers 99% of my needs easily. Will be interesting to see what happens if they slide this motor and battery into something a little more slippery. But I’ll take the utility of the hatch over 20 more miles.

    1. Lou Grinzo says:

      The hatch utility really is a big deal for anyone considering buying and living with a smallish vehicle. This is the problem we all face with such buying decisions — how to balance competing demands or range, cost, passenger and luggage capacity, etc.

      I think GM has created a car that should work extremely well for a lot of people. As long as they deliver a quality product and they can avoid production bottlenecks, they should easily have a big seller. Once the car is out and the general public is aware of it, I would not be surprised to see waiting lists and even dealer markups.

      1. Stuart22 says:

        +1. All vehicles are a combination of tradeoffs. With the Bolt, the end result of all those is an EV that is roomy, comfortable, useful, fun to drive, and most importantly very easy to live with.

        GM engineers did their homework.

        1. Koenigsegg says:

          It can be practical and good looking at the same time. Doesn’t have to be ugly and practical.

      2. JayTee says:

        Devil’s Advocate:

        Why will people buy this instead of a lower priced, ice small SUV?

        1. Bob Nickson says:

          Because I can’t produce my own petrol at home.

        2. R.S says:

          Because most small SUVs, with comparable equipment, aren’t that much cheaper.

          Compare the Bolt with the Ford Escape, I’d say the base Bolt sits between the top most trims, SE and Titanium, and those are 25k-30k. So after incentives, there might be a minimal price, or equipment, difference, but not a lot.

          Conclusion, there is a reason to why small SUV/CUVs are what carmakers want to sell. If you compare the price difference to a same size and equipment car, one might wonder why they still sell those 😉 .

          1. wavelet says:

            ??
            They’re not at all comparable vehicles… The Escape is 2 size classes larges (14″ longer, taller, wider and double the cargo space).

            1. ozz says:

              You sure about that “double cargo space” figure. Okay, so I get that 17 cubes is half of 34, but if you really need to haul something, you can put the seats down and the Bolt nearly equals the Escape’s 68 cube ft measurement with 56 available behind the front row. It’s kind of classic Chevy thing to do, to outclass others with back seat room. Yes, understandably the Volt has a small back seat, but the shorter Bolt probably has as much or more back seat room as an Escape.

          2. joe says:

            Add to that very little maintenance, no dirty oil, no exhaust and very cheap fuel. Free for and solar panels.

            People think that EVs have high depreciation, but soon enough ICE vehicles will be unsellable

            1. JIMIJON says:

              Yea, Cheap fuel for now. Someone has to pay to repair , replace & maintain the roads ! This Free Bee will NOT & Cannot last forever ! So taking advantage now is perhaps a smart move .

              1. Erik says:

                It’ll just move to higher registration costs

            2. JIMIJON says:

              Yea Joe, Cheap fuel for now, And that’s an advantage. Eventually Someone has to pay to repair , replace & maintain the road’s infrastructures . This Free Bee will NOT & Cannot last forever . So taking advantage now is perhaps a smart move .

        3. Kdawg says:

          Silky smooth EV drive. Quite linear acceleration from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Low-power always-on bluetooth. Birds-eye view camera system and 180 degree rear-view mirror. Wireless phone charging. Flat floor, roomy back seats. No more trips to the gas station. Wake up every morning with a full tank. No more trips to the oil-change place. Less pollution. Shows others that you are a hi-tech aficionado 🙂

        4. Fabian says:

          Because of things like this which happen more often than we like to admit.

          https://consumerist.com/2016/09/19/gas-shortages-due-to-colonial-pipeline-break-begin-in-southeastern-us/

          1. Someone out there says:

            What a perfect opportunity to advertise for EVs!
            “If you had an electric car you would be driving now!”

            1. mr. M says:

              Thats what Renault/Nissan did last year during the smog alerts (and driving ban for ICE) in Paris 🙂

        5. Terawatt says:

          Because the total cost of ownership will likely be lower with the Bolt. Running costs are a lot lower even in the USA where you haven’t even the sense to add ANY tax to fossil fuels to better align the price of the stuff with its cost. Almost everywhere else the running costs will favor the EV even more.

          Because no ICE vehicle I know of can offer the combination of comfort, performance and practicality that the Bolt does at a lower, or even a comparable, price. The thing hits 60 in 6.5 seconds. That’s Camaro territory, but it’s comfortable and silent, refined but with tons of torque, and has very good cabin space and a decent and easily exploited cargo space.

          Because it is delightful to plug in at home rather than fill up at great expense at a gas station.

          Because it doesn’t pollute the air in your city and neighborhood. That’s pretty cool and counts for something to some people!

          Because it’s a cutting edge technology product. What ICE at a comparable price is?

          1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

            US has around $0.50 average taxes at pump. Yes, it is not adequate to compensate for everything, but some states like Georgia still slap fixed yearly fees on plugins.
            Gas cost for 40 mpg car doing 12,000 miles/year would be 12000/40*2.2 = $660/year. Plus some $30 for synthetic oil & filter change.
            Electricity cost varies a lot. Assuming average $0.13/kWh it would be 12000 miles/120mpge*33kWh/ge*$.13/kWh=$429. So the TCO savings on fuel are marginal, purchase price and depreciation is what makes all the difference. Still, electric drive can provide more comfortable ride at least in economy class.

        6. goodbyegascar says:

          JayTee wrote:

          “Why will people buy this instead of a lower priced, ice small SUV?”

          People will buy the Chevy Bolt EV for its outstanding electric drivetrain.

        7. Rich says:

          In no particular order of importance:

          1) Supporting what’s needed for US energy independence
          2) Remove OPEC’s ability to financially cripple our country (like they did for almost 8 years)
          3) Possibly the end of wars in the middle-east
          4) 75% reduction in maintenance costs
          5) 75% to 90% reduction in energy costs
          6) Step necessary to free myself from being a slave to fossil fuels
          7) Predictable energy costs
          8) Cool factor
          9) Awesome low end torque / performance
          10) Ease of fueling (in my garage while I sleep doesn’t get much easier)
          11) The carbon footprint will reduce over time (gas cars are the opposite)
          12) Sustainability
          13) Supporting a green future
          14) Stopping the shipment of over $1 billion dollars a day to middle-eastern countries.
          15) Peace and quiet while I drive. Not some obnoxious gas engine howling while it works
          16) Support of clean air
          17) Support of a movement to give our children a decent future/chance
          18) No longer sucking on toxic fumes while putting gas in the car
          19) My spouse hates putting gas in the car
          20) Stop sending my money to fossil fuel corporations that corrupt and destroy our democracy

          OK, I think 20 is enough 🙂

          1. Peder Norby says:

            Well done Rich!

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            There is a post which should be bronzed!

            +25,000-30,000

          3. Nix says:

            So good a comment, I had to +1 even months later!!

        8. because it does not burn gas. Because running costs, to judge by my Fluence ZE, are extremely low. Because leaving home with 350 KM in the battery every day without the need to fill her up at the rendered dinosaur fat station is far more convenient. Because its time to stop poisoning our children’s brains with nano-particles issuing from the tail-pipe. etc

    2. mhpr262 says:

      Eszackly.

    3. Terawatt says:

      +238/383

    4. JIMIJON says:

      Whatever happened to Gears & Fluid drives (Hydraulics). You’d think that with some help from gearing to bring the Motor’s RPMs down would decrease power consumption by taking stress off the motors, and in turn increase the range., But as I understand it that doesn’t work like that on EV’s and that Gearing only works on ICE vehicles …I’ve always wondered about that , the Physics appear to be the same? I think a Breakthrough is Over Due in respect with Power transfer applications to power the actual wheels. ? ? ? That is a Bit Baffling.. Maybe they should be concentrating more on the efficiency of Power transfer, instead of increasing Battery sizes..

      1. QCO says:

        Two points…

        First, higher motor speeds mean lower currents and therefore less resistance losses.

        Secondly, gears and hydraulics introduce additional mechanical losses. When it domes to EV drive trains, simple is better.

        1. JIMIJON says:

          When looking at it that way, it makes sense . thx..

        2. SparkEV says:

          First, higher rotation introduce more mechanical losses, so there is some point where both are optimized.

          Second, multi-gear is no more mechanically lossy than one speed. You basically have it constantly meshed with cogs, no more so than one speed. But it will introduce more weight and overall efficiency benefit would be small to negative.

          Gears are far more effective for performance. For example, SparkEV could do 0-30 MPH in 1.5 seconds (quicker than most Tesla) and 0-60 MPH in 6.6 seconds (about that of Bolt or BMW i3) with 2 speed gearbox and very sticky tires. See my blog post on “SparkEV performance analysis” and scroll down to “tangent thoughts: more gears”

      2. sault says:

        A multi-speed transmission is a necessary evil of the inherent shortcomings of the ICE. All the moving parts, flame propagation speed and such mean that you can’t get much power out of a car-sized engine below 500 – 700 RPM. These same limitations mean you can spin the engine faster than about 7,000 RPM unless you’re running an expensive sportscar or racing engine. This means a typical car engine only has a high-end RPM that is about 10x it’s low-end RPM that actually produces power. And to have any hope of being efficient, you really want to limit the high-end engine speed below 4000 RPM otherwise, you’ll burn a lot of fuel pumping air and overcoming engine friction.

        Meanwhile, an electric motor produces max torque at 0 RPM and it’s power band is relatively flat from 0 – 8000 RPM or more. Just to avoid dividing by zero, an electric motor’s high-end RPM is 8000 times greater than it’s low end RPM, a much greater range than an ICE. Therefore, only a single-speed reduction gear is necessary to operate at the full range of vehicle speeds instead of a multi-speed transmission.

  2. Mark says:

    Considering I’m too tall for an S, or the Volt, the boxy design should help in this situation. Looking forward to sitting in one once available in the midwest.

    It is a bit surprising they didn’t opt for a 10 kWh charger. However with all that range, it shouldn’t be a problem. It’s like a cell phone… Plug it in at night and you’ll be 100% in the morning.

    1. MTN Ranger says:

      If you typically drove 40 miles a day in a Leaf and continue to do the same in the Bolt, your charging times will be the same. Only on long trips where the battery is exhausted does the faster charging really become a concern. In that situation, I really wouldn’t care about how fast the AC charge rate is as opposed to the DC charge rate. That stated, hopefully, DC charge rates will be increased when the finalized CCS 150kW standard is released.

      1. R.S says:

        In a Leaf you would have to charge at least every second day, in the Bolt you can go 5 days with some left.

        Not that I would recommend it, but you could.

        1. Kdawg says:

          I wonder if GM will recommend keeping it charged at 80% most of the time, unless you plan to make a long trip. Then charge to 100%

          1. ozz says:

            That seems like a good idea kdawg!! And perhaps my partner will conveniently forget about 1/2 the time anyway and it will only get charged every other day.. –> Day 1 from 100% to 90% Day2 forgot 2plug 90% to 80%.. day3 forgets again… 80% to 70%.. day4 plugs in at night.. 70% -90% *rinse and repeat*
            lol

          2. JIMIJON says:

            I have always heard that Overcharging Especially Or Maximum charging , not a good idea with respect to the longevity of the Batteries..It’s always good to charge no more than 85% to 90% Unless you are going on a long trip go 100% But don’t make a habit of it.

            1. JIMIJON says:

              Run The Battery down as much as Possible before Re-Charging.. They say this will add longevity to the life of the batteries..

              1. sault says:

                That’s a really bad idea with today’s lithium ion batteries and is a relic of the old NiCd batteries that developed “memory” if not fully discharged before recharging.

                1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                  Indeed. Repeatedly running your battery pack as low as possible before recharging will prematurely age a li-ion battery pack.

                  So long as your car or your charger can be set to not routinely charge above 80%, there’s no reason not to plug your PEV (Plug-in EV) every night.

                  1. SparkEV says:

                    SparkEV doesn’t have the option to stop at 80%, so each plug-in goes to 100% if not stopped manually. I don’t know if Bolt will have the option to only go to 80%.

                    As for LiIon battery, it’s best to keep it around 50%. If there’s an option to charge to 55% (about 120 miles range) and drive down to 45% (about 100 miles range), that will probably be best.

                    1. MTN Ranger says:

                      Yes, it probably will. I was part of a GM survey that listed different UI examples for a max charge setting. They had it user adjustable with granularity of 1%, 5%, 10% options.

                2. JIMIJON says:

                  Ok sault., Do It your way ! ..It’s PROVEN that it works for all batteries thus far…Let’s put it this way, This method will never hurt the battery, that’s for sure .So., Keep topping off your battery every chance you get ,…. L M A O..

              2. Roy_H says:

                Not true. That applies to the old Nickel Cadmium batteries. Just plug in these cars every night no matter what the level is and charge to 90% for best care.

        2. Richard says:

          If my memory serves, isn’t a big part of battery life the number of charge discharge cycles you impose on it? Could be wrong but a li-Ion battery has about 1500 life cycles… soo if you charge once every 5 days as opposed to every day or so…do the math..

    2. Jeffrey Songster says:

      Definitely agree that larger onboard AC would be a great option for folks living in areas with less charging infrastructure. The other thing GM should commit to doing at least in major metro areas is to creating SAE Combo centers with 2 or 3 100 kW CCS chargers. To be ready for the inevitable backlash of folks who want to get back to 80% alot faster than it can now. Hopefully the car can handle more than 50kW.

      1. Brandon says:

        I would reckon its do at least 120 kW.

        Maybe for the 2018MY or 2019MY GM will allow 150 kW charging. There’s no question that the battery can handle 120-150 kW, it’s just a matter of them allowing more than a 50 kW charge rate. I believe they’ll come with it eventually, but most likely once there are some 150 kW fast chargers around.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          They should allow it first, otherwise who is going to pay for 150 kWh charger upgrades if almost nobody can use them? Maybe competitors will do it first. E.g. Nissan.

      2. Robert Middleswarth says:

        My guess is the car can handle more since it can handle 150kw discharge. As long as they don’t skimp on the charging outlet I don’t see why it won’t support the 150kw recharge once the standard is finalized. My understanding is the 100kw is only supported in the EU because the way their power is setup vs the US.

  3. fotomoto says:

    “Imagine what the all-electric Chevy could have accomplished with a more slippery design, optimized for an electric platform”

    Answer: a less user friendly interior.

    I was expecting a larger hwy hit of around 190-200 miles.

    1. Bacardi says:

      Because the public adoption of BEVs is predicated on “the user friendliness of the interior”?

      Here’s what most likely happened…The original platform was based on the Sonic, Lyft/Raven came to light and someone green lighted the Bolt EV to become their car sharing halo car…In order for a tiny Bolt EV to serve as a “taxi” the decision was made to maximize the interior space and it really did change to an all new platform…

      1. wavelet says:

        “Because the public adoption of BEVs is predicated on “the user friendliness of the interior”?”
        Actually, YES. Much more than 0-60 acceleration times or motor power. In most of the world, consumers treat cars as transportation appliances; it’s been decades since any non-rock-bottom-economy car had inadequate engines for any normal daily use.

        The model 3 is a non-starter for me due to not having a hatchback, and the large rear glass (I live in a climate with 340 sunny days a year… That glass would roast my kids).

        The cliché about the number of cupholders an important spec is actually correct.

  4. Brian says:

    The Bolt was designed for passenger area in a city-friendly footprint. It does that exceedingly well.

    I do hope GM takes the platform and applies it to a slippery highway cruiser as well as a larger family hauler (with cargo space in addition to passenger space).

    1. Bacardi says:

      GM will spend a great deal of money installing Bolt EV centers with chargers…Only makes sense their next EV is a new and popular segment…SUVs are red hot, Lyft has “Lyft Plus” which is 6 plus passengers therefore don’t be surprised to see a mid-size SUV w/3rd row about the same smaller-ish Outlander which does have a 3rd row…That makes far more sense than a “Jolt” which would only have limited appeal…Most people buying TM3s are current ICE owners who want to own/lease a Tesla, if Tesla came out and said Lithium has skyrocketed, they can no longer make EVs, only ICE vehicles, majority would keep their orders…

      1. Jeffrey Songster says:

        The problem is that GM has no plans to install or fund any chargers. This fact makes me suspect their commitment to the EV transition.

        1. Stuart22 says:

          Whey should they? They are already doing far more to promote electrification than other legacy manufacturers… don’t expect them to spend their money setting the table for latecomers to benefit?

          And they do not need to do the work – it is already being done without their $$. DCFC is expanding, and will continue to expand as more EVs hit the road. With the Bolt, GM has ensured demand from a grass roots level will grow.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Bacardi said:

        “GM will spend a great deal of money installing Bolt EV centers with chargers…”

        GM won’t spend a single penny on that.

        “Only makes sense their next EV is a new and popular segment…”

        GM isn’t making any effort to produce the Bolt in large numbers. In fact, by farming out the entire BEV powertrain to a new, untested company (LG Electronics’ new automotive division), and not producing a right-hand drive version, GM is quite clearly signaling a lack of intent to make this car in large numbers.

        As with the Volt, it looks very much like GM is only interested in developing the tech to make sure they can produce competitive cars when the EV revolution finally goes into its inevitable exponential growth phase. Until then, they’re not going to make any attempt to produce multiple models of compelling PHEVs or BEVs.

        GM will continue to be a follower in the EV revolution, not a leader.

        1. mr. M says:

          To not produce a right-hand version is more a economical decission than any other. They expect only 10% of the capacity to go to europe, therefore GB will most likely only get 2.000 units/year. How much profit do you generate with 2.000 sales? Not much. Does it justify a 1.000.000$ investment to swicht the steering wheel to the right? Probably not.

        2. Benjamin says:

          GM is a leader. Not THE leader (Tesla) but a leader in plug-in hybrids and in EVs. They initially invested for a fast ramp in selling Volts and aimed to sell way more than they ended up. Unfortunately the Great Recession was in full swing when it came out, and $30,000+ for a 4 seat compact car was just not going to sell well.

          The Bolt allows them to temporarily claim to be a leader in EVs. Nobody else is close to the functionality/performance/utility/range for the price. Yes they are being cautious and planning on a slower ramp than they did with the first Volt, but that is probably a smart thing to do, because as good as the Bolt is, it is not yet a replacement for a primary car for most people/families because of the anemic and/or non-existent fast-charging capability.

          217 miles highway range would be ok, but fast charging at a rate of 90 miles range in 30 minutes mean that you’ll spend almost half your travel time tracking down a fast charger and recharging, putting normal long-range driving out of the question. I.e. for me a trip to NY or Florida would be close to 700 miles and would require about 10 hours drive time averaging 70 mph, and I might do it in 12 hours including stops. The Bolt cannot do that trip in a single day. Unless a CCS network gets built out fairly rapidly then the Bolt will struggle to complete even a 500 mile trip within a day. Because of lack of chargers many people will be more or less limited to the car’s initial range, making it a regional runabout not a full-service car.

  5. Someone out there says:

    So drive a little slower on the highway, problem solved!

    1. John says:

      Nope!

      Drive as fast as traffic.
      Or stay off the roads.

      https://www.esurance.com/info/car/the-dangers-of-driving-too-slowly

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Oh, what FUD. The article you linked to is warning of the dangers of driving slow in the fast lane on the highway. So long as you stay in the proper lane for slow driving, it doesn’t present any real increase in danger. We haven’t heard of trucks getting hit more frequently because they typically drive in the slow lane, now have we?

        Taking a road trip in a BEV certainly means you should regulate your speed to minimize the number of times you have to stop to recharge. Driving slower may get you there faster. That’s driving smart.

        Just “following the crowd” rather than matching your speed, when driving long distance in a BEV on the highway, isn’t smart at all. It’s pretty brain-dead.

      2. End Resut says:

        How about driving the limit? I am tired of the So. Cal jerks that floor it down the freeway driving like a cockroach running from the light. As long as I am doing the limit you can wait.

        1. Ziv says:

          Driving the speed limit is fine but stay right. Let the left lanes flow naturally. This coming from someone who occasionally drives just over the speed limit.

        2. Erik says:

          Technically speaking, there is no speed limit on freeways in CA. Just drive no faster than 85% of traffic and it’s legal

  6. Taser54 says:

    Interesting that the author chose to compare a 60 kWh Volt to the larger battery pack model S in order to claim, “The Bolt is rated at only 217.4 miles highway, a figure that’s easily beat by every Model S (Cd of .24) and most of the Model X SUVs out there – except for the RWD Model S 60 (214.8 miles highway).”

    Cars with larger battery packs can have more range than cars with smaller packs? Whodathunk?

    1. Brian says:

      1) There is no 60kWh Volt. You meant to say Bolt no doubt. If we can’t get this right, imagine how confusing this is to the typical consumer!
      2) The point was to compare the 60kWh Bolt to the 60kWh Model S. The Model S wins, despite being heavier. And we have reason to believe that the Bolt has more usable capacity than a 60kWh Model S, and yet it still has less highway range. Yes, aero matters on the highway.

      1. Taser54 says:

        Nope. Bolt beats the 60kwh model S. It’s there in plain language. The Model S does not win.

        Try again.

        1. Brian says:

          Wow, that’s embarrassing. I read “Model X” three times. And this isn’t the first time I have confused S/X.

          I stand corrected.

          1. Stuart22 says:

            Human error. Apology accepted. You are forgiven.

            1. Kdawg says:

              Maybe this will help everyone remember Bolt.. with a “B”.

              1. Someone out there says:

                LOL great picture! With “Office Space” Michael Bolton in the driver’s seat! I love that movie!

          2. bro1999 says:

            Just as long as you don’t confuse SEX. That one will always get you in deep trouble. 😉

            1. Rightofthepeople says:

              Yes it will, just ask Bill Clinton!

  7. Someone out there says:

    So a 60 kWh Bolt goes slightly farther than a 60 kWh Tesla? Obviously that Cd isn’t such a big issue after all then.

    1. Stuart22 says:

      The Model S60 has been made obsolete by the Bolt. Supercharging and a couple of seconds less to 60mph aren’t worth the extra $30k.

      How Tesla will shave off that price premium to come up with the Model 3 and be profitable at $35k will be a miracle.

      1. DonC says:

        There are plenty of places you simply can’t take the Model S because of a lack of chargers, and many people simply wouldn’t put up with the hassle of finding a charger, so for many the the 60 kWh Model S would be the best value. Hard to see why you’d need more kWh for local driving. Of course you wouldn’t be able to go zoom zoom when you needed to — say once every five or six years — but you would get to keep $40K. Seems like a reasonable trade-off.

        1. ElonJR says:

          Are you serious ? You do know that every Tesla comes with a J1772 adapter right ? So Teslas can charge anywhere any other EV can charge.

          1. DonC says:

            Yeah, so many people want to spend ten hours at the side of the road charging with a J1772 charger. LOL

      2. Michael says:

        By your logic, Mercedes has no need for a S class when the C class can do the same thing for a far less cost.

        You are comparing apples to oranges.

    2. Doggydogworld says:

      Cd and frontal area matter equally on the highway. Model S has low Cd but is quite large.

      Cd matters a lot more in real world highway driving (65-80 mph) than it does on the EPA highway cycle (48 mph average). At 70 mph I’d expect the 215 mile S 60 to outlast the 217 mile Bolt by 20 miles or so.

      1. Someone out there says:

        Sure, if you really push it the difference becomes larger but some people said that it would do terrible on the highway because of the high Cd. Not so it seems.

        1. Doggydogworld says:

          I was one of those people. I never said terrible, but I felt real world highway range would be 185 miles vs. 215 EPA combined. I still think there’ll be a 30 mile difference, but since combined is a whopping 238 real world should be over 200.

          BTW, 70 mph is not “pushing it”. Rural highway speed limits around me are mostly 75 mph, some are 80.

    3. bro1999 says:

      Model S 60D: 107 MPGe highway
      Bolt: 110 MPGe highway

      Not bad for an aero-brick “nightmare”. LOL

      1. SparkEV says:

        Frontal area also matter. SparkEV has roughly same Cd as Bolt, and it achieves 109 MPGe HWY, better than Tesla S with Cd of 0.24. That’s because it’s has so much smaller area.

        1. bro1999 says:

          The Tesla diehards on here would have made you believe driving a Bolt on the highway was akin to having a parachute deployed as far as range hit goes. Nice to see they were wrong. 😉

          1. pjwood1 says:

            That word came to mind several times, but ultimately it looks like Bolt kills it in both reducing and managing inertia, the City rating.

        2. Kdawg says:

          In your Spark EV, how far can you go at 70mph?

          1. SparkEV says:

            I haven’t tested this, but range polynomial shows about 70 miles. Give 10 miles buffer/uncertainty for 60 miles usable.

            I have done 55 MPH, and that was about 95 miles.

            1. Kdawg says:

              So assuming the same ratio for the Bolt EV, that would be about 203 miles at 70mph.

      2. Tech01x says:

        BMW i3 BEV: 111 MPGe highway, or higher than a Bolt.

        However, in Idaho National Labs testing, the heavier Model S 85 is more efficient at 70 mph than an i3.

        Likely break even is somewhere around 65 mph. The highest speed test in EPA highway test only has an average speed of 48 mph and almost zero time at any steady state highway speeds. It basically simulates a 10 minute commute into the city with traffic lights and some moderate traffic.

        1. DonC says:

          Looking at the INL numbers: The Model S has a pack size of 85 kWh. At a steady 70 MPH the range was 228.1 miles. That’s 2.68 miles/kWh. The i3 has a 18.8 kWh battery. At a steady 70 MPH the range was 58.4 miles. That’s 3.11 miles/kWh.

          Obviously I’m missing something but these numbers suggest the Model S was less not more efficient. What am I missing? (Another way to look at this is to simply use a proportion of the Model S battery to the i3 battery — 85/18.8 — and then multiply by the range of the i3, which is 58.4 miles. When you do that you get 264 miles, which is a lot more miles than the 228 miles the Model S actually got).

          1. Tech01x says:

            According to avt.inl.gov data, the Tesla S85 go through 301 Wh/mi at 70 mph. The i3 BEV gets 313 Wh/mi at 70 mph.

            There’s an adjustment for the actual amount of energy available from the pack in the S85, just like there is for the i3.

            1. DonC says:

              I see the number you’re referring to but it can’t possibly be a reasonable measure of efficiency. Using the DC electricity consumption the Model S is more efficient at all speeds, including 60 MPH and even 45 MPH. No way that it credible given the MPGe numbers.

              It seems that the numbers you are using are related to the fact the Model S chargers at a higher rate and hence has a higher charging efficiecy.

              Range is obviously the best measure of efficiency. It’s real and directly measurable. You drive the car until it can’t maintain the set speed. You use that number to calculate miles/kWh.

          2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

            Absolutely the BMW i3 is more energy efficient than the Tesla Model S; significantly so. It has streamlining about as good (nearly as good?) as a Tesla car, and a smaller frontal area. Plus, it’s appreciably lighter, both due to a smaller battery pack and because of its carbon-fiber body.

            I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim the Model S was more energy efficient than the i3, or even as energy efficient. But that doesn’t translate to the Bolt, which has traditional steel body and a significantly larger — and heavier — battery pack than the i3.

            Energy efficiency should be considered in relation to the overall size of the car. Of course the Bolt will beat the Model S in energy efficiency, because it’s smaller and lighter. So what? That doesn’t mean GM’s EV engineering is superior to Tesla’s, or even equal.

            Let’s wait and compare the Bolt to a similar sized Tesla car: The Model ≡. That’s when we’ll be able to really compare the EV engineering of Tesla and GM.

            1. SparkEV says:

              SparkEV made of steel is 2866 lb, only bit over 100 lb heavier than BMW i3 with carbon fiber, etc. Don’t discount steel body when engineered right.

              Bolt is more efficient when MPGe is concerned compared to new BMW i3. In fact, Bolt is more efficient in city MPGe than SparkEV. You can’t just look at the size / weight of the car to say anything about its efficiency. That is, if you trust those EPA MPGe figures.

        2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          Realistically most non-enthusiast people would not take these cars for cross country trip. Renting gas car makes much more sense.

          They will be used in city and around mostly, so it makes more sense to design them for city driving. It means higher roof, higher seating position, bigger volume inside and smaller exterior dimensions allowing easier maneuvering in city take precedence over low Cd and a bit longer highway range.

    4. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      No. The Bolt goes farther on the EPA highway test cycles than the Model S60 goes on the EPA highway test cycles.

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        To be clear: I’m not dissing the rating, it’s just that at this point we only have numbers from EPA testing and the California press drive, so some of us are drumming our fingers waiting for the ratings at 70mph.

        1. DonC says:

          We might guess 186 miles +/- 2%. That’s using the i3 which has the same MPGe Highway as the Bolt EV. Actual verifiable numbers are likely years off.

          Idaho National Lab found that the 85 kWh Model S had a range of 221 miles at a steady 70 MPH. If the Model 3 has the same efficiency as the Model S, then, at a steady 70 MPH, the range of the Model 3 would be 134 miles (50 kWh/85 kWh X 228 miles).

          1. ElonJR says:

            What makes you think the Model 3 would have the same efficieny as a 5,000lb car ? And what makes you think they’ll use a 50Kw battery ? Alot of bad math going on there.
            Tesla Roadster received 4 miles/Kwh with 288hp and 200 torq. If they can get close to that efficieny like the Bolt did, it should be no problem. Especially with better aerodynamics and battery chemistry.

            1. DonC says:

              Using the efficiency from the Model S seems like a pretty good bet. The mass isn’t terribly relevant since, at 70 MPH, rolling resistance is something of a rounding error in energy losses. But it wouldn’t be surprising if the Model 3 had a smaller frontal area. That might make a difference.

              Tesla has said the battery will be less than 60 kWh. Analysts have mentioned 44 kWh. So 50 kWh seems reasonable. But if using a different number makes you feel better go ahead. It won’t matter a great deal. You can’t put a relatively small battery pack in a relatively inefficient car and get astonishing range.

              No doubt models with larger packs and two motors will go further. For more money of course.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                DonC said:

                “Tesla has said the battery will be less than 60 kWh. Analysts have mentioned 44 kWh. So 50 kWh seems reasonable.”

                It’s typical of a serial Tesla basher, like DonC, to cite outlier figures and pretend they are reasonable, or an average, as a false support for his Tesla bashing.

                A more reasonable estimate for the Model ≡’s battery pack size, given what we know now, is 55 kWh. I think it’s possible that Tesla may nudge that up slightly, perhaps closer to 60 kWh than to 55 kWh, to compete more directly with the Bolt.

                1. SparkEV says:

                  What’s the obsession with bigger and bigger battery? Smaller battery is good for cost, weight, charging time, etc. etc. What matters is range, and I’m hoping Tesla 3 will be 40 kWh, though realistically might be 50 kWh. I’d much rather have it at 18.4 kWh (like SparkEV) and have 215 miles range!

          2. Kdawg says:

            “Actual verifiable numbers are likely years off.”
            ——–

            Why years? Some Bolts will ship in less than 3 months.

            1. DonC says:

              I meant a real test from an organization like INL with real processes and procedures.

              1. Kdawg says:

                Ah, well I’d settle for early real-world numbers from those first adopters. Hopefully some people in cold climates get their hands on Bolt EVs. I’m really curious about the winter-range hit.

    5. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “Someone out there” said:

      “So a 60 kWh Bolt goes slightly farther than a 60 kWh Tesla? Obviously that Cd isn’t such a big issue after all then.”

      Cd (coefficient of drag) is only part of the equation. The rest is the frontal area. The full factor of drag, or wind resistance, is represented by CdA… with “A” meaning “area”.

      As already stated above, the Model S has a larger frontal area. Comparing the smaller Bolt to the larger Model S is somewhat an apples-to-oranges comparison… or at least peaches-to-tangerines. 😉 Not quite the same.

      Wikipedia says:

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      While designers pay attention to the overall shape of the automobile, they also bear in mind that reducing the frontal area of the shape helps reduce the drag. The product of drag coefficient and area – drag area – is represented as CdA (or CxA), a multiplication of the Cd value by the area.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient

      1. Terawatt says:

        It’s more than that. Larger wheels and greater mass on the Tesla also favors the Bolt.

        Drag is the most important factor accounting for perhaps 70-80% of energy expenditure at highway speed. So you are 70-80% right.

  8. Doggydogworld says:

    I bet the Bolt Cd is below 0.32 now. Especially if tested the same as Tesla. As Pushmi has noted, GM seems to have sloped the roof more in the production version.

    But they don’t really care about highway. Bolt is clearly focused on metro area usability. Their target is Uber/Lyft (and soon, autonomous Uber/Lyft), commuters and soccer moms. Roomy with easy ingress/egress, high seating, flat floor, flexible cargo space. Most owners will use their “other car” or a rental for long trips.

    1. Brian says:

      “Most owners will use their “other car” or a rental for long trips.”

      This is true. Those of us who have lived with EVs know this is what often happens. The trouble is, if you design a car specifically with this in mind, you are necessarily limiting your target market. First, many people don’t think about the fact that not every car in their driveway needs to get to Grandma’s house 300 miles away. Second, renting seems to be more common at the far end of a flight than from one’s house city. I don’t think people are thinking about the very real feasibility of simply renting one week out of the year for their one vacation to the coast.

      1. MTN Ranger says:

        That is the conundrum for manufacturers of the first longer range EVs. Do they make a car that satisfies the most number of uses? Eventually, there will be models for all classes: sedan, hatchback, CUV/SUV for the small, medium and large sizes. They key for this happening is reduced battery cost. So hopefully in the next 5-10 years this will become a reality.

        That’s why I believe there is no “winner” in the fake race between the Bolt, Model 3, next gen Leaf. There is plenty of market space for different models to compete just like there are dozens of models in the current ICE offerings.

        1. Bryan Whitton says:

          The question comes into play that once folks have experienced the smoothness and ease of use of an electric vehicle would they be willing to spend money to rent an ICE vehicle.

          After driving electric for the last two years I had to rent a van for the company and nearly forgot how to fill up the car at a gas station. I realized just how stinky a gas station is. It also made me wonder whether all those fumes were affecting me bodily.

        2. Jeffrey Songster says:

          Seems to me if we were going to rank them in terms of overall long trip capability then BOLT will come in last to any Tesla except the roadster… then LEAF2 since both Nissan and Tesla have a more robust infrastructure. Most all CHAdeMO DCFCs are supplied with 44kW capability and the CCS market has a load of 25kW chargers installed by BMW and VW… which work well for their current small batteries but not so well for quick turnarounds for a BOLT.

      2. Doggydogworld says:

        Every car has a limited market. The key is knowing your target market and hitting it. Bolt’s #1 target is Uber/Lyft and I think they hit it quite well.

        Chevy already has an “unlimited distance” EV – the Volt. It would be dumb to sacrifice Bolt’s excellent metro-area usability just to cannibalize a few Volt sales.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Good point, and I think one that has been lost in previous discussions here.

          From GM’s viewpoint, the truly long-range PEV is the Volt, not the Bolt. No point in maximizing the Bolt’s long-range capability, because that will cause it to tread on Volt sales.

          Now, I think ultimately that’s a foolish way of looking at it, because I think limiting the Bolt to L2 charging (unless the customer buys the expensive DCFC option) will reduce the car’s resale value. But I can certainly see GM making that marketing decision.

          I guess the real question is just what percentage of potential Bolt buyers will be willing to put up with the extended waiting times for en-route charging. A lot of Tesla owners are willing to do that. But many other Tesla owners never use Superchargers.

          Some people say that it’s only the hardcore “early adopters” who will put up with waiting for 30-45 minutes to charge, multiple times during a trip. They think the average driver would rather drive something else; a gasmobile or a PHEV, when taking a long trip.

          Given that most Americans fly, rather than drive, if they’re going 400 miles or more, there is certainly an argument to be made that they’re right.

          So to play Devil’s Advocate here: Perhaps GM’s choice to make DCFC optional, rather than standard, wasn’t at all a poor decision. Maybe they made a smart choice.

          I guess we’ll have to wait a few years, and see what the Bolt’s resale value is.

          1. Kdawg says:

            I don’t know why everyone go so upset when GM made DCFC optional. Having options is good. If you want DCFC, buy it. If you don’t, don’t.

            There are people complaining that GM DIDN’T give an option on battery size. If they had, would the DCFC people complain again?

            #cantwin

            1. SparkEV says:

              Yup, having the option for DCFC or not is good. However, EV without DCFC is a toy, not a real vehicle. Golf carts are toys! I hope all those who buy the Bolt get the option.

              1. Kdawg says:

                Depends on how you plan to use it. I know people that never drive more than 30 miles/day. Does that mean their cars are “toys”? It is their transportation.

                Personally, I’m trying to think of how many times I would exceed the Bolt’s 238 mile range. Not very often, maybe once a year. However I would have to adjust for 70mph driving, and also the hit for cold Michigan winters. Due to those facts, I would opt for DCFC.

                1. SparkEV says:

                  Some people get around in golf carts almost exclusively, might consider it their “transportation”, but it’s still a toy. Same with EV without DCFC.

                  If you’re the last person to drive the car before it gets crushed, and you never plan to move / change jobs, no DCFC might be fine. But most likely, you’ll sell / trade it for another while the car is still drivable. That next person might be living in cold area and want to drive at 70 MPH. You’ll be limiting your potential market to sell the toy without DCFC against real cars.

                  I repeat myself in case there’s any doubt: EV without DCFC are toys, everyone should take this option.

                  1. Kdawg says:

                    There’s a lot of differences between a golf cart and a highway-capable/legal vehicle. I don’t think your analogy works.

                    I think all you are trying to say is resale value may take a hit. The “toy” comment doesn’t make sense.

                  2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

                    It is not $3000 like in early Model S, but it is still $750, significant money for economy car. Why would you do it if you are not planning go more than 100 miles from home or to relocate anywhere for the next decade? Just for residual value in some distant future? But you may be leasing it anyway.

                    GM making it optional would allow them to see what is real demand for DC charging among Bolt buyers and how much they should invest into it. It costs some money for them too. If most people would order this option, maybe it will become part of basic trim later just like it was with Model S.

          2. Jeffrey Songster says:

            I think DCFC being optional is OK… for lowball cars that someone might for some reason want. I would never get one without it either.

            The actual charge time for BOLT with SAE Combo/CCS DCFC will be over an hour minimum from low batt to 85% as the 60kW battery will be too much for the typical 50kW charger… many are only 25kW. GM really needs to get off the stick and add more chargers to the world. Especially more 50+kW to get the times down to a more acceptable level. Tesla will blow their car out of the water on DCQC times. This is likely why they aren’t emphasizing the feature.
            Don’t get me wrong… I am thrilled to see the BOLT arriving on the market. DCFC times will be its only weakness and that will certainly not matter to everyone. If your EV is to be your only car though… wait for the LEAF 2 or the Tesla Model 3.

            1. Kdawg says:

              Well we don’t know the charge times for the Leaf2 or Model 3. The Bolt EV charges at the same rate as a Model S 60. The Model 3 will probably have a smaller battery and charge even slower. Unless Nissan puts a TMS in the Leaf2, I won’t even consider it. I’m also guessing the Leaf2 range won’t match the Bolt EVs or Tesla’s.

            2. zzzzzzzzzz says:

              “The actual charge time for BOLT with SAE Combo/CCS DCFC will be over an hour minimum from low batt to 85% as the 60kW battery will be too much for the typical 50kW charger… ”
              I recall some demo drive of Bolt and they noted that it charges at full power until almost full, unlike many other battery cars. If it is true, 60*.85 would be 51, or just full hour at 50 kW. More likely it would be less than 85% as you would not be at 0% level when you start charging.

              1. Ziv says:

                GM advertises that the Bolt can fast charge 90 miles in 30 minutes or 160 miles in 60 minutes. So charge tapering kicks in within just 45 minutes or so.
                Good not great.

                1. Kdawg says:

                  That’s only 2 data points. How do you know what the curve looks like?

                  1. buu says:

                    don’t forget at low SOC it won’t be 50kW either its 125Á * 300+V

                  2. Ziv says:

                    I don’t. Its a guess and given just 2 data points that is pretty much all you can do. But obviously it begins to taper at some point and those numbers if accurate seem to indicate that it starts to taper before you are a full hour in. Given the pack size and the apparent charge rate this looks fairly reasonable.
                    But you never know. It may charge at 150 kW charge rate for 2 minutes and taper after that but I doubt it. 😉
                    I am guessing that it starts to taper around 40-45 minutes in and that would be ok for reasonably quick charging albeit not as fast as most would like for road trips.

  9. SparkEV says:

    “Imagine what the all-electric Chevy could have accomplished with a more slippery design, optimized for an electric platform.”

    Yup. This along with FWD is why I was disappointed with Bolt. Boxy FWD has been done with inexpensive SparkEV, $30K car could (should?) be so much better. For torquey EV, RWD is the way to go.

    1. Brian says:

      Seriously. You almost wish GM would build a slippery RWD version of the Bolt. Something like the Model III form?

      I really hope that the Bolt is successful and that GM adapts it to such a platform in the not-too-distant future.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Yeah, put Bolt bits in extended 5 seat version of EV1 (Cd=0.19) and RWD with AWD option for $30K. That will put a damper on Tesla. Then Tesla will hopefully come up with an answer that’s even better.

        1. bro1999 says:

          That would be a true Model 3 killer.

          Hmm….GM has to have some surprises up their sleeve come NAIAS 2017 in Jan, right?

          1. Josh says:

            It better be the new Equinox with the Volt 2.0 drivetrain.

            1. Kdawg says:

              Or a Buick Electra. A mid-size plug in that can either be a BEV with 250 miles of range or PHEV with a 50 mile AER.

          2. SparkEV says:

            They seem to like CES, so we’ll see. I wonder if they’ll call it SparkEV 2.0 as SparkEV is little EV that kick ass. Two point oh moniker is more fitting for CES. 🙂

            They could call it EV1 2.0, but one-two-point-oh just doesn’t roll off the tongue well.

            1. Terawatt says:

              EV2?

              1. SparkEV says:

                Doh! You had to spoil it! 😉

                Two point oh?

          3. Dan Hue says:

            I thought the same thing. That would be a way to take some wind out of Tesla’s sail.

      2. MTN Ranger says:

        Like I mentioned in the post above, there is no reason why GM couldn’t offer a Jolt at some point in time. But they had to start somewhere; the small CUV market is hot right now.

        http://www.chevyjoltev.com/

        1. Brian says:

          Agreed. I wasn’t implying that the Bolt was the wrong car for GM to build. Far from it. It is a great car for 2017. I’m just hoping they don’t leave it there. I would be all over a RWD sports coupe based on the Bolt. Maybe in 2020 or beyond (sports coupes are few and far between these days). There are other high-profile segments they should fill first (mid-sized sedan and small SUV come to mind).

          1. bro1999 says:

            Based off comments that GM isn’t willing to divulge the precies platform designator for the Bolt (info available for ALL other current GM vehicles), it makes me think they definitely have plans they don’t want anyone to know yet to use the Bolt’s platform in other vehicles. Otherwise why the secrecy?

        2. pjwood1 says:

          Right. And we can’t forget companies like GM don’t always pull everything they have from behind the curtain. The Bolt made it. The range surprised, but I wouldn’t be surprised if something more slippery were developed and sidelined. The “City EV” image, driven by sub-primers, is what GM’s board is really shooting for. After all, the cash’ola isn’t in replacing Cadillac engines with skateboard batteries.

          The car has 200+ miles of range, and DCFC. There’s no way it won’t be tasked for long range duty. I predict some of those first trips will be out of CARB states.

          1. Benjamin says:

            Sure, people will take them on road-trips, but the sparseness of the CCS charger network, combined with about a 2-hour drive then 1 hour recharging as an almost best case scenario, if you can find working, unoccupied CCS chargers where you need them … well it’s a long way from what most people would want to take on a long road trip. I figure you can do about a 500 mile trip in a full day’s travel in a Bolt: your first 3 hours you go about 200 miles initial range, then two cycles of about 2 hours drive and 1 hour recharging for another 300 miles and you’ve filled a 9 hour travel day. I guess you could go ahead and add one more cycle and aim for 650 miles total with 12 hours travel time … and that’s if everything works out perfectly on your CCS spacing and availability.

  10. Klaus says:

    I’d drop my Model 3 reservation and buy this asap but I would only be able to travel within single charge distance (round trip). In the winter in Colorado mountains that is not very far. The CCS network around here stinks for travel and there are zero indications that will be changing near-term. Heck, I even prefer a hatchback.

    I wonder how many other model 3 reservation holders would do the same if not for the charging network.

    1. TimE says:

      I live in Colorado too, and certainly agree the DCFC situation leaves a lot to be desired, and would be a major pitfall with the Bolt. I choose to make my 30 KWh Leaf take the trips into the mountains regardless of the lack of DCFC, requires a bit of patience, but it keeps me from being the person that sits on my hands that does nothing for promoting EV’s and does the wimpy method of defaulting to the ICE on those trips.

      I recommend sending e-mails to places and vendors where you want to the DCFC installed, I’ve sent many e-mails myself, doesn’t necessarily yield results short term much, but the more we all send messages and request charging stations and DCFC locations, the sooner it is likely to change.

      Please consider sending messages to EVGo and local places. I’ve contacted Silverthorne Outlet Mall, Walmart in Evergreen, and a few other places where I feel they would be key in bringing an increase BEV popularity to Colorado.

      1. Klaus says:

        Excellent ideas TimE! I’ll do the same. A Summit County CCS station would be great as would one in Estes Park, etc. I’ll also send out a message to state and local politicians.

        Fwiw, I’m near Nederland and my only car is the 24KWh leaf. People are routinely surprised to see it at remote trailheads in Indian Peaks/RMNP, particularly in the winter. 🙂

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I certainly admire your dedication to the EV revolution (and what I presume is your dedication to the cause of environmentalism) by making the 24 kWh Leaf your only car, even for extended trips.

          And not at all to belittle your praise-worthy dedication, but the EV revolution is only going to make gasmobiles obsolete when Joe Average does not have to show such dedication, and won’t be seriously inconvenienced, by driving a BEV on long trips.

    2. Terawatt says:

      By the time Tesla can deliver your Model 3 you may find your regional (and national for that matter) charging map has transformed into something not merely useable but every bit as good as the superchargers. An advantage of the late adopter is that the technology has improved and the price dropped. Perhaps you’ll have plenty of 150 kW CCS chargers to choose from by mid-2017. Or even mid-2018 if you’re planning on a base version M3.

      1. Jeffrey Songster says:

        Now for a brief reality check… we will be very lucky to have double the number of 50kW chargers by 2018. No way will CCS be at 150 by then. CHAdeMO is far more likely to be at 100 by then and even that is very unlikely. CHAdeMO 100 already exists. Apparently the 100+ standard for SAE Combo/CCS isn’t even done yet. And GM has publicly said they are doing bupkis to make that better for BOLT.

        It took Nissan, Chargepoint, Blink, EVGo and others 4 or more years to get a skeletal DCFC network here in the SF Bay Area and now it is a good start… And of course Tesla has the best in class superCharger network which adds tremendous value to their cars and makes them superior to all the others. But if you plan on using an EV as your primary vehicle… Tesla, then LEAF 2 and then Bolt would be the rankings based solely on DCFC nets.

        1. Benjamin says:

          Yeah, total pipedream to imagine widespread 150kw CCS chargers in the US in 2017 or 2018. We’ll be lucky if there is even such a standard in effect with one built by 2018. Best we could hope is that 50 kw CCS chargers start popping up at most interstate truck stops and the like, but with GM only planning to deliver about 25,000 Bolts next year it’s hardly the kind of volume that will prompt widespread buildout of 3rd party chargers. Tesla dominates the long range fast charging race and they will continue to extend their lead in the coming year. They already have a credible national network where a Model S85 with a full charge is almost always within range of a Supercharger.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Terawatt said:

        “Perhaps you’ll have plenty of 150 kW CCS chargers to choose from by mid-2017.”

        You think “perhaps” we’ll go from there being no publicly available 150 kW CCS chargers in the USA*, to “plenty to choose from”, in only a year or less?

        Perhaps you need to lay off whatever it is you’re smokin’.

        *Or indeed anywhere outside of Switzerland

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          You are getting boring with this “only Tesla can make chargers” mantra. You should really upgrade talking points from last year news:

          http://arcticroads.com/nyheter/opens-120-kw-ev-charger-to-the-public/

  11. Loboc says:

    Personally, I’d like to see an ELR/ATS style BEV from Cadillac using the BoltEV platform.

  12. Josh says:

    Does someone have a link to the full results including all 5 cycles?

    I would like to see the breakdown vs. Model S to see how weight vs. aero impacts each test.

    1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

      The EPA fuel economy downloads can be found on https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml

      The page has a link to the latest CSV, which includes a line for the Bolt:
      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/vehicles.csv.zip

      1. ItsNotAboutTheMoney says:

        However, I don’t see a detailed breakdown in that data.

        1. Josh says:

          Yeah, I found that. But I thought there was a spreadsheet somewhere that had all 5 test cycle data. Maybe I was wrong.

    2. Durkle says:

      FYI you most likely won’t find that data published anywhere because EVs are currently certified only on the 2 cycle, not the 5 cycle testing. A lot of the differences with the 5 cycle from the 2 cycle don’t really have an effect on BEVs (engine cold start, etc). I know the transition to 5 cycle will happen, but I can’t remember when manufacturers are required to certify using the 5 cycle.

  13. Bob Nickson says:

    This is awesome. The only thing holding the Bolt back from being capable of long distance travel then is Superfast charging.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if GM has every intention of implementing 100kW+ charging rate when it becomes available at CCS stations.

    1. Jeffrey Songster says:

      If you’re going to hope that GM upgrades the car to 100kW when the net is ready… you’d be better off in a Model 3…. or just go get a used Model S for 50 to 60k and have unlimited access to the Supercharger Net now… Today.

      1. theflew says:

        GM wouldn’t have to update the car. Either the hardware supports that rate or it doesn’t. As soon as someone gets a Bolt they should plug it into one of the higher capacity DCFC and see what rate it charges at.

  14. DJ says:

    Admittedly higher than I thought it was going to be on the highway. I get about 50 in the city in my Volt and 35-38 on the highway so I was expecting a 20%+ drop but I guess it’s not so much.

    And yes, I am sure they could have gotten more out of it had they lowered the roofline and made people lie flat in it but for those of us who actually use a car I’ll take the function over a few more miles any day.

    Great job GM!

  15. Trollnonymous says:

    I don’t know about many of you guys and gals but in CA, typical highway driving is at or below 45mph 90% of the time.

    Bolt will do fine at that speed.

    Did anyone notice how the LG tech wow’d us all but the GM aero design is a “disaster”.

    I tip my hat to LG!

    1. ClarksonCote says:

      Most of that “LG Tech” is designed and engineered by GM, and simply being manufactured by LG.

      1. ClarksonCote says:

        (Source: http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2015/oct/1020-bolt.html )

        “GM’s component strategy is centered on three options: build, buy and partner. Where it makes economic and strategic sense, GM will build some of its own components. Others will be purchased directly from suppliers with the most expertise in a particular discipline. And, as in the case of LG, GM will partner with a supplier to leverage its own engineering with the supplier to develop unique strategic systems and components.

        So in this case, GM did a lot of design and engineering work, working closely with LG who will then build/supply those devices.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Trollnonymous said:

      “Did anyone notice how the LG tech wow’d us all but the GM aero design is a ‘disaster’.”

      Counting your chickens before they’re hatched, aren’t you? Just because GM designed the powertrain, doesn’t mean that a newbie, inexperienced manufacturing company like LG Electronics’ new Automotive division will be able to build the things with anything like GM’s typical reliability.

      And I completely disagree with your assertion that the body design is a “disaster”. Many people prefer the utility of a hatchback, and according to reports, the Bolt will be quite roomy for passengers.

      Yeah, the Bolt doesn’t have aerodynamics as good as the Model ≡. It’s a tradeoff. Which do you prefer, style and “slipperiness” vs. cargo area and, perhaps, more legroom and head room?

      Which you prefer is a subjective choice, not an objective one. Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks, and all that.

      I think both cars will sell well.

      1. sven says:

        Poo-Poo,

        Why are you trolling LG with you LG FUD? Are you shilling for Tesla or just short selling LG?

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          sven, I challenge you to cite even one example of where I’ve ever posted FUD on any subject. Ever.

          FUD implies asserting something you know not to be true — Wikipedia terms it “disinformation” — which is something that (jokes and sarcasm aside) I never have and never will do in a post to InsideEVs.

          Pointing out that LG Electronics’ new automotive division lacks experience, isn’t in any way distorting the facts or saying anything untrue; it’s the simple truth. I find it surprising that so many appear to be confident that the Bolt will be as reliable and trouble-free as is the Chevy Volt, which has a powertrain made in-house by GM.

          Tesla shows its inexperience as an auto maker with various reliability problems. Is it reasonable to think the same won’t happen with LG Electronics, which has even less experience?

          * * * * *

          sven, I leave posting disinformation and B.S. to you and the other Tesla bashing FUDsters.

          Quoting from Wikipedia:

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Fear, uncertainty and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a disinformation strategy used in sales, marketing, public relations, talk radio, politics, religion, and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

    3. ModernMarvelFan says:

      “Did anyone notice how the LG tech wow’d us all but the GM aero design is a “disaster”.
      I tip my hat to LG!”

      Living up to your name, huh?

      Apparently, every one finds the car spacious for its size. That a GM design.

      So far, the only complain is “cheap material in the dash”. Isn’t that LG design?

      Also, all the driving dynamic are GM isn’t it? That is pretty good so far.

      So, I don’t know what you pulled that crap from. Oh, I do, from your own butt…

  16. Alex says:

    City range shows only how inefficient are Tesla models.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      You mean that larger cars are less energy efficient than smaller cars.

      Most of us already knew that.

      1. Terawatt says:

        Except the Bolt is as big inside as the Model S. Just much easier to park.

        Tesla makes some awesome cars. But they aren’t very efficient.

        It’s an interesting trade off. Highway range is what matters in terms of practicality – you can drive even the S60 for six hours or more in city conditions so having more city range is pointless. But city efficiency is what matters most for running costs since most people do much more city driving – at least in Europe. Efficiency and range is of course just the two sides of a single coin, but from a range standpoint you’d prioritize highway and from an economy point you’d prioritize city.

        All EVs have low fuel costs compare to ICE. But it’s still a significant portion of running costs – perhaps a little under half. Over ten years of ownership it adds up to significant amounts of money for many.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          I don’t at all agree with your assessment that Tesla builds energy inefficient cars. In years they were tested on the same EPA testing cycle, the Leaf and the Model S85 showed almost precisely the same miles-per-kWh ratio, based on their EPA range ratings, despite the Model S being a significantly heavier car with much better acceleration.

          We’ll see just how energy efficient Tesla’s engineering is when we can directly compare the Bolt to its Tesla rival, the Model ≡. Comparing the Bolt to the Model S isn’t an even or fair comparison; it’s more of a contrast, or at best an apples-to-oranges comparison.

          As with the Model S’s superiority over the Leaf, I expect the Model ≡ to rival the Bolt’s energy efficiency while delivering much better performance.

          1. ElonJR says:

            Yeah, i’ll bet Tesla reaches 4mi/kwh with the Model 3 just like they did with the Roadster. This whole comment section is comparing an all electric, luxury sedan that rivals BMW M5 and Mercedes S-class, to a hatchback grocery getter ?.
            The Tesla competitor to this car might not get 238 miles I’ll admit that, but it will be an option. It’ll also beat the Bolt in every category including Warranty, Speed, Technology, and Options (Supercharging, Air Suspension, Battery Upgrade, Autopilot)

            Please everyone, compare it to the Model 3, not Model S. That’d be like comparing a Chevy Volt to a BMW i8

          2. ClarksonCote says:

            Push-pull, when you factor in the amount of phantom power they draw when just sitting in a garage and plugged in, the Tesla automobiles are, in fact, very inefficient.

            Before updates last year (or 2 years ago?), the US Tesla fleet consumed MWh of electricity every day just sitting parked. That’s a lot of power! Phantom power was reduced but not eliminated.

            http://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-firmware-5-0-adds-sleep-mode-to-cut-vampire-loss-by-50-to-75/

            They have great kWh/mile numbers, but sadly, the EPA testing doesn’t factor in the power they draw just sitting there.

            This is something the EPA needs to revise, IMHO.

            1. ClarksonCote says:

              From the link above:
              “Bottom line: due to this design flaw, the 10,000 Model S owners were cumulatively wasting an estimated 45 mega-watt hours a day. Each day, wasting enough to power a couple hundred homes for a full year.”

              That’s a whole lot of phantom power draw, very very inefficient. And reducing that number by 90% is still 4MWh a day, which is still insane.

              For this reason, yes, Tesla’s cars are very inefficient when factoring in their phantom power draw, and sadly the EPA numbers do not reflect this atrocity.

  17. Anderlan says:

    Note to Bolt owners: lock it in at 65mph, higher only if you dare, on the interstate!

    1. bro1999 says:

      Yes, because once you go over 65, your range automatically gets reduced to 0. *rolleyes*

      Model S 60D EPA-rated highway MPGe: 107
      Bolt EV EPA-rated highway MPGe: 110

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Right. You could make the same argument for any speed above 25 MPH. Oh, better not go 35! You get the best range at 25-30 MPH. 🙄

        For a slightly less ridiculous argument, some hardcore “greenies’ argue that we should never drive above 55. Yet we don’t see many people driving that slow on Interstate highways.

  18. Warren says:

    I am absolutely amazed. Stodgy old Detroit kicks Silicon Valley’s butt.

    43% cheaper, 30.6% better city range, 8.9% better highway range, 20.2% better overall range, 7% faster standard charge rate, on 240 volts.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38170&id=38187

    1. Terawatt says:

      GM is clearly trying to crack Teslas halo and sink their ship while it’s still in the docks, to mix metaphors.

      And they might succeed. I’d be nervous to throw more money into Tesla if I were an investor. Their sky-high valuation can be defended only if one expects them to turn very juicy profits in the future. With tough competition that is difficult to be sure of. Making just a regular profit, with a margin like GMs, isn’t nearly enough to justify the stock price since Tesla has 3% of GMs revenues but is valued at 60% of GM.

      Even with 500k Model 3s added to the mix Tesla needs double the margin of GM to be a sensible investment. I am not saying that’s impossible. But I wouldn’t feel like this is a stock with big upside potential and I would think it has huge downside risks.

      Maybe investors don’t think like I do, in terms of profits relating to stock price..? Perhaps it’s now only speculation and the hope that someone will pay an even higher price later, even if profits don’t justify it?

      It’s going to be interesting to see if Teslas access to cheap capital is impaired by the Bolt. With funding rounds coming up it’s certainly no surprise to see Elon talking about a potential twentyfold increase in the speed of the production line. I interpret this as a symptom that it needs to put out something that will allow investors to keep dreaming.

      Only time will tell. I’ll stay away from car industry stocks entirely and grab my popcorn, lean back, and enjoy the show!

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Bailing out Solar City certainly won’t help Tesla’s future.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I have never seen what I regard as a sensible defense of Tesla’s stock price, which analysts almost universally say is seriously overvalued, and has been for years.

        But what in the world does that have to do with Tesla’s performance as a company? How well Tesla succeeds (or doesn’t), long term, will depend on how its cars are perceived and valued by car buyers, and not by stock investors, either short or long! So far at least, it’s doing much better than most people thought it would back in Tesla’s early days. Significantly, it’s doing much, much better than virtually all analysts predicted. Of course, that doesn’t mean the trend will continue forever. But it only needs to continue for another 3-4 years; only until the Model ≡ is established as a large volume seller with a solid reputation.

        After that, Tesla can likely survive the normal long term ups and downs that every medium-to-large auto maker has… and the stock price, either high or low, will become largely irrelevant.

        1. zzzzzzzzzz says:

          “How well Tesla succeeds (or doesn’t), long term, will depend on how its cars are perceived and valued by car buyers, and not by stock investors, either short or long!”

          To survive long term, first you need to survive short term :/ Tesla has no money due to operational losses and required capex. I.e. it raised it again and again “for Gigafactory”, “for Model 3”, and now needs some 5 billions or so for Model 3 production again. No, not for SolarCity bailout, sorry, “synergies” :/ Tesla short term survival depends on being able to pump share price and dump it to investors again. If investors will reject yet another sale, it will be end of the story. How Model S/X are valued by buyers, is already defined, it is past performance.

    2. super390 says:

      I am amazed. There are still people out there who think that full-size luxury sedans should use less energy than compact utility vehicles because all cars are merely appliances and should weigh the same and be the same size. Are you expecting your Mercedes S-Class sedan to match MPG with your RAV4?

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Not to mention, a least one call for GM to start making a Tesla-killer priced at $30k or less, presumably with better than Tesla level of comfort and performance.

        A lot of people here are indulging in some very wishful thinking!

      2. Warren says:

        The reality is that this car will carry one driver (the case 99% of the time) and a few passengers farther, for a fraction of the price, of the most hyped vehicle in history. I don’t care what “image” is projected. I will be sitting inside, in traffic.

  19. zzzzzzzzzz says:

    “Tested in the Drive mode”
    Should be slightly better in Low mode that is supposed to use more regenerative braking. EPA test cycles include a lot of braking or speed dropping.

    1. Terawatt says:

      It’s irrelevant. Unless you want to drive in the city for more than eight hours a day, you’ll never need the full range in city condition.

      On the highway it’ll get competition from 2017 Leaf and Zoe about to become official (less than ten days to the reveals now!) as both are more aerodynamic. I expect the combined range of the Renault and Nissan to be about 80% of the Bolts and the highway range closer to 90%. With a lower price they may well be the smart choice for people who don’t drive a lot of long trips (which is to say the large majority).

      1. mr. M says:

        in 7 days from now we will hear the first infos about the new zoe…. Uhhhh 29.9 we are coming… Jeah 😀 😀 😀

  20. John says:

    Even with the slightly lower highway range, it’s still a game-changer, at least in California. This kind of highway mileage makes regional travel possible for us, which means it’s a car that will meet 99.5% of our driving needs rather than 60-70% or so with the current crop of EVs.

    And since I routinely get more than the rated 82 miles of range on our Spark EV, I have some hope that the same will be true of the Bolt.

  21. ModernMarvelFan says:

    I guess I will just have to the more scenic route with my Bolt instead of my Model 3 then… =)

  22. dmoulton says:

    Putting everything into perspective, considering coast differentials, Bolt is, in my thinking,the hands down better dollar value !

    1. Terawatt says:

      Depending on your need. Both Zoe and Leaf in 2017 versions will be cheaper and offer perhaps 80% of the range. I also think both will beat the Bolt on efficiency thanks to a bit less battery mass to move about, leading to lower running costs (even though all are cheap to run).

      The Bolt looks unopposed right now and many media pundits write as if it will be until Model 3 arrives. But actually it will get competition very quickly and it’ll be official in ten days. The Renault and Nissan competitors may even go on sale in November, giving the Bolt only a month as the obvious choice of affordable EV…

      1. Kdawg says:

        I won’t by a Nissan due to no TMS. The Zoe is not available where I live. Also range is more important to me than $1000 or $2000. I only own 1 car and it needs to handle all my trips.

      2. SparkEV says:

        Current Nissan Leaf that’s lighter can’t beat Bolt’s efficiency. I don’t see how larger battery Leaf will beat Bolt. Nissan has to do significant catch-up engineering, and that doesn’t seem likely.

        GM did a lot of homework for Bolt with Volt and SparkEV. Not so much with Nissan, etc.

        1. Benjamin says:

          Nissan built and sold the Leaf starting in 2010. They did a ton of good work to make that happen and the Leaf is the all-time leading seller among global EVs.

          Sure the design is long-of-tooth now, but the Leaf 2.0 will be a very competitive EV, IMO.

    2. Stuart22 says:

      Yes. Plus – a Bolt in the hand is worth more than 3 in the bush.

  23. Terawatt says:

    Bolt continues to impress. The highway range is the more relevant – in a car with this much range you don’t need it all for city driving. At least if you’re not running a taxi/Uber service…

    Average speed in he city is something like 30, so you have to drive an awfully long time to use it all up.

    Long trips is where the maximum range becomes important, and that means highway most of the time. Even when it does not, it’s more like highway conditions than it is like city conditions.

    And the Bolt delivers in this area as well. Granted, it’s not enough for 100% of people 100% of the time, but for 98% it is enough 100% of the time with only minor adjustments to travel plans so they can charge while having a meal or shopping or whatever they want to do during the break.

    I really can’t wait to hear the Ampera-e, and new Leaf + Zoe, pricing and availability in Paris! My 2012 LEAF will no doubt have an even lower residual value come 2017, but I will be tempted to upgrade. And I am not at all certain that Tesla has the best car to offer me. Model 3 is no doubt the glitziest, the most look-at-me, and probably the most fun to drive of the bunch. But also the least practical and the most expensive to maintain (tires alone sees to that!), and from a manufacturer that has a fairly shoddy quality reputation, a service organization that may or may not have trouble adapting to mass-market numbers, and a boss willing to risk the company time and again on some hugely ambitious idea.

    And superchargers. I knew you’d bring that up. Truth be told, I don’t care very much. With the range on offer I’ll be using DCFC only a few times a year. CCS at 150 kW arrives in 2017 and if the Bolt can take 100 kW and has similar tapering behavior to the Spark, both of which I expect, there’s really not much reason for me to prefer Teslas chargers. Perhaps the opposite. I also think proprietary chargers are an awful idea. Tesla had excellent reasons for doing it, but it’d be better for everyone if a single standard won and was supported by all – including Tesla. That’s unlikely to happen soon, but I would contribute to upholding the multi-standard mess by buying a Tesla…

    I have a lot to think about..!

    1. SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD says:

      Numbers as expected and continue to impress even the most ardent naysayers.

      200+ (217) Miles on hwy for a hatchback with 60kW battery translates to 3.6 miles/kw which is better than most reported Tesla combined miles with their sleek designs.

      The key for us remains the usability of the trunk/cargo space for dog transport and local kid hauling. We’re looking forward to trying it out.

      If the lease numbers are favorable and the rest of the boxes are checked, we’ll be moving further out of Japanese and into US vehicles. Never thought we’d see that.

    2. joe says:

      Not me. Bolt us perfect for our needs, and I have been waiting for it for a long time.

      We already put down a deposit.

      We often go 100 miles each way with some local driving at the destination.

      We drive 400 mi 1x/yr. Not sure how we will handle that. We will figure it out.

      We can’t wait!

  24. james says:

    Definitely happy about the Bolt – props to GM for being the first major automaker to offer something that makes a lot of sense. When I look at the picture of the car at that price, though, I can’t help but notice that I see a dissonance there. Unless you want the future to be cleaner and quieter you would probably not get excited about the looks of this car. It looks like something that should cost ca 19-23k. (and I’m assuming something like this car will, in 2-3 years). The design of the model 3 is pretty special, for a car that is supposed to cost what it’s supposed to cost.

    1. super390 says:

      It all depends whether you look at it as a subcompact car or a compact crossover. It’s up to GM to clarify that with its marketing. Many crossovers are bought with only 2-wheel drive. That’s what the Bolt might get within $5000 of on price after incentives, and then we get into its premium acceleration and its potential for good handling with its low center of gravity, and whatever your local gas prices are.

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        I cannot imagine why people keep trying to label the Bolt a “subcompact”. I’ve driven subcompacts; a 1975 Honda Civic CVCC, and a 1990s Geo Metro; both hatchbacks.

        The Bolt most certainly isn’t small enough to be labeled a “subcompact”, even if you ignore the fact that’s it’s roomier inside than it looks.

        1. Benjamin says:

          The Bolt’s length and width are closer to sub-compact size than they are to compact size. I guess that’s why it’s gotten the sub-compact label.

          Car length width
          Bolt 164 69.5
          Fit 160 67
          Civic 177 71

          I agree though that the tall ceiling and excellent design mean that it has usable space far better than implied by ‘subcompact’. EPA classifies it as a ‘small wagon’ IINM

          1. ModernMarvelFan says:

            “EPA classifies it as a ‘small wagon’ IINM”

            EPA don’t care about exterior dimensions, only interior volume.

            As far as why Prius is considered as “sedan” but Fit is considered as “wagon” is what puzzles me.

            Sedan and Wagon have different classification since cargo volume is part of the total volume that determines the class. Wagons requires much higher cargo volume to be considered as midsize.

            That is how both Tesla and Prius got classified as “large car” and “midsize” while both of them have relatively small INTERIOR PASSENGER VOLUME. But they made up the total volume cut off with more cargo volume.

  25. mr. M says:

    “Imagine what the all-electric Chevy could have accomplished with a more slippery design, optimized for an electric platform.”

    A car with less cargo and usability and i would not consider it any more. Better a car that fullfills my storage needs and takes me 215 miles on the highway, than a car i can not use for long travel (since of the normal sized trunk) and can travel 290 miles on the highway.

    The battery in the Bolt is already big, it has enough range (for me ;-))

  26. smartone says:

    This car is going to be a huge hit for municipalities –

  27. Koenigsegg says:

    Respect because its electric, but no respect because its so ugly

    No respect to GM that is. They didn’t have to make it look like that. Such a shame.

  28. Nigel says:

    Tesla said “At the urging of local car dealers and GM, Michigan law was changed two years ago to prevent Michigan consumers from buying cars from a Tesla store within the state.”

    I would have considered a Bolt until I read that. Now I will boycott GM.

    GM is trading at 4.1 P/E ratio – that shows you where the stock market thinks they are headed.

    BTW I own Tesla stock.