GM Exec: Chevrolet Bolt Exceeding 200-Mile Range Estimates In Internal Testing


Chevrolet Bolt

Chevrolet Bolt

According to General Motors’ general director-electrification, Tim Grewe, prototypes of the Chevrolet Bolt are exceeding 200 miles of electric range in internal testing.

Crewe spoke to media recently at GM’s Alternative Energy Center and confidently stated that the production Bolt will exceed the 200 miles of range that Chevrolet had originally announced.

EPA testing for the Bolt has not been completed, but GM is confident in the results from internal tests.

Additionally, Greg Smith, General Motors’ engineering group manager-global EV battery packs, says that compared to the Chevy Spark EV, the Bolt’s battery has twice the mass and triple the energy. Smith adds that the Bolt’s battery actually increases the car’s chassis torsional stiffness by 28% due to it being an integrated part of the Bolt’s floorpan.

Grewe adds:

“A high-mass, large battery turned into a benefit that is a big factor in making the car fun to drive.”

Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery - 60 kWH

Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery – 60 kWH

Source: Ward’s Auto

Categories: Chevrolet

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

187 Comments on "GM Exec: Chevrolet Bolt Exceeding 200-Mile Range Estimates In Internal Testing"

newest oldest most voted

Well, that sounds good for handling.
But, if your going to talk about handling, can you consider changing that crude rear suspension?

How much more can it cost to get a real independent rear suspension? Anyone have any idea?


The expense would likely be massive, because the Bolt is likely based on the Cruze platform which uses this suspension. When making decisions like this it’s not just the cost of the parts, but the cost of the machines to install the parts. If using this suspension allows gm to share massive sections of their assembly lines that turn out cruzes, the savings are huge for a lower volume car like the Bolt. Combined with the low center of gravity, this suspension design is more than adequate for all but autocross enthusiasts.


The Bolt EV is built on a dedicated, “BEV II” platform. The Gen 1 VOLT was built on the old Cruze’s platform.

Rumors were the Bolt was just going to be a 200 mile Sonic BEV, but the only thing in common with those 2 vehicles are sound deadening material, according to the Bolt’s chief engineer.


Initial rumors says it’s going to be based on the Gamma G2SC (same as next gen Trax). Given the platform isn’t out yet, it could be that the “BEV II” is a variant of that platform (same as how Leaf’s EV platform was supposedly based on the B0 platform for the Versa).


No, GM was firm that the BEV II is a brand new EV-specific global platform that they may use for future EV models. That’s the beauty of it. If the market shifts and GM needs an EV sedan similar to the Tesla Model 3, they can build it on the same platform as the Bolt for a fraction of the engineering and time effort of a new platform design. Bolt Chief Engineer Josh Tavel described the challenges of accurately modeling the Bolt’s dynamics because it is so different than anything else they have designed. The Bolt was what is called a “clean sheet” design.


The articles I read say it is a brand new platform, but it was not phrased in a way that would exclude other ICE vehicles to be built on the same platform or for another similar ICE platform to be based on it.

I’m going to reserve my judgement until when the next gen Trax comes out. The Bolt currently has some similar elements with the current gen Trax, but I want to see if it shares something like a C-pillar or maybe a subframe with the next gen one.


Torsion beam suspensions transfer bumps from one side of the car to the other. They do not isolate bump impact.

If they keep this suspension their road reviews are going to suffer.


Lots of cars use the torsion beam design. Yes it transfers movement to the side- just as anti-roll (sway) bars do, and as such no rear sway bar is required. The Volt uses a similar rear suspension and as far as most are concerned, it handles and rides great!


Even the new Prius and Prius Primes switched over to an independent rear suspension after the previous generation Prius’ rightfully received scathing criticism for their poor handling.


There is no truth to this claim of poor ride / handling whatsoever. Stability bars purposefully remove some of the independence from independent suspensions to reduce body roll without having to stiffen the springs and hurt ride quality. There is quite a bit to suspension tuning and this vehicle should with its low center of gravity handle very well just asthe Volt does.


The Bolt will exceed 200 miles of range….As long as you proceed “Down Hill”…….L M A 0…


Are you saying that 60kWh won’t be able to achieve 200 miles+?

Do you ever make any comments worthy of reading instead of just being a Tesla cheerleader?


Best quote here

“GM to update Bolt’s “200 miles range” now that Tesla Model 3 has 215 miles”

OEMs take care to NEVER EXCEED the specs of Tesla, even for 2018-2020 supposedly upcoming models. The race is still OFF.

Jacked Beanstalk

GM has always said it would have over 200 miles of range. Try again.


GM clearly stated the battery size of 60KWh already…

That is 200+miles. Now, how much depends on how much GM is willing to open up the “buffer” area.

at merely 3.6miles/kWh, That is easily 216 miles…

3.6miles/kWh is 121MPGe…


The Bolt should easily do better than a Volt and today I got 5miles/kWh in my 16 Volt, in a not-so-warm Maine, ~35-40 degrees.


The car to the Left looks pretty good, I wonder what kid of car that is……


I’m missing something. Torsional stiffness is a welcome news, but how does more mass make it fun? Still not compelling, though. Tell us about the 150 kW CCS that will stretch across country (but not free!!!) before first Bolt ships.


More mass does not make it fun, but a lower center of gravity does.


Bingo. That’s how Tesla’s still manage to feel sporty despite weighing around 5,000 pounds.


Hey, These guys are good! …………..L M A o…


If the Bolt could handle 150kW charging properly, lets say 20-30 minutes to 80%, it could become a pretty nice car. On the website it says 30 minutes to 90miles, which would be a very linear 50kW charge.

It would be really nice if they could announce something in terms of maximum charging power, so that at least other companies, that specialize on charging infrastructure, can build a matching charging system.

Its one thing to decide not contribute in building an infrastructure, its another to make it harder for others to do so.


Suggestion to Chevy: Install DC fast chargers at your dealerships. To discourage squatters and moochers, put a meter on it. I think 10 cents/minute (with a $5 minimum) sounds good.

Ryan H

Just where I want to hang out when on a road trip, a dealership… bleh


My local dealership has a fairly nice lounge for those waiting on vehicle service. Big TV, magazines, and free coffee, juice, and donuts. They’re probably not all this nice, but I think looking at new cars is fun too. And it would enable the Bolt to be used on the 250 mile trips that I take every month or so. Otherwise, I’ll be driving my Silverado.

NOTE TO CHEVY: If you don’t add AWD as a Bolt option, I’ll eventually be trading it for an AWD Tesla Model 3.


IMO fast chargers at dealers leave much to be desired: usually not 24/7 access, not much incentive for them to maintain them, and other issues. I see a much better solution in Chevy or others partnering with EVgo to install fast chargers in prime locations like Travel Plazas and shopping centers near Interstate highways. The responsibility to maintain will be Evgo’s, and the chargers will be placed in much better locations than at a dealer who is closed Sunday night when you are on your way home.


I would also like to see a push for Chevy dealers to place a greater emphasis on charging stations for the public. It would help the growing community of EVers and provide a revenue stream to the dealers that could potentially offset some of the losses caused by lesser maintenance on the EVs.


If a 2014 Spark EV with 21.4kWh battery can handle 45-48kW on DCFC, which is roughly 2.1-2.2C rate, the Bolt EV with 60kWh with similar “C”rate should theoretically be capable to handle 126-132kW, about the same power as actual Tesla SC, isn’t it?


If it had a similar C-rate, it could, but it sounds like it hasn’t.


2015 SparkEV charges at same power as 2014, but has smaller battery. Result is bit over 2.5C. Bolt battery is not the same as SparkEV. I read somewhere (maybe it was insideevs?) that Bolt battery will make bit more heat, not much details beyond that. Heat = less efficient, probably less C.

Even so Bolt is still limited to 50 kW, because that’s what’s out there. Meanwhile, Tesla despite its steep taper is over 60 kW on average even with 90 kW supercharger. We don’t know how Model 3 will perform, but I suspect (or I hope) it’ll do better.

And that’s why I keep harping this point: Bolt could, in theory, be much quicker charging than Tesla. Even worse than SparkEV, at 2.2C or whatever less than 2.6C, that’s still good for 130 kW without taper to 80%. Bolt can’t compete against Tesla in most other points, but charging could be one clear advatantage IF they do it.


But at what chargers ? At least Tesla is building some.

Kevin Dunbar

It doesn’t support supercharging. There is no charging network and no plans to build one. It looks ugly, in my opinion. Doesn’t have all wheel drive. No option to upgrade to 250 or 300 mile range… I don’t think this is a serious contender.


You’re the one who’s not serious! The Bolt will be the uncontested King of affordable EVs for at least a year everywhere on the planet and at least two years on most of it.

Nissan gets 107 miles from 30 kWh in a car designed back in 2009. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to hope for 220 from 60 now.


No one should build chargers “for the Bolt”. It has CCS. Clearly the 150 kW station is the one to go for right now. And that of course can charge at any rate below 150 kW as well.

Now that Tesla has also joined the CCS association along with the Koreans, Nissan will soon follow. And then we’ll finally get a de facto standard for charging.

I’m pretty sure that several interested parties are working right now preparing to build a network. EVs won’t be a big part of the car park for another two decades, but it’s not very expensive to build chargers and it now looks certain the market will eventually be huge. So I’m really not concerned about this in the long run. But it may be frustrating for a few more years.


I really don’t understand you: criticizing mass on the bolt but never criticizing any other EV for similar characteristics. Making up additional absurd demands each week (150kw nationwide charging network in 8 months).

The Bolt is a fantastic vehicle. It is far better than the Spark EV, giving much more to the consumer, and opening up a much more practical vehicle.


I’m not criticizing Bolt about battery mass, just not understanding how “high mass … make it more fun” as quoted above the battery picture. Article makes no mention of center of mass, just high mass.

As for “better than SparkEV”, is it $12K better, $15K SparkEV vs $28K Bolt? I don’t think so, but some may. I’m not paying $28K for just another city car. I’d rather get (lease) SparkEV + used SUV.

My criticism for Bolt is mainly with regard to other cars of comparable cost. Compared to Tesla 3, it is highly, highly lacking. Even against gas cars of size/cost, it’s lacking.

Let’s face it; Bolt’s only competition is Model 3 while Model 3 will attract buyers of all entry level luxury; just look at the cars. One way to make it more even is to bring up CCS across country. 8 months is more than enough time to bridge it; after all, they’re not starting from scratch. Yes, it’ll cost bit more to rush it, but that’s the price you pay for sitting around while the competition has been busy.


There is a big difference in range between the Spark and the Bolt, which could make a world of difference for some, even as a city car. It would not for me, but it would for some that I know own a Prius now, would like to go BEV, but their daily driving is beyond the Spark’s range and within the Bolt’s.

That being said, I do agree with you on the CCS charing network, if GM were to back a rollout to improve it and also offer more detail on the Bolt’s charging options and capabilities, they might interest some of those that dropped a deposit on the model 3. GM essentially said the charging network is not their concern. I think they’d prefer to sell you a Volt than a Bolt.


Don’t expect Model 3 to compete with Bolt in the same price range until 2019-2020. Initial roll out in 2018 will be high spec models in $50-$60k range. If they ever make a $35k Model 3 it will be much later in the cycle. Remember Tesla promised Model S for $55k and Model X for $60k but those models never materialized.

Also, it will be relatively easy for GM to roll out a charging network. They can put them in their dealerships (~4000 locations.) Of course they also need some for long distance travel but the bulk of the network can be setup quickly.

Robert Weekley

Agzand says “Remember Tesla promised Model S for $55k”, not only do I remember, but I have a friend bought exactly that car!

Also, the actual price was $57,499, and with the $7,500 tax credit, that works out to $49,999!

The pitch then was based on the expected tax credit: “It will be available for half the base price of the Roadster (a $100,000 car at initial price!), after tax credits.”

The Model 3 is quoting a fixed price of $35,000, before any tax credits, and before options! In some places, even if the federal credits expire, the state credits continue much later, with at least one to 2021.

Some byers will just get a more fully loaded car for their net $35,000!


Sure, GM *can* put chargers in their dealerships. Heck, many of them already have L2 chargers.

It would make sense to begin that process before the Bolt starts rolling out.

The whole “well, there’s no demand because there are no cars on the road” excuse doesn’t fly. They’re building the gorram cars, and they brag about what a great thing their dealer network is for consumers.

And yet GM’s CEO curtly says “we think that fast charging infrastructure should benefit all consumers”. Which is a funny way of saying “hell, no, you won’t be able to charge a Chevy at a Chevy dealership”.


One major problem with this “install CCS at dealers” train of thought (among many) is GM dealers are not spaced out equally where you need them: along the highway, making road trips possible.

They are basically limited to city centers. Not ideal.


Depends where you live. I live in north-central Illinois.

Within 25 miles, I see 8 Chevy dealerships and 0 Superchargers.

Within 50 miles, I see 20 Chevy dealerships and 1 Supercharger.

Within 100 miles, I see 64 Chevy dealerships and 2 Superchargers.

The 2 Superchargers are not in the direction I want to go (NW). For me, some DC fast charging at Chevy dealerships (for a fee) would be a big plus.


A supercharger network is needed when you travel long distance trips. Having 20 dealerships in your area does not mean they are any use when one goes on a trip. Initially placement on highways will be much more important than having 20 locations around town.

Not to mention that living in urban SoFla and having visited 4 of the local Chevrolet dealerships, I truly don’t get it how one can want to visit such a place even if free, high speed charging is offered. But then again you have people that consider a huge chocolate cake slice with vanilla ice cream on the side asthe top of the culinary mastery.


I understand the Supercharger positioning rational, and they’re pretty good right now for cross-country trips. But I never take cross-country trips. But I do normally drive a 230 mile route between central Illinois and northeast Iowa. There are no Superchargers along that route, but there are several Chevy dealerships. The dealerships are everywhere I go, just like gas stations.

Tesla says they will add a new Supercharger near my route next year, and I hope that’s true. Because three years ago, they completely stopped adding new Superchargers in this part of the country.

I’m not complaining about Tesla, since I fully understand their business rational. I’m simply explaining why DC fast chargers at Chevy dealerships would work better FOR ME than what Tesla currently provides.


Sparky, you keep harping about the price of the Spark EV and claiming that makes it a “superior” vehicle.

Reality check: The Spark EV is nothing more than a test market or “compliance” car, and GM never intended to make a profit on it. As such, its price is disconnected from the actual cost of manufacturing. You, apparently, adamantly refuse to accept that reality, but your refusal doesn’t actually change reality.

Contrariwise, it seems that the Bolt is designed to at least let GM break even on the model, and — who knows? — maybe even make a slight profit.

Bottom line: The Spark EV doesn’t have a realistic price. The Bolt very likely has something at least reasonably close.


And you still believe that GM loses even more money by selling in Canada and Mexico cheaper than in US while not getting any ZEV credit? Why would they lose even more money there? GM loves Canada more than US?

Whether GM loses money is immaterial as they’re selling as low as $19K pre subsidy ($12K post subsidy) in some sales; see autotrader. Fact is, it’s cheap to buy for consumers, and people shouldn’t care if GM loses money or not.

Besides, why do you care so much that GM loses money? SparkEV is a great car, and even if they’re giving it away for free, I’ll take it (with DCFC). Until Model 3 comes out (or even after), it’s the best sub $20K car in the world, gas or EV. Grab’em while you can before they discontinue it; maybe you can give it to your grandkids after you get your Model 3.

Kevin Dunbar

GM has stated officially that there are no plans to build a charging network.


Which is quite frankly really dumb and short sighted. GM is practically the head of SAE and heavily involved in CCS. They should set an example and work on the infrastructure. Heck, even BMW, VW, and Kia/Hyundai are installing quick charging infrastructure.


If your idea of fun is great handling from a CG 4” lower than a Corvette’s, then it is more fun.
It is also a safety factor in better handling and unlikely to roll over.
My EV trike pickup because the GC is so low I don’t have to near stop to make a hard turn, going through just as fast as a 4wh car.
In a car this totally improves handling.
Now add it is faster than most gassers with a set of racing ties would really kick gasser butt in tight race courses like autocross, etc.


All the commenters say low CG, yet the article clearly states “high mass”. How is this related to low CG? If anything, it’s saying something high, not low.

Maybe high mass makes it less jittery in freeway crosswind? I have no idea why that’d be fun, though.


Cross-country CCS is hardly mission critical.Personally I’m more about the significant increase in “out and back” range capability and mitigating winters effects. I live in the suburbs and the airport is 60-miles door to door. (120 miles round trip) Currently if I had to pick-up or deliver someone to the airport I couldn’t really do that reliably year round with any electrified product other than a model S or a PHEV. The Bolt, (and other future longer range product obviously) is going to let me do more of my regular day-to-day driving in complete confidence without ever worrying about having to plug-in somewhere in the city. I’ll simply do my thing and plug into my 240V when I get home. It’s how the vast majority of Telsa owners drive every day at 3-times the price.
Sorry b BUT THAT IS compelling to me.YMMV


If there’s no model 3, what you say makes sense, although I’d probably look to gas cars instead of Bolt myself; WRX is damn compelling.

But with Model 3 that has nationwide charging network AND it cost less? It’s not about using supercharger at all, but about value proposition for having it available should you need it. Why should I pay more for less?


I think the smartest move gm could make is start adding some better colors, wheels to the Bolt pre production. Try to make the car sportier and appeal to all but esp those T3 reservation holders. Show off some better looking Bolts. The car already performs well for a FWD hatch, now give it some tuning looks to match

Josh Bryant

Is it just me or does it seem like this is really late to say, we are getting 200 miles range. If they aren’t saying, “easily” getting 200 mile EPA range, no need to bring up the topic.

Are they going to be cutting it close? I didn’t think so after announcing 60 kWh pack.

This headline definitely caught me off guard. I have been waiting to hear some more like we are getting 210 – 220 mile range.


They won’t commit to an exact figure till the EPA certifications come out. Why give the competition that kind of info early anyways?

The fact GM keeps saying “ABOVE/EXCEEDING 200 miles” is a pretty good indication the final EPA rating won’t be 205 or something really close to 200…more like say…..235.

Josh Bryant

I agree.

But why not just not mention range until he number is available? They have already confidently set their mark.

I might just be misreading this, since I didn’t hear the interview myself.


I’m expecting something in the 205-210 range. They should have a good estimate by now.


I like the Bolt. I like the CUV form factor. I do think the Bolt’s price is going to come under fire.
Doing some napkin math:
The base price of the Bolt is $2,500 more than the base price of the Model 3.
By GM’s own admission, battery costs are at $145/kWh. Simple math, the $2,500 difference pays for an additional 17 kWh of batteries.
At 4mi/kWh, that’s 68 miles more range. Given base Model 3 will have a minimum of 215 miles of range. The Bolt should be announcing an EPA rated range of 283 miles.


We can guesstimate based on SparkEV: 82 miles, 18 kWh usable. Cd should be better than SparkEV, but frontal area would be more, making it a wash. Heavier by ~700 lb, but rolling resistance is only about 1-2% (explored in my blog). Then 3X battery should give 246 miles minus about 2%; let’s make it 10% for EPA screwiness for about 220 miles.


Rolling resistance is far more, over 50% of most EV’s drag.
Fact is under 40mph rolling resistance is the main drag and keeps going up, just aero drag goes up the cube.
But at 70mph rolling drag is still 25% or so.
You don’t know this or why a low CG EV might be fun shows you have limited knowledge for writing such posts.
Of course your SparkEV is a conversion without the advantage of low CG a floor pack and made from scratch EV has.


Rolling resistance is under 2% of normal force. For power, it depends on speed. If you read my blog, I have detailed explanations of such and tables that show power at various speeds and when it crosses the 50% threshold. I often point to my blog as short post in forum cannot get the point across in detail.

700 lb of 3500 lb car is 20%. Rolling is smaller fraction than aero. Even taking your 50% argument (which is way high), it’s only 10% of total, matching my guesstimate. What is your problem?

Where in the article did you read low CG, and why bring it up when I’m referring to high mass described in the article? Low CG is good for handling given all else being equal, but again, that’s not what the article says.


I think I know the confusion. I neglected to say rolling resistance FORCE, which is less than 2% of normal force. Rolling resistance POWER, of course, is dependent on speed.

Still, range guesstimate is probably close for 700lb additional weight, especially since SparkEV gets far more than EPA rating in actual driving.


jerryd said:

“Rolling resistance is far more, over 50% of most EV’s drag… But at 70mph rolling drag is still 25% or so.”

Hmmm, no, wind resistance is significantly more important than rolling resistance, when it comes to energy consumption over the full range of typical driving speeds.

Rolling resistance is almost unaffected by speed. It’s true that at low speeds, rolling resistance causes more drag than wind resistance, but that’s only because wind resistance is nonexistent at 0 MPH yet climbs rapidly from there, as the cube of the speed.

Auto makers have far more opportunity to cut drag by reducing wind resistance than they do by reducing rolling resistance.


Technically, Jerry is correct. At some point, rolling resistance power will equal aero power. For SparkEV, that’s about 35 MPH.

But EPA rating for SparkEV seem to be based on 55 MPH (from table in “SparkEV range” blog post). At that speed, rolling resistance power is 30%.

Then going back to original comment about Bolt range with 700 lb extra would be impacted 30% of 20% which is 6% from 3X SparkEV. As such, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bolt gets 230 miles range.


No charging infrastructure, no long trips. While the Bolt will solve urban commuting, it still leaves long trips to gas cars or Teslas. If a tiny company like Tesla can do it, why in the world can’t Chevy get a consortium together and build one?


They’re in a consortium called CharIn that Tesla recently joined. 150kW CCS has now been agreed, and it’s working on 300kW.

Really, I don’t mind if, given the limited volume expected, GM doesn’t invest in infrastructure at this point. I just want them to allow the battery to be charged at the maximum rate it can support for each SoC.


Rome was not built in a day. 200 Miles of “real world” range will make it possible for people in many cases to go “all in” on a BEV. I know I can. For the few time per year I need or “want” to drive across several states. I can just rent a econo-box on the cheap.

Silent Lurker

I own both a Tesla MS and a Leaf, so I can speak from experience. The MS has never been to a supercharger and I have a supercharger only eight miles away. Both cars are always charged at home on 240 volt 30 amp system. There really is no need for a supercharging network. If I want to travel more that 150 miles I just fly. Even if I wanted to drive the rental approach would be more than adequate.

Don’t get caught up on distance driving. Ask yourself how often do you really need a car to go 400 miles? My guess is not really that much.


Long trips in a Model 3 with a 215 mile battery means driving for 2.5 hours and stopping to charge for 45 min. at a supercharger. Not a ‘long distance car’ IMO even with SC access.


2.5 hours of sitting followed by 45 minutes of being more active is a healthy recipe, imo. I’m personally fine doing that and appreciate the health benefits of taking that kind of a break every 2.5 hours and getting food, going to the restroom, stretching, etc.

So leisurely long range travel is not an issue at all with a Model 3. I would rather enjoy myself on a road trip. People who want to go balls to the wall and only stop for 5 minutes every 300-400 miles, well, they have other issues imo.


Your argument is backwards.

Telling people that they should be resting (because, by total coincidence, they have to in that car) is far from a compelling argument.

When you tell prospective EV buyers that they can take road trips in a MIII, but now 25% of their road trip time will be mandatory resting periods, the end result will be people continuing to use ICE vehicles for road trips.


Unfair. He never said they should rest, as you pretend, *because* they have to. He merely pointed out that they really should rest ANYWAY, for health and comfort reasons, and therefore the fact that they must is much less of an issue than it might seem.

Personally, I’d like my car to be able to never stop. And fly. But I don’t want to go often on very long trips. With Model 3 I’d be happy to go 300 miles stopping once to charge and rest. Sure there may be times where I’d have chosen to stop elsewhere or for a shorter time if I drove a fossil burner, but the tiny inconvenience is nothing compared to what I gain in fuel economy, comfort, performance and of course clean air.

For me it’s really enough that the EV is much better all things considered. It doesn’t have to be better than ICE in absolutely every respect and at all times.


Then I guess it’s pretty amazing how the amount of rest that people should get while driving just happens to neatly align with how long it takes for a Model 3 to charge! Left unsaid is why Model S owners are apparently just fine with faster charging (and therefore less rest).

Again, the argument is backwards: people have been driving long distances for decades, and do not need someone else to inform them how much time they Should Be Resting while driving.

This is the equivalent of saying that a car with a top speed of 70 MPH is just fine because you shouldn’t be driving so fast anyway.

Eric W
Stop repeating this Lie (OK maybe misunderstanding) about Supercharging. I purchased a CPO 2013 Model S85 in June 2015 on a Tuesday and drove from Philadelphia to Orlando FL on that Friday using exclusively Supoerchargers. I have driven Philadelphia to Atlanta twice, using different highway Supercharger routes, Phial to Va Beach twice, NEVER (15,000 miles in 9 Months) have I driven 2.5 hours and needed to wait 45 minute to get to next stop! By the way it has the original A Battery with maximum charger rate of 90 kW and quickly tapers before 40% charger. This is Tesla WORST performing battery they will EVER make. The new 90D with E batteries adds the same miles in half the time I get today. I just drove straight through from Atlanta to Philadelphia ~850 miles on March 28th, 6 necessary charging stops, 3 long stops (less then 35 minutes needed each) called Breakfast, Lunch and Diner car always charged before done eating. 3 Bathroom breaks (and quick girls want to shop at mall) car done charging (15 to 20 minutes necessary) before we were ready to go. Try getting wife and kids to last more then 2 hours without NEEDING to… Read more »

Well try a ski trip. It is about 140 miles one way for me. Toss in -10 degree low temperatures, 8-9,000 feet of elevation gain, the possibility of traffic delays, and the 220 miles range will barely get you there. Then try finding a supercharger in a little ski town or anywhere off the interstate highway system. The best I have done is level 1 charging at a condo.

The supercharger system is great, but it really only covers a fraction of the land mass, especially in the interior US.

I really think the lack of a charging network is an exaggerated problem for the Bolt. I have my Volt for any highway trip and

Eric W

I also own a Volt and can comfortably fit 2 of the 4 us in the car and part or luggage, so I guess making 2 trips in Volt (to get my family of 4 plus luggage) would be better for the environment.

If I Wanted to go to the one of the SKI lodges (somebody will want Tesla high income business) and have them Contact Tesla Free Destination charge program (~3700 today wants to grow to 15,000 in 2 Years). Then 140 Miles, in cold, up Elevation, using cruise controlled reasonable speed would get you there in a 215 mile Tesla.

I am sure Chevy Bolt will offer the same program shortly, right after the CEO changes her mind about funding Electric Charging infrastructure.

Technology, Tesla Superchargers and Destination Charger programs never stop expanding. Tesla rewards owners by placing superchargers where there are Tesla Owners.

If you buy it, Tesla Superchargers will come, anywhere in the World!


I live in the Alps. My car (Kia Soul EV) has the same range here in the mountains then in flat land. Because you’re not only going up, you go down as well and the battery charges again. And because there are more curves in the road, you drive slower and range is very dependend on speed.

The Kia heats the seats and the steering wheel, which means that I need much less heating then in my last car. My range goes down, but it’s not shocking.


Really? Your car is magically unaffected by the laws of physics then. Mechanical braking loses 100% of the energy as heat. Regenerative braking loses only 50%. So yeah, you get some back when you go downhill, but less than half since the regen isn’t sufficient to let you never brake mechanically.

Flat-earthers next..?!?

Your S85 is not charging at the same rate as an S60 (which is assumed to be in the Model 3 -215 mile car). My data was taken from the TMC site, perhaps you should head over there to educate yourself before calling me a liar. “The problem is it will take twice as long to add 200 miles of range to the 3 as it does the 90D. The 90D is 69% of SOC to add 200 miles. Model 3 is 93% of SOC to add 200 miles. That 69 to 93 takes as long as from 0 to 69. So every model 3 released out in the wild will have double the impact as a 90D on the superchargers.” Model S60 – which is the only data currently available – adding 130 miles takes 40 min – adding 185 miles takes 70 min Bigger batteries can charge faster. Which is why I think the Tesla will upsell the Model 3 with bigger batteries in order to allow the cars to charge faster among other things. Will there be an improvement in charging speed in three years when the Model 3 ships, yes, from chemistry or calling… Read more »
Eric W
Most Supercharger stations are 90 to 120 miles apart (today who knows how close they will be when they are doubled). Your goal is to reach the next Supercharger, Not get to 200 miles range (maybe this is the major misunderstanding)! Your goal is to replenish the 90 to 120 miles you just lost from the last Supercharger. How long this takes depends on how quickly you can add kWh to your battery AND how efficiently you use it (I am pretty sure the efficiency of the Model 3 will be better than what Tesla Has today). If you get 5 miles per kWh, you need to add ~20 kWh, if you 4 miles per kWh you need ~25, if you get 3 miles you need ~35 kWh. I got about 3.2 miles per kWh between Superchargers, on 19 inch SNOW tires at highway speeds 65 to 75, in temps in 40s to 60s, going up AND down big elevations, 4 American sized people, lots of luggage in frunk and trunk (though not blocking any of my rear window for the first time in any car or SUV in last 15 years of family travel!). I can’t imagine doing same… Read more »
Eric W

Copy & Paste missed this part

My 2013 85 kWh A Battery, has already been supplemented with 2016 85 kWh D Battery (nearly 50% faster) – EAXCT same kWh, yet it gets necessary miles added faster then my battery, how? Why would New 2018 Model 3 60kWh battery, still use same old 2013 60 kWh Chemistry (we know its improved) [some even speculated it was always inferior to what was in the 85 kWh at that time], use same old packaging (we know its about ~30% bigger volume then current cylinders) bigger containers more safety room for more heat / faster charging?


You can dream all you want about new technology/battery chemistry and cooling.

As it stands today it will take too long to charge a smaller battery – which will most likely be in the low end Model 3 – to make any long distance trips without a lot of compromise using the SC network.

Even if it improves 50% (which is next to impossible) you re still talking 35 min to charge up to 185 miles. I can’t wait 30 min. every three hours of driving.

BTW – the charge thread is active on the The Tesla forum. I’m not the one imagining it. It’s an important factor to keep in mind for those that think an SC network solves all their long distance travel issues in a small battery car.

And – believe it or not I am a Tesla shareholder and like their cars. I think the Falcon doors are idiotic and that’s the only thing keeping me from buying a Model X. A stupid decision IMO to keep those.

Eric W.
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein Size does Not Matter! – It’s the motion (miles per kWh) in ocean (highway) that counts! Though Exercise: Would you rather have a small 1 kWh battery that can go 1,000 miles or a 100 kWh battery that can go 300 miles? Bigger is better, right? Bigger will get you to 1,000 miles faster, right? If the smaller, lighter battery, in a smaller, lighter car can travel the same distance (100 miles to next Supercharger) using the 50% (10 kWh) of a bigger car (20kWh), it Could still charge at a 50% slower (10kWh) and be ready to leave the Supercharge at the Same time faster charging (20kWh) but less efficient car! Their kWh meter will be different, but their available miles will be the same and the time to charge will be the same! There are different ways to solve the same problem. Tesla wants the low cd and low weight and light everything to Increase the mile per kWh, however many battery kWh is in the car. It could be a 40kWh battery at 6 miles per kWh… Read more »
Eric W

Here is a simple Lighting example. I have 25 lights in my house with 8w LED lights = 200 watts of power needed to light my house for an hour. When my house was using 25 inefficient 60w bulbs = 1.5 kWh to light my house for an hour.

If you needed to store the power to light my house in a battery, which type of lights would most likely have their battery filled enough to light my house for an hour first? If given a choice, which problem would you want to tackle, generating and storing 200 watts of power or generating and storing 1.5 kWh of Power? Same light output, radically different power input and storage required. But, bigger is always better, right?


That’s a one bad analogy Eric …


Wow – what a great education on technology… Thanks, I was totally unaware of such things!!

You win – I’m just gonna assume (cause you said so) everything will be much, much better with the Model 3. It will after all be magical – unicorns and rainbows you know. Better batteries and chargers and range so no one will will have any concerns. I guess that’s why it’ll be 3 years until it ships.

In the meantime one can take delivery of the Bolt this year and happily drive it for many years while they upgrade the Model 3 tech to meet all your ‘future’ specs to the ones that will make it magical.


Is this announcement like the big 230mpg for the volt?…


No. They’d previously suggested that it’d be comfortably more than 200 miles, which seems obvious given that the Model S60 was rated as 209 miles and that was at least 800lb heavier.

They’re just following up on progress and keeping the Bolt out there.


FYI- Once the EPA finally ratified their testing protocol for EVs, most of the manufacturer’s (other than those in Japan that is) stopped using “in-house” test loops or others that do not relate. We should be pretty confident that GM is doing the same based on numbers they have reported for recent products like the Spark EV and the Gen2 Volt, both of which easily exceed EPA in summer and only approach the rating or even dip a little lower in the cooler months.
I’d take it to the bank!


Don’t laugh, after 2+ years I average over 250mpge with my Volt. I use a bit of extra fuel in the winter time (4.5 gallons in my tank lasts all winter) and on a couple of longer trips I’ve made (at 44mpg) but drive primarily all electric using the Volt as my daily driver.

I’m no longer laughing; the joke has worn thin. I’m now just rolling my eyes at how Volt drivers misuse the term “MPG” to mean fake MPG rather than real MPG. MPG, or Miles Per Gallon, is a measure of fuel efficiency in gasmobiles. It’s a measure of how much gasoline it takes to propel a car a given distance. MPG is not a measure of how often a PHEV driver manages to recharge his car in order to avoid using as much gasoline as possible… despite Volt drivers using it to mean that. In PHEVs, measurements of gas consumption (gallons) and electricity consumption (kWh) should be kept entirely separate. Mixing them together and pretending that the sum is in any way meaningful, for comparison purposes, accomplishes nothing except causing confusion. And yes, I understand that “MPGe” isn’t the same as “MPG”. But it’s a term which suggests that that electricity is just a special kind of fuel, and that it’s meaningful to measure consumption of electricity in the same way gasoline consumption is measured. This is absurd. It’s just a crutch used to help gasmobile drivers avoid using the terminology and metrics useful for EVs: kWh rather than gallons,… Read more »

I gave up on MPGe, especially with these Volt comments. I use MPGe$, which is dollar equivalent to drive to some MPG gas car. It’s far more relevant regardless of fuel type.

MPGe$ = (# of miles driven) / ($ spent, gas and electricity) * ($/gal at local gas station)


I really don’t care that much about EPA range on the city cycle, it is the hwy AER that matters most to me. If they can get the hwy AER over 210 miles, that will be excellent. 220+ would be outstanding! It isn’t just how many miles you can drive before you stop, it is how many miles can you add before you hit around 80% of the pack capacity and the tapering of the charge speed starts to kick in.
By the time the Bolt is selling in decent numbers there will be a lot more CCS chargers out there, and here is hoping that the Bolt and a good amount of those chargers are capable of charging at a 60 kW charge rate. I think we will see a steady increase in charge rates as well as the amount of chargers in the wild, making electric cars more and more compelling.


Bolt aerodynamics are terrible… worse CDa than a Leaf at 8.05 square feet.

The Model S’s CDa is at 6.2 sq ft, the Model 3 with Cd around 0.21 or 0.22 will be in the 5’s.

Amongst fuel efficient cars, the Bolt is a barn door. The EPA highway cycle test has an average speed of ~48 mph. So even if the EPA highway test comes back with a 200 mile range, the Bolt will have a tougher time in the real world at highway speeds of 65+ mph. It would be much harder to make equivalent Supercharger jumps in a Bolt, even if the Model 3’s pack is much smaller.

Of course, lots of people don’t really need to road trip their EVs. That’s one of the reasons why there isn’t as much emphasis on L3 charging on the Bolt. This is not the highway cruising BEV to go up against the Model 3. It will take out Leaf, i3, Soul, etc. competition if they don’t step up their range.


I don’t think anyone knows what the Bolt’s Cd is going to be, and given its relatively tall stance, the Area is going to be a bit higher than Volt, maybe as high or higher than the Leaf. But that doesn’t mean that the CdA of the Bolt is going to be that bad. It probably won’t be great but I would bet the CdA of the Bolt will be 8.0 sq ft or less.

If I have to roadtrip at 63 mph instead of 70 mph, I think I will survive the trip. LOL!

As I said, if the Bolt has a hwy EPA AER of 220+ miles it will be outstanding. Not that it will be an outstanding roadtrip car, just that the 5% of the time I roadtrip will require a little more planning.


Chevy has already released this information:

“The Bolt’s claimed 0.312 aerodynamic-drag coefficient and modest 25.8-square-foot frontal area help this electric cut through the air with minimal ruffle.”

0.312 x 25.8 = 8.05 sq ft.


Cool. So the Bolt CdA is about 3% bigger/worse than the Leaf (8.05 vs. 7.8) and the Leaf is ok for hwy efficiency. So the Bolt will be ok, not great for hwy efficiency. I thought the CdA would be 8 sq ft or better, so 8.05 isn’t too far off.
I think GM has a year to come up with Plan B on the Bolt. It is a better car for many due to the hatch but the price is just too high and Chevy has NO cachet compared to Tesla. When the III comes out, GM better be ready to start reducing the price expected on the Bolt.


GM really must work on the Bolt’s styling. It looks like a Fit or a Versa Note. The concept car was much sexier, but on balance not all that much different. A nip here and a tuck there would do the trick. Start with the useless and homely “grille.”


The idea with the Bolt isn’t to be compelling, it’s to be first. Butts in seats as an ‘adequate’ towner EV or a placeholder for those awaiting the Model 3. Then once the butts are in the seat, work on keeping them there. This is IF Chevy is serious about electric cars.


That is my assumption, as well.


I think you better get on your bike and head back to class. You clearly haven’t passed many 10x classes yet. Not only is your specification for the Leaf incorrect (it’s 7.8ft2), but you simply can’t determine CdA (the correct nomenclature) looking at pretty pictures at recess.


M3’s biggest shortcoming is getting in and out of the car. I’m done with low riding cars. The Bolt will attract a different buyer than the M3


Instead of giving us one number, they should give us a set of polynomial coefficients taking various conditions into account. Then we can figure out the range for ourselves instead of guessing “why am I getting more/less than EPA range?”

I’ve done that estimate using speed and extra power use (ie, heat/ac) as parameter by using real world data to determine the coefficients. Below is one such graph from my blog, not sure if it’ll show. If not, there’s bunch more in my blog “Range polynomial” and explanation on how I got them. Of course, those are for SparkEV, but other EV should have similar shape.


So, this is saying Max Range is at 25 mph?

And a gradual drop off in range from 45-70?


Without heat/AC and other extra power, yes, peak is at 25 MPH, as experimented by Digital Trends. But with extra power use, peak occurs at higher speeds. As you can see, range is close to 140 miles at 25 MPH as opposed to 82 miles EPA, which occurs at about 65 MPH. That’s why polynomial would be far more useful than single number.


What will happen if Tesla delivers the model 3 before the Bolt?


Given Tesla’s track record, no need to worry about that. 😉


Alaa, highly unlikely, but it would be nice. It looks like the Bolt will be out in late November or early December, so Chevy is 7 or 8 months from delivering Bolts to buyers.
Tesla claims, now, that they will ship III’s in late 2017, but we probably won’t actually see them shipped until February of 2018 at the earliest, and mid-2018 isn’t a bad estimate. So Tesla buyers are probably going to have to wait 14 to 20 months after the first Bolts are delivered to see the first III delivered.
GM has a year, maybe a year and a half of deliveries before the III shows up.
If I had both in front of me, I would choose the III in a heartbeat, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


It is likely. Here is why. It is not much to ask a robot to do a S or an X or a model 3. It is mostly software. The time you mention seems too long for changing the software. Even if more robots are needed, which I highly doubt then it still is way too long to wait that long to install more robots in this massive factory. I suspect that they already filled it with enough robots to produce 500,000 a year. There is no new projects to build roofs water electric wires etc. At any rate I hope so. I am almost sure that they will have some model 3s before GM.


You forgot testing, certification, and quality control.

Although there are robots that can make 500,000 model 3’s, somebody has to teach the robot to weld in the proper spots, paint in the right locations, etc. etc. That is just for one robot. Now compound this problem for however many robots are needed. All of them have be doing it right and then tested. Any weak spots means having to go back to the assembly line for corrections. Sometimes, problems don’t show up right away, but only after a few hundred test cycles.

remember that certain Nissan Leafs had to be recalled for weak welds. That was an error for the robot responsible for those welds. It didn’t get caught until a certain number of Leafs were manufactured.

Also, I have not seen a robot upholster a leather seat before or install a dash, so certain parts of the car are still done by humans.

Then there is the logistics of coordinating and acquiring parts for the vehicles. The Model X is just a prime example of parts suppliers not keeping up with manufacturing.

It is more than just robots.


All you need is to get 1 robot to do it right; then copy the software to as many as you can. As for the chairs etc that doesn’t take much work, if it does then employ more. As for the chain supply that is not a problem. They already have a system that is running well.

I just can not see that it will take 450 days to teach a robot how to weld, or employ more workers or sit and plan and make phone calls to get the supply chain working.


$20 say you aren’t an Engineer. Many on this sight are.



YOu are right. NOT only that, Alaa probably hasn’t ever been to an auto plant.

Most of the auto plants robots are basically built by 5 companies around the world. 2 in Japan, 1 in the US (Allen Bradley) and 2 in Germany. They all bid on all factory expansion and they are in charged to setting those equipment up.

That process usually takes months during bidding, contracting, permit process. Then installation, calibration will take months.

The final “programming” and “retools” only take couple weeks. That is the easiest part.

But setting up a new line will take time.

Also, those 5 companies don’t just build robots over night with lower level suppliers forcasting and planning.

Of course, if Tesla had all the contracts written years ago and things are already in motion, then it is possible… The question is really when the Model 3 design was close enough for Tesla to contract out all the assembly line designs.

1 year is doable time frame for sure. But it will cost you some serious $.


Exactly right. Add about 1 year from the design freeze and that is roughly your start of production date. The Model 3 shown last week is not the final version. Musk just said to expect changes to the interior, a couple days ago.

Model 3 is where the Bolt was 18 months ago.


If it was that simple, why was the Model X delayed for so long?

Answer: it’s not that simple


That is my point. They did a system for the S and the X it should not be that much to make a third type. If it was like you say then adding a new color would take a few months.


I would be surprised if they could add a new color in less than four months. There are many things that have to happen to add a new color.
1. consultation with paint manufacture
2. Panel testing
3. Possible focus group testing with design department
4. Hardness testing
5. Durability testing
6. Salt spray testing
7. Spray pattern testing
and on and on
This is why the Model three development will be over a billion dollars


And add a line for that paint shop.

Generally each color gets its own robotic line and cars go into them in parallel based on volume and comes out back onto the line for baking at the same time…

Let us assume that it will take 4 months as you say to add a new color. Now there is no reason not add different groups of people to do different projects at the same time. If the input to one group is not dependent on the output of another group then we can safely say that working in parallel will shorten the time it takes to reach the final product. The Americans were very good at a branch in mathematics called critical path analysis when the went to war in Vietnam. They are the ones who invented this way of solving such problems. So if we use the same methods in making a car or a new color for that matter I would say that it will take a lot less time than what people think. I have another argument that is more robust. If we compare two things then we must know each thing separably to be able to make the comparison. So for example which one is bigger a water melon or a grape? We know each one so we can compare but if we did not know one of them then we are unable to make… Read more »

Since it’s obvious you know nothing about the auto industry or what goes into designing/validating/building a new car, I suggest you watch the documentary “A Faster Horse”. It will give you a better feeling of why this process takes so long.

I laugh every time I see one of you jokers saying that it’s all about “software”. LOL


A big reason is that the Tesla Gigafactory isn’t currently producing battery packs that are cheap, energy-dense, and numerous enough for the Model 3. So Tesla might be able to roll out Model 3 gliders by the end of this year, but they would not have the required battery packs.


Then GM, not Tesla, would have the advantage of being in the “fast follower” position, allowing GM to redesign the Bolt to make it more competitive with the Model ≡, and giving the competitive advantage to GM.

But unless Tesla hires some unicorns to make Model ≡’s out of rainbows, before the Gigafactory is producing batteries in volume, and before the M≡ production lines are built in Tesla’s Fremont plant, there’s no way that Tesla is gonna get the M≡ into production before GM starts selling the Bolt.

Texas FFE

I want more information!!! When is the full Bolt website going to come up? When will we find out full standard and option features? What are the standard and option prices? When will the car be available for order? When will the car show up at dealerships? What states will get the first Bolts? Gets going to be a long eight months.

Jay Cole

If past precedent is any indication, ~August/September is your window for full disclosure


The same state that got the new Volt will get the Bolt first. Probably January 2017 you may be able to get one if you live in one of those states.


Glad to hear it! Good job, GM. I hope you offer more than one battery size though.


I don’t see GM having the option to update the battery size substantially, any time soon. They broke the skateboard planarity and stacked batteries under the rear seats, to get the range they have already stated.


They could go down in battery size. Assuming 30 kWh for 110 miles range (about that of Hyundai Ioniq), at $200/kWh pack price could be $6000 cheaper, or $24K post subsidy. Because it’ll be lighter, it could also be quicker, maybe even matching (or surpassing) Model 3. I doubt they’ll do it, though.


SparkEV said:

“Because it’ll be lighter, it could also be quicker…”

Ummm… no. Smaller battery pack equals less power available equals slower to accelerate. Just as the Model S60 is slower in its 0-60 speed than the Model S85.


Bolt is not Tesla. SparkEV is over 100kW to wheels (or 115kW out of battery) using 18.4 kWh battery. At 30 kWh,

100 * 30 / 18.4 = 163 kW (about 220 HP)

Bolt is rated 150 kW (200 HP). 30 kWh should be able to provide enough for full power. Then it’ll weigh roughly the same as SparkEV (0-60 in 7.2 sec) while having 50% more power. I suspect it’ll easily do 0-60 under 6 seconds.

Now only if they can do this while keeping the pre-subsidy pricing at $25K or less, they’d dominate all low end EV, maybe even steal some Model 3. Pricing is the enemy.


There was already a leak in August 2014 with the exact detail,short here on insideevs with someone making a market study and evaluate Bolt design. EPA rating was 208 miles, think that will be the real range of Bolt.
If Ghosn has courage he brings the next Leaf like IDS concept and it will get 230-240 EPA miles surpassing Bolt and Model 3 by far thanks to the narrow tires and the drag coefficient.


So far, Tesla appears to be the only automaker who’s given buyers the option of specifying multiple battery pack sizes at the time of configuration.

We’ll see what is available for M3, closer to production. I’m sure they’ll have the capacity to provide better top-end range than anyone else, if you’re willing to pay for it.


LEAF with 24kWh or 30kWh doesn’t count?

Unless you mean at the time the car is built…


EPA has not tested the Bolt yet, so there’s no info to leak, unless the 208 number you stated is GM’s internal testing.

Also – People are forgetting that the 215 number stated by Tesla is even more of a guesstimate. It’s really just a design objective.

I remember when all of the supposed 100 mile range EV’s were originally in testing. All the car makers talked about getting 100+ miles of range out of their cars. Then they all got EPA tested to be in the 70-80 mile range for the official EPA numbers. Since then, I’ve completely ignored any claims of range that don’t specify they are EPA official test results. So I went back to the article to see if they mentioned “EPA test” anywhere. Instead I found exactly the opposite of a claim of EPA test results over 200 miles. Instead it said this: “he expresses confidence many buyers of the $35,000 EV will exceed the 200-mile range” There are two red flags in this quote. 1) There is no mention of EPA test cycle 2) They use the qualifier “many” buyers. Not “typical”, or “most”, or “average” buyers. This sounds like a fudge word. How many is “many”? 1% of buyers? 20% of buyers? If 10 buyers hypermile it in moderate weather conditions and get 205 miles of range, that would technically be “many”. I think they will manage to make a nice car, and I’m sure the range will be much… Read more »

Model S60 has 206 miles EPA, the Bolt with 60 kWh is lighter and will sure have more range, 209 miles EPA. Model 3 with 215 miles and drag coefficient 0,21 and 215 miles, i think Tesla also has 60 kWh in there.


its lighter, but has worse CdA (based on numbers posted here) – that will hurt especially at highway speeds.


was talking about Bolt.


We will know for sure only after the official EPA number is published. I’m hoping they hit their numbers too, I’m just not willing to take any car maker’s word until they have official EPA numbers. (Tesla too.)


It was pretty clear that when all the big 3 USA automakers and all the German automakers lined up behind CCS, that Chademo was going to lose out in the USA and Europe.

And it was especially hard for Chademo when Japan’s biggest automaker (Toyota) decided to be a no-show as far as EVs go. Honda also dragged their feet on plug-ins. Nissan couldn’t carry Chademo on its own.


Damn it, wrong thread.


Great graphic, though!


Yep, and good call too.


Some people still doubt that the Bolt will get the 200 EPA range. I don’t see the same skepticism about Tesla’s 215 mile claim for the Model 3. Yes, Tesla has built cars with ranges greater than 200 miles before, but not for $35,000 they haven’t.

The Bolt and Model 3 will both be rated for more than 200 miles EPA. Time to move on.


Part of this is because GM still refuses to straight out say that it will have more than 200 miles of EPA range. They still say it exceeds 200 miles in “internal testing”.

Tesla, on the other hand, previously committed to more than 200 EPA miles (now 215). And as you point out yourself, Tesla already had multiple EVs with more than 200 miles of EPA range, so they have the track record already.


Elon can say whatever he wants with no ill effects. He has officially inherited the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

GM, on the other hand, may not ever promise anything that is the least bit under what they deliver, or they will be forever excoriated for it. Just look above for someone scoffing about the “230 MPG” claim for the Volt (never mind that a great many Volt drivers get 230 MPG or more).


All that says is they are not confident it will necessarily get 200 miles EPA. If it is going to be comfortably over, I don’t see why they can’t just promise it now.

For the Volt, they straight out said it would get over 50 miles of EPA range right at the production unveiling.


To clarify, I am talking about the production intent unveiling of the Gen 2 2016 Volt.


No, they did not. They say the Gen2 Volt would have “50 miles of EV range” and said nothing about the EPA estimated range until it was actually rated by the EPA at 53 miles.

Note that while they did give an estimate of EPA MPG, any mention of EPA EV range is completely absent.


It might not be in the press release, but they told journalists they expected 50 miles EPA (not some “internal testing” method).

For example here:
“Chevy projects that the EPA will rate the 2016 Volt at 50 miles of electric range, up substantially from the current model’s rated range of 38 miles.”

“The Volt is all about its powertrain, and most importantly, its gasoline-eschewing electric range expected to be EPA-rated at 50 miles compared to the outgoing car’s 38 miles.”

In contrast, no journalists have been able to get an EPA range estimate for the Bolt. It all references to “internal testing” with no hint on what test cycle it refers to. The 235 mile rumor article you linked says there was no mention of EPA or what test cycle that refers to.


That is not a direct quote from GM.

If your standard is someone else reporting that “GM says” the Bolt will have “at least 200 miles EPA,” then here you go:

But ultimately, I don’t agree with your fundamental point. The claim that GM would deliver a Bolt with even 199 miles of EPA range after two years of saying “200 miles… 200 miles… 200 miles” is not credible; GM would rather add kWh than take that massive PR hit. You might as well argue that the car will actually be $40,000.

And again, for the record: Tesla promises all sorts of nonsense on range that they don’t deliver. Or have you forgotten about the “300 mile” Model S with 265 miles of EPA range?

Or the “285 mile” P85D with 242 miles of EPA range?


No offense to the blog you quoted, but the author does not appear to be a journalist, didn’t say he attended the event nor that he got a statement from GM that the 200 miles refers to EPA. And looking at the wording it says “The BOLT’s EPA range is still not known … and GM states that it will be at least 200 miles.” That can be interpreted to mean “EPA not known, but at least 200 miles (under some other test cycle)”.

In contrast, I liked two reputable plug-in news outlets and articles written by journalists who attended the event and got information directly from GM.

If you still do not believe, here’s Jay’s article right here on Inside EVs:
“GM states that the 2016 Volt will achieve an estimated EPA rating of 50 miles of range from a larger, but lighter 18.4 kWh battery that features a new chemistry (192 cells vs 288 cells).”

You already know now but Tesla promised 300 mi 2-cycle EPA range, and got 320 mi 2-cycle range and 265 mi 5-cycle range.

The 285 miles for P85D was 65mph range, not EPA range. Tesla is not that dumb to be off so much.


“285” was the only number Tesla was providing and at no point were they saying “over 240” or even “significantly less than RWD S85”. So at the end of the day, Tesla was setting expectations they couldn’t live up to.

I’m still waiting for someone to give an example of GM overpromising. The “230 MPG” is quite easily attainable in literal terms, so what else have they failed to deliver on?

GM doesn’t have the same history of wild overpromises that Tesla does. The “$50,000” Model S… that was pre-order only and killed as soon as the car was released? The “$20K-$30K family car” that morphed into a $35K-50K luxury car? The battery swap stations that can swap two cars in the time it takes to fill one gas tank? The release dates of everything they’ve ever made?

BIll Howland

Yup, I remember the model S was going to be legitimately ‘300 miles’. Then it became ‘300 miles @ 55 mph’ which isn’t the same. TO this date they don’t make an honest 300 mile car, unless there are some roadster 3.0’s finally converted.

The bolt was claimed to be a 200 mile car.

Then all the magpies said a cheap 200 mile car was impossible, and certainly NOT a gm product. I can’t remember where, but I heard early on epa style testing yielded 203 miles.

Now someone is saying 235 miles, which is a bit hard to believe but maybe.

The only thing that quieted the magpies was when it was released that the battery would be 60 kwh. Even GM-haters were forced to admit that is huge for a cheap car.


GM and other manufacturers can run the EPA test in-house, but even if they get 230 miles of range, they can’t say 230 EPA, until the EPA actually certifies it. This distinction seems to be lost on some of you.


They can’t say it officially gets x-miles EPA until it is certified by the EPA, but they can say “we expect it will get more than x-miles EPA range”. GM did exactly that with the Volt, and Tesla had done that for practically every one of their vehicles. However, GM refuses to say something similar for the Bolt (no mentions of range estimates so far to journalists refer to EPA range).

I am 100% aware the manufacturer is the one that does the testing.


And for the record: The Fast Lane Car is claiming that Chevy told them the Bolt will have 235 miles of range.


Will you stop it? Don’t you get it? NOBODY has ever got “230 MPG” in a Volt!

If you drive 230 miles of which 200 on all-electric plus 30 miles using one gallon of gasoline, you did NOT get 230 miles per gallon. If you drive 230 miles on one gallon and zero electricity, then you did get 230 MPG.

It’s like eating a carrot and twenty quarter pounders in a week and claim that you keep yourself going on just one carrot per week. In other words it’s stupid, dishonest, misleading and utterly useless for any purpose other than make exaggerated claims! And THAT is why GM, and some Volt drivers, get so much flak for it.

The Volt is a great car in many ways. It’s one of very few plug in hybrids that have enough electric range to allow lots of people to drive mostly electric. It’s good to speak of how much fossil fuel one ends up using on average in real world use. But MPG is a measure of efficiency, and the way you used the term here and GM did in their marketing has NOTHING to do with efficiency.


Let’s use your example. If the question being asked is, “How much food did you eat this week?”, then yes, it’s misleading to say that you only ate one carrot.

However, if we are facing a national carrot shortage and most of the carrots in the country are imported from a foreign carrot dictatorship that uses slave labor, asking “How many carrots did you eat this week?” is an extremely relevant question.

So to bring your example full circle: everyone understands that a Volt that gets “230 MPG” is using a lot of electricity. That’s not the point; the point is that Volt drivers are using very little gas while driving a car that eliminates the need to go rent an ICE when you drive farther than 100 miles.

You want to point out that “230 MPG” Volt drivers are still using electricity? Fine; that’s your prerogative. Likewise, I will point out that drivers of BEVs like the Leaf and i3 are frequently choosing to drive ICE vehicles that get worse gas mileage than the Volt any time they they need to go father than their BEVs’ range.


Too often, BEV is assumed to drive one battery charge worth in a trip. With DCFC, even 1000 miles a day in lowly SparkEV is possible. Then Volt would be burning gas after 50 miles while BEV would be gas free for hundreds of miles. Too often Volt drivers can’t see this due to lack of DCFC.

If you’re saying gas car is needed for longer trips outside of DCFC area, Volt would be burning gas after only 50 miles at a rate more than Prius. BEV who rent Prius for those rare trips would still come out ahead over Volt for that trip.

Simply put, BEV would get infinite MPGe going by Volt’s MPGe definition. That’s simply wrong.

MPGe has nothing to do with the discussion, so I’ll presume that was a typo. If we’re willing to ignore practicality (and the value of your own time), a Volt can drive over 200 EV miles per day. I consider this no less implausible than making a 1000 mile road trip in a Spark EV; both of these scenarios inherently assume that the driver’s time is worth relatively little. In these discussions about Volt’s “MPG”, BEV owners frequently brag about “not using a drop of gas” and “getting infinite MPG”. But if I’m driving my Volt on a weekend trip, and you’re driving an ICE for the same trip, it’s pure hypocrisy for you to insist that I am deceiving others by claiming “230 MPG” while you insist that your BEV isn’t using any gas at all. Now, can we have a debate over who is actually using less gas? Sure, but that’s not the point. I have yet to see any BEV owner include the MPG of substitute ICE vehicles in their calculations of how much gasoline their BEV “uses”… yet many of them seem to insist that Volt owners effectively do exactly that. If I drive my Volt… Read more »

Up to about 300 miles, I don’t drive my gas car, thanks to DCFC. Weekends are still BEV. But beyond that, which is extremely rare, Prius would get better MPG than Volt running on gas engine.

Consider SparkEV + gas car combo as 300 miles range plug in hybrid when DCFC is considered, and they do much better than Volt.

Now if you’re talking about non-DCFC EV + gas car, that’s different. That would be like 80 miles range plug in hybrid, which still could be better than Volt when gas car is a hybrid. Yes, there could be extreme case such as when the weekend trip is 51 miles so that Volt only uses 1 mile of gas engine while Prius uses 51 miles, but that’s not what we’re talking about.


The relative fuel efficiency of Volt vs. Prius is not at issue. BEV proponents object to Volt drivers citing their own MPG, yet most BEV drivers don’t include their MPG (from when they drive on ICE) at all.

We can have a discussion about whether your 82-mile DCFC-capable EV, combined with a Prius, is more effective at reducing net petroleum consumption than a Volt; part of that discussion would be the impact of a 20-minute wait after every 65 miles of driving, or the limitations of being unable to travel more than 30 miles outside of a DC charging corridor without incurring extreme waits on charge times.

But that’s a completely separate argument from the objection that Volt drivers should not be citing their factually accurate MPG AT ALL because they also use electricity. Because the overwhelming majority of BEV drivers also use gasoline (when they choose to drive other cars), and yet they proudly declare freedom from oil.

Breezy said: “Some people still doubt that the Bolt will get the 200 EPA range.” Yeah, and with GM not so many years ago publicly advertising the Volt as a “230 MPG” car, there’s a good reason for that. I thought it was a settled point; I thought GM had officially stated that they had tested the Bolt using the EPA’s tests, and it came in at 207 or 208 miles (my memory is fuzzy on what was claimed). But now it seems the EPA range is still up in the air. “The Bolt and Model 3 will both be rated for more than 200 miles EPA. Time to move on.” You’re just guessing, and no, it won’t be time to move on until the EPA officially gives these cars a range rating. * * * * * JakeY said: “Tesla, on the other hand, previously committed to more than 200 EPA miles (now 215).” Tesla also “committed” to making the Model S85 a 300 mile car. That didn’t stop the EPA from rating it at a lower figure. * * * * * Bottom line: All EV makers have a history of overstating plug-in EV range. All of them,… Read more »
Omar Sultan

Remember the 300 mile range was published before the EPA range protocols was published/complete. If you set your car to show ideal miles, it would still show 300 miles or 265 if you set it for rated miles.


“Tesla also “committed” to making the Model S85 a 300 mile car. That didn’t stop the EPA from rating it at a lower figure.”
Actually Tesla never broke that promise. When Tesla made that promise, the EPA was still using the 2 cycle method. The Model S got 320 miles of range on the 2 cycle method.

By the time it came out, the 5 cycle method was required and it got 265 miles on that.


And what’s the excuse for the “285 mile” P85D getting 242 miles of EV range?


They promised 285 miles at 65mph steady state for the P85D, not 285 miles EPA range.

This article goes in depth:


Chevy said they were confident the Bolt will be rated more than 200 miles by the EPA.

Besides, the fundamentals say so. The Leaf has three percent less drag and gets 107 EPA miles from 30 kWh. So you’d need to choose tires with extra high rolling resistance to stand a good chance of getting below 200 from 60 kWh.

It will exceed 200. I’m guessing 210, hoping 220. I’m happy to take your bet that the Bolt will get an EPA range of less than 200.


All these needless guessing about EPA. EV range varies greatly with speed and power use, as much as 80% different. Rather than giving just one number like they did with gas cars, give a set of numbers or better yet, a polynomial coefficients that fit range over speed and power. EPA is like horse and buggy rating system applied upcoming ICE cars.

I hope the automakers take the initiative to provide better data. See graph in my previous comment above as an example. I discuss hilly case in another blog, but with such data, there’s no question about what the range would be for given speed and power.


Dude – you’ve been on here long enough to know that there was not EPA test for PHEVs at the time that GM claimed a rating of 230 MPG. That was GM’s estimate, based on what was THEN the current EPA test cycle.


How long would it take a Bolt to go from LA to New York? A Tesla can do it in under 60 hours.


It takes me 5 hours in my Volt. I drive my volt to the airport and take a plane. Then I have $70000 in my pocket when I get to New York.


Yep, unless the goal is the roadtrip, then flying is the intelligent thing to do. Long-range EVs are for enabling trips to the country and intercity travel. Once you get above 200 miles, then get a train, if it’s available. Once you get over 400 miles, fly.


However, since everybody lives somewhere, then the networks that enable intercity travel end up connecting, so you can do the road trip if you want.


Check supercharger map at some time. There are thousands miles of highways in the US without any superchargers. You can go cross country only if you go on few predefined routes and not where really need or want to go.
You may argue that it will be better in few years when you will be able (if) to buy $35k Model 3, but it is not fair to compare some distant imaginary future with current Bolt that you will be able to drive in few months. Few years later CCS chargers will be everywhere too, if you don’t like flying.




zzzzzzzzzz said:

“Check supercharger map at some time. There are thousands miles of highways in the US without any superchargers. You can go cross country only if you go on few predefined routes and not where really need or want to go.”

That’s true. (Yes, I’m agreeing with zzzzzzzzzz. Did Hell just freeze over? 😉 )

Tesla doesn’t seem to be in any hurry to place Superchargers anywhere except alongside a relative few primary highways. If you have to drive 150 or 200 miles out of your way to get to the nearest Supercharger, then the Supercharger network isn’t of much use to you.

I absolutely appreciate Tesla installing the Supercharger network, and yes that has made coast-to-coast travel in the Model S practical. But let’s not pretend that makes driving a BEV on any road trip as convenient as a gasmobile.

Some road trips, yes. But certainly not all of them. For one thing, road trips using the Supercharger network must be carefully planned in advance. No option for taking a side trip on a whim. For many, the freedom to do that is half the fun of a road trip.



The Tesla Supercharger map as a limitation for Tesla is a falsehood too, just like most of your posts.

Today, you can charge your Model S or Model X on any chademo charger too. So the map is NOT the exclusive place for folks to charge their Tesla.

Tesla also just joined CCS, so it is reasonable to expect CCS support from Tesla, with either adaptors (like their current Tesla chademo adaptor), or with a direct port in the future.

At that point Tesla has the best of all worlds. Superchargers on main routes, and the choice of charging from either chademo or CCS using adaptors everywhere else.

The map only shows where Tesla has the advantage of free/prepaid super-high speed charging that other EV’s don’t have. It is NOT at all a limitation as you imply, but a massive added feature.


“It takes me 5 hours in my Volt. I drive my volt to the airport and take a plane. Then I have $70000 in my pocket when I get to New York.”


You can even afford few private jet flying (netjet) with the money saved…


So, how many SANE people would actually make that drive?

Lou Patrick

Most people, and I mean the overwhelming majority, will be quite happy with 215 mile range on a Bolt EV, and similar range on M3. Let’s face it, no car can be everything for everybody. If you routinely travel loooong distances in your car, and you are not comfortable dealing with a SC or QC network, get an ICE. Why all of the wailing and nonsense about taking trips? I cannot picture too many families with kids driving for more than 2.5 hours without stopping. Same for us geezers, we need to stop for restroom breaks, stretch our old, arthritic legs, etc. The M3 is likely to be a great performer and the only reason that the Bolt EV may be considered a tad less is the size and fact that it cannot be contented to the degree some people will want. But they both look to be great cars.


Yup. There is far too much focus on making road trips in BEVs in comment threads. Most Americans fly if they travel more than 400 miles. Most Americans only take at most 3-4 long distance trips in a car per year.

The math is pretty clear: You save more time by plugging in every night, instead of driving to the gas station once a week, than you lose in having some waiting time at fast-charging stations if you only take 3-4 long distance trips in your BEV per year.

And yeah, if that doesn’t work for you, just rent a gasmobile. If you rent a car from Enterprise, they will even come and pick you up, so it’s not like it’s a great inconvenience.


It’s not about using supercharger regularly, but just the fact that it’s available that makes it compelling.

For example, Sprint cell network is the worst, but it’s just as well covered in most population centers against other. Most people would have no problem using Sprint, yet they lag behind all other carriers, and they give some deep discounts. Why? It’s because of perception, though not often affected, if ever.


We need the combined success of the Bolt and Model 3. That’s what convinces the prejudiced public that EVs are becoming “normal” and “establishment”. Most people are terrible conformists.


Well, now I’m confused. I thought GM was saying very firmly that the Bolt would get 207 EPA-rated miles of range; that they had already put it through the EPA standard tests, and all it needed was the official stamp of approval from the EPA.

But the quotes above read like they’re still testing and tweaking the design, and that the “207 miles of range” claim is just a preliminary estimate.


Preliminary, as in on the low side. 😉

225 EV mile EPA rating is my guess.