Motley Fool Wonders If Chevy Bolt Has More Range Than Tesla Model 3

Chevrolet Bolt: Tesla Model 3 competitor


Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

It’s a question that only Tesla can answer right now, but with the Bolt officially EPA rated at 238 miles of range, one has to wonder whether or not Tesla will deliver over its promised 215 miles of range on the Model 3, especially considering that metric would well surpass the base Model S 60 kWh version’s 218 mile range.

Then there’s the fact that several media outlets have already driven the Bolt well over its rated range, with some even reporting that 290 miles is possible on a single charge.

Motley Fool states:

“With Tesla only promising 215 miles or more of driving range on a single charge for its Model 3, this has led to much media coverage of the Bolt concluding the vehicle has trumped Tesla on the key metric. But Tesla hasn’t actually stated the Model 3’s official range, so the winner can’t be identified yet.”

With the Bolt though, Chevrolet under promised (200-plus miles of range was the initial target) and over delivered. It remains to be seen if Tesla will now do the same so that its Model 3 (even in base form) outdoes the Bolt.

As for that 215-mile promise for the Model 3, Musk previously stated:

“I want to emphasize these are minimum numbers.”

Motley Fool adds:

“..the Model 3 will certainly have more than 215 miles of range, Tesla recently confirmed with The Motley Fool. Even more, Tesla emphasized to The Motley Fool that its promised range for the Model 3 is only for the base version of the vehicle. This means there will almost undoubtedly be battery options available with higher range.”

But is 215 now too low for the base version (expected to be priced in line with the base Bolt) considering the Bolt’s range is 238? We tend to think so,  but at the same time, a longer range, say 275-300 mile edition of the Model 3 waiting in the wings, would likely differentiate the two models nicely.

Source: Motley Fool

Categories: Chevrolet, Tesla


Leave a Reply

175 Comments on "Motley Fool Wonders If Chevy Bolt Has More Range Than Tesla Model 3"

newest oldest most voted

I really think the Bolt most likely would considering Tesla has a lot of electrical stuff in their cars. Also I think the Bolt from it’s looks is going to be a lot lighter then the Tesla model three.

But the question is would GM or Tesla considering adding 90 and 100 kilowatt versions of both cars in the future?

Lighter helps but personally, it is all about aerodynamics for me. When I drive distances where range matters it is generally at 70+ MPH. So the aerodynamics are much more important.

If Tesla busts their ass, I think they can get 4mi/kWh EPA range on the base model. They’re going to have to use motors that are weaker than the Tesla Roadster’s while making it quick. If they can get to 4, the bolt sales will Trump (see what I did there ?).
That’d mean
60 – 240 miles
60D – 250 miles
75 – 275 miles
75D – 290 miles
P75D – 280 miles

So you’re saying that the Bolt’s sales will make General Motors great again? 😉

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry, but

Great Again
Better Together

have certainly been assigned to the guano heap of the lexicon.

lol, incidentally

I believe the Tesla will have better range at higher speeds and the Bolt at lower speeds due to the differences in drag coefficient.

On ‘drag’: Drag IS a meaningful factor – up to a point. I noticed Tesla put out an update kit to reduce the drag on the original roadster to 3.1. The Bolt will be 3.2. Those buying a Bolt don’t WANT a roadster or even a sedan! And they will buy it cause they want it now, not be just ‘believers’ with no affordable car (that too is a measure of efficiency)!

It will have more range if it has a bigger battery. The Model S supposedly has a fantastic Cd but the i3, which doesn’t, goes further per kWh. And of course the Bolt EV goes further than every Tesla with the same sized battery.

Hard to see what would change this. Nothing like a RWD vehicle geared for faster acceleration.

Hard to see what would change this. Nothing like a RWD vehicle geared for faster acceleration.

Lighter car would change that.

Bolt is much smaller & lighter.
There is nothing there Tesla can not do themselves.

Model 3 will be smaller and lighter.

Absolutely true! People generally drive 50 miles per day, and they plug in at night. 215 or 240 makes little difference. 200+ miles will be mainly for long trips where sustained high speed matters.

YES. THIS. I will take a 240hwy/205city car over a 215hwy/250city car. PERIOD.

You miss the range on the highway, not in the city!!!!!!!!!!!!

More exclamation points than necessary. But that’s my main point.

Tesla thought a lot about which number to maximize to maximize user experience.

The first one doesn’t exist.

My friends
I’m always amused by the obsession with EV range.
A Porsche 911 and a Ford Focus has probably the same range, but I don’t hear people say they are comparable. It’s the same lie about tesla owner are all fanatic environmentalists. Or they are all obnoxious billionaires.
If I buy a bolt, I’ll have a tiny, ugly, low tech car with few advantages over a conventional ice car, and I’ll wait forever to charge, if I can even find a place to charge. And it will cost as much as a model 3?
And I should consider a bolt a my next EV? I’m dumbfounded

“I’m dumbfounded”
Well, you’re half right.

Supercharging makes this range competition irrelevant. I’d rather have a Model 3 with 200 miles of range and supercharging than a bolt with 238 miles of range and spotty CCS.

there is no way you can drive from LA to Las Vegas in a Bolt. Useless.

There is a way to drive to Vegas in a Bolt from LA, but there would have to be an extensive stop along the way, with you providing your own level 2 charger at a desolate RV park. Just make sure it’s the right RV Park (do your homework on PlugShare before the trip), because the manager at the other one, is not “EV friendly”, to put it kindly. Add AT LEAST 90 minutes of charging time, for the second leg of the hop into “Lost Wages”. You will need all theextra electrons you can get to keep up with 75+ MPH traffic!

There’s a level 2 I think in Barstow, at which you’d only need to add about 60 miles of range.

There’s a CCS station in Victorville, CA which is only 188 miles from Las Vegas. So yes way you can travel from Los Angeles to Las Vegas as long as CCS charge in Victorville.

For an hour, vs. 1/2 hour for Tesla.

Today’s Tesla would be close to an hour due to charge taper. But Bolt would be over an hour, though the ratio won’t be 2X like you make it seem.

We don’t know Tesla 3’s charge taper. I hope they don’t have any to 80%. Then it could be 2X (or more) quicker than Bolt. But we can’t say that just yet.

This is one of those misunderstandings. Battery pack size limits charging rate. Consequently, the Bolt EV will charge about as fast as the Model 3, assuming the Model 3 has the same size battery. If the Model 3 has a smaller battery it will likely be slower. Assuming the technology of both stay the same, which is probably unlikely.

According to Your image Tesla S 60kWh can do 90miles in 20 minutes.

Bolt can do 90miles in 30 minutes (est. courtesy of GM).

C’s battery can take is just a one of many limiting factors for quick charging.
Quality of electronics, conduits, battery cooling, algorithms, monitoring, etc. all affect how fast the battery can load.

Well, yes. But on a Tesla supercharger, and on the coming CCS stations with 150 kW, the battery is the limiting factor.

I personally find this obsession with the current charge time ridiculous. Whether thirty or forty-five minutes is required for LA to Las Vegas right now should rank as nearly irrelevant in deciding which car to get. Maybe you’ll make the trip once or twice by the time faster chargers are available along that route. But be my guest, base it on saving an hour of charging time over the next decade..!

I think Model 3 is a better chick magnet. But Bolt is likely a better car most of the time, being easier to park and drive in the city, and having more practical luggage space.

The CCS station in Victorville isn’t a fast DC charger, so the charging time should be several hours, instead of 20-30 minutes with Tesla Suercharger.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. The CCS station in Victorville is DCFC.

How many stalls?

From Plugshare/EVGo

“I-15 exit 147. Great location has 24/7 access, with two CHAdeMO, and one SAE combo quick charger. Also has one Level 2 J1772 plug. The location has dedicated parking marked by green paint, located behind the mall between Sears and JC Penny.”

Yes it is.

I might also mention that there are several other CCS stations, like in Ontario, at about the 230 mile range from Las Vegas. It looks like the Victorville CCS station doesn’t get used very much yet but, when the long range Bolt starts to sell in numbers, a high traffic weekend may see the single CCS charger at Victorville get backed up. It might be prudent to top off your Bolt at one these other CCS stations before venturing out towards Las Vegas.

By the time the model 3 is out there will probably be several CCS chargers between Los Angeles and Las Vegas

Several 50kWh chargers.


There are 2 superchargers there (with say X stalks each for simplicity).

That means we would need 3 combo chargers with X stalks each, to serve same traffic, to compensate for slower charge times (and cars occupying the stalks for longer)

How about in January of 2017 we race our electric cars from LA to LV. You in your Model 3 and me in either my Volt or my Bolt (I haven’t decided yet).

Why? Isn’t America doing like everyone else and moving to 150 kW?

Stations are popping up so fast, that your statement will soon be wrong. I almost made the mistake of not getting a CHAdeMO port when I bought my LEAF because I thought there was no where to plug in. A year later and there are DCFC stations across British Columbia. My range went from 130km to over 570km.

We are really bad at thinking in a dynamic way in general. But it is a bit surprising in this case. You’d think when we buy a product with a fifteen to twenty year life we’d at least try to think about how to future-proof it as much as possible.



Range differences in this range category is irrelevant. Supercharger network is THE defining difference.

You are overestimating the value and underestimating the cost of the Tesla Superchargers.

Tesla spend 5% of their revenue on superchargers.
That is build out and maintenance of current ones.

You on the other hand underestimates importance of ocean to ocean tesla time records to assure poeople that range enxiety is not a thing with Tesla 😉

I think he was talking of the cost to the user. No one knows yet how cheap or not it will be for Model 3.

Importance of Tesla’s coast to coast time records? The importance of that record is pretty much zero. I put a lot more value on the record of the guy that visited 48 states in a Nissan Leaf and planted a tree in each state.

Usually when someone is traveling any distance they are using a time frame similar to an ICE vehicle. Someone taking 2 or 3 months driving around planting trees has no correlation to me driving 1100 miles one way to visit family from a week. There is no charge system out there, now or within the next 5 years, that make this practical except for Tesla.

Tesla will nearly match if not pass the range of Bolt… then folks who buy bolts will figure out that the nascent Ccs dcfc is lame by comparison to the already 100kW SuperChargers installed nearly everywhere now… not maybe soon with no support by the General.

Unless you want a car in the foreseeable future.

Nailed it.

GM’s decision to ignore the CCS network rollout is very unfortunate.

A Super charging Bolt would be unstoppable.

Oh well, hopefully another OEM will be smarter in this area.

The CCS network continues to expand rapidly. It’s already greater than 60% of Tesla’s SC levels.

According to

832 electric stations
1,246 charging outlets

1,099 electric stations
1,597 charging outlets

Tesla SCs
306 electric stations
2,039 charging outlets

What are You talking about?

Tesla have 800 more stalks.

Tesla have more stalks, higher speeds, and placement aimed at USA wide network.

CCS have less stalks, weaker charging speeds, placement/distribution aimed at serving urban areas.

Only Bolt appearance will incentivize rollout of CCS networks that could compete with superchargers.

So we will wait years for “competing” fast charging networks for long range travel.

Tesla’s network is still the best. But there’s no doubt the difference is diminishing. And when 150 kW CCS starts showing up in 2017 maybe even you will see where it’s headed. In two years it won’t matter which network you use in many places, and in five years that’ll likely be the case nearly everywhere.

“What are You talking about?”

I’m stating facts from Those are the #’s. CCS is ~60% of Tesla based on the number of outlets (I think you are calling “stalks”).

I wish I had the historical data for CCS handy though, as their increase rate seems to be faster than Tesla. We do have the history for Tesla from

Supercharge network is useless to me since the nearest one to where I live is 250+ miles away however I do have access to several DC chargers on plugshare much closer


crickets… chirp… chirp…

Competition is a great thing!

The article says:

“Then there’s the fact that several media outlets have already driven the Bolt well over its rated range, with some even reporting that 290 miles is possible on a single charge.”

I give points to GM marketing points for its successful, if rather less than honest, advertising campaign, in using a route carefully chosen to force drivers to drive at fairly low speed, and thus exaggerate the Bolt’s range.

And it’s rather boggling that a website which calls itself “InsideEVs” would publish an article parroting that spin; that propaganda. That’s about as far away from the “inside scoop” as you can get!

Someone once drove a Tesla Roadster 313 miles on a single charge. But just as with GM’s “scenic coastal drive” ad campaign for the Bolt, that’s not an example of real-world driving; it’s just a stunt.

Well, the Opel clone was driven from London to Paris in 417 km (259 miles) and had 80 km (~50 miles) left on the computer in Paris.
A very down to earth practical drive.

It’s not really a stunt. All they showed is it’s possible to drive 238 miles on a charge in mixed driving. That’s what most people do day to day.

Now could you drive at 70 to 75 MPH for that distance – no. But if all you do is drive in town you might see 300 miles before charging.

It’s only a stunt if you try to do the same thing in a Bolt on the same course and you can’t.

theflew said:

“All they showed is it’s possible to drive 238 miles on a charge in mixed driving. That’s what most people do day to day.”

Nope. Most people driving that far in a single day would choose the fastest route the get there, which usually means driving most of the way at freeway speed. If you go out for a “scenic drive”, then your objective is not to get there as soon as possible.

A “scenic drive” is an outlier, not the norm.

I plan to use the Bolt as intended to be a commuter car. My round trip commute is 148 miles. The “stunt” as you call it is very similar to my real world driving. This gives me confidence that I can drive my route year round. I average 47mph in mixed driving.I am not a fan of the bashing by fans of one company or another. I have read enough of your posts to know you really have a lot of informative things to share and I appreciate that. For me the Bolt is a vehicle that will better meet my likes and needs than the Model 3 and I hope they are both successful in the market. I will be interested in the Model Y when it becomes a reality too.

When Model S came out – several auto publications did range tests – and a couple were LA to Vegas. It seems natural people will judge pivotal new EV models by range – especially at first. That said, you’re totally right. GM is planning for 30,000 Bolt EVs/yr and said they have capacity to build 50,000 of them if it’s a “big hit”. Model 3 has an ever-growing fueling infrastructure which makes each Tesla more and more comparable to owning a conventional car as long-distance routes will not require the planning, hassle and uncertainty that most current EVs deal with ( CHAdeMO, CCS ). As a second or third car – Bolt EV is fantastic. It’s 238 miles range will be reduced, naturally, in hill country or colder/hotter weather. If you charge 90% of the time at home – this makes Bolt EV a really cool choice for that commuter/city duty car. It does seem irrational, all this comparison between a FWD Crossover and a RWD sport sedan. I’ll take 200 miles with abundant 30 minute+ fueling opportunities vs. over 238 miles with spotty and few fueling opportunities at 1 hour+ any day. But that is beyond direct comparison because… Read more »
SparkEV-Fiat500-Leased - M3 Reserved - Bolt- TBD

M3 still far from production so non-measure

Tesla does have to get its efficiency ratings up if it wants to brag about drag and cool tech stuff too.

Our Spark is crazy efficient, even with AC + 75MPH driving. Glad that GM was able to translate that over to Bolt and tweak the 40-60 MPH speed issue without sacrificing performance.

Sorry, but I get annoyed when somebody refers to the Bolt as a second or third car. It should/could be the primary car for ANY household, with an ICE or other vehicle as the backup for the VERY small percentage of trips that it can’t do.


125 miles round trip here, I’m very seriously considering a Bolt if I can make the financing work. I was hoping they would add adaptive cruise as well as that’s something that I’d really like for my busy end of the commute, though I’ve heard it will likely be added in 2018, so I may save up and hope that it happens. ~60 mph average speed for me. If it had exactly 200 miles of range I was going to be a bit worried with MI winters (maybe unreasonably so, I just started this commute a month ago so we’ll see how winter goes), though I have no doubt the 238 rating will give me any issues!

In point of fact, 238 miles is the EPA-rated range for the Bolt. GM can print that in every ad and every news outlet can report it, just as they have reported the EPA-rated range for the Model S for years.

238 miles on a Bolt is not “spin,” “propaganda,” or a “stunt.”

I think the biggest question in regards to that number has to do with drag at Highway speeds. How much high speed drag is accounted for in generating the EPA numbers? I for one want the range on the highway at speed. Since I charge at home and don’t have a large commute ‘urban’ numbers don’t matter. We all have different needs and the goal should be to have products available to fit your need, not one product for everyone.

The key to the good range is to drive in rush hr with the air off and the windows down. I got 23mi/kwh on a 3 mile trip last week in my chevy spark ev.

The maximum you’ll see with SparkEV is 51.1 mi/kWh (drove 4.1 miles) I suspect that’s due to 9 bit number used to represent things.

If it was downhill then maybe regen was putting most of energy back to battery pack?
Is spark capable of such regen?

Know that Tesla S is, and will increase the range AND kWh going steep downhill.

Yes, it was down hill. My point being that that’s the maximum it will display no matter how much regen you get. In case above, it was 10-15 kW regen for almost all the way. Did it couple of times with and without traffic light stops, and the number was the same.

As for the post above, I suspect his high mi/kWh was also due to down hill. SparkEV would top out at about 8 mi/kWh on flat road at about 24 MPH. Though bit slower may get slightly more, going much slower will result in less mi/kWh due to quiescent power (ie, displays pumps, etc) taking bigger portion compared to driving power.

Yes it was a great marketing move. However, the range is officially 238 miles. No argument about that. It’s highly unlikely the Model 3 will beat that in the base configuration, but it’s equally likely this won’t stop some from arguing that under some specific circumstances the Model 3 will go further.

If you reject this argument then your position is well founded. But if you accept it then your position is not, because once you’re on the slippery slope of positing range based on specific routes rather than on the official range test, then you’re hardly in a position to complain about someone else using a specific course to demonstrate range.

Personally I thought the London to Paris with range to spare demo was even better.

The speed limit is 55 mph on that “scenic route”. Not exactly slow.

Well, we can be pretty sure that Tesla will offer more than one battery size. So it is kind of a stupid question.

I see no problem with a 215 mile range Model 3 . . . especially if they hit that $35K target price. 215 is fine the vast majority of driving. And if you want more, buy the bigger battery.

Tesla might offer a larger battery but will it cost you $8500 more?

Short answer: No.

Long one: Tesla aim at 43 000 average sales price tag. So trims above it will be spreed no more then 5 000$ over multiple trims.

The issue is, if Tesla produces a 300 mile Model 3, being that its main rallying call has been range, will it undermine the Model S as its range can no longer be used as a reason to purchase. Tesla needs to shift from range to a different sales boast.

It needs to produce something closer to the advertised $35k. Battery under 60 kWh is one of features that helps to get closer to it. Otherwise it would be yet another incarnation of $70+ vanity car that will have hard time selling in significant numbers just because of price tag and increasing competition.

I think some Tesla high brass already stated that they aim at less then 60kWh AND battery price lower then 140$ per kWh.

With better drag coefficient, they only need smaller weight to consistently beat Bolt at range.

Is it possible? Dunno. Will have to wait and see.

On the other hand there will be plenty of selling points for Model 3.

Straight line speed?
More torque?
Better driving characteristics? (Torque vectoring, traction control, etc)

Really 200 or 300 doesn’t make much difference unless you have supercharging. I’ve had a model S for over a year and have never needed more that 150 miles of range except when I’m travelling.

The bolt’s highway range is only 218-ish. I think it will be easy for the model 3 to exceed the bolt.

The problem is that my family can’t wait. Our lease on a FFE is up and we need to replace it this fall, December the latest.

Why not extend your lease for a year? I’m in a similar situation. My FFE lease ends July 2017. I plan on extending my lease while I wait to see how the Model 3 pans out.

Might want to check on that… last year when I asked the question, I was told that they’ll extended for a couple of months at most, and will longer if you have another Ford product on order that you’re waiting for.

I believe that’s up to the dealer. When I asked, I was told that I could get an additional year without a problem.

Tesla is in the enviable “fast follower” marketing position of being able to tweak the Model ≡ for more range, or choosing not to.

I can’t agree with Speculawyer’s characterization of this as “a stupid question”, but it’s certainly true that Tesla will be offering the option of larger battery sizes for longer ranges… which the Bolt won’t.

One thing is certain: The difference between a ~215 mile BEV and a ~238 mile BEV is a heck of a lot less important than the difference between an ~81/~84* mile BEV and a ~215 mile BEV!

*range of the 2015 BMI i3 / 2015 Nissan Leaf

It’s doubtful Tesla can tweak the Model 3’s range at this point, as far as the major factors go: Drivetrain engineering & platform/body have been finalized, so:
— Battery & motor can’t be changed
— Body can’t be changed, so no significant aerodyanamic or weight improvements.

Now sure, they could still do SW tweaks, e.g., limit motor output or allow deeper discharge cycles, but that’s it. They could also tweak the pricing (make the base version and/or higher-battery option more attractive financially), but that’s different.

(*) If they haven’t, the car is a long way away from mass production.

no, if model 3 retains pack structure using dummy cells like old 60, they can easily change pack size by 1-1,2 kWh steps till it fills up

If they were going to have multiple pack sizes to begin with, they they must have set it up with room for more battery.

I’m thinking they are going to increase the baseline battery size to meet/beat the Bolt EV. That means they will be giving battery away that they had intended to sell originally. So it is possible, but will eat into profits (if there are any profits on the baseline model).

Yep, I bet Tesla will meet or beat the Bolt’s range, and it might be by never selling what was originally going to be the base battery pack. I.e. maybe they were planning on a 50 kwh base pack, but now they make it 60 kwh.

Exactly, and I bet they announce it this month to avoid losing sales to Bolt EV (those interested in buying base Model 3 might jump).

Well they have the “unexpected product” to reveal on the 17th, so maybe they will wait until next month. Unless the unexpected product is a trailer of batteries. 😀

The other issue Tesla has is differentiation between the S and 3… If the base Model 3 will offer range significantly longer than the base S (say, 250+ mi. vs. 210), it won’t look so good for the S.

True, but once Tesla is selling the Model 3, they no longer will have nearly the need for a low end Model S. I expect the 60 kwh Model S will be history before the Model 3 comes out.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

What’s important is the range at highway speeds!

The bolt gas a highway mpg of 110mpg and the Tesla s 60D has 107 which is virtually the same meaning the model s has pretty much the same range as bolt. Even if model 3 only gets exactly 215 miles EPA it will still be better than the bolt at highway speeds.

My friend once thought of a title for a book on chess which I though was quite good, it was: “Board to Pieces.”
Sort of what I felt watching this race.

The smart move for Tesla is to focus on highway range, especially at real world speeds (EPA highway test averages 48 mph). If Tesla launches with 50 kWh base version with 220 EPA highway and 70 kWh premium version with 300 they’ll be well positioned vs. the Bolt at 218 EPA highway.

Tesla can have magazine writers pit M3 vs. Bolt at 70 mph on real trips (e.g. LA to Tahoe like the recent Tesla vs. Mirai test by Edmunds).

What if the Bolt EV wins?

If the Bolt wins the range war, and it may…
There is still a pretty significant part of the population that wouldn’t be caught in a Chevrolet. I think this is one of the major contributors to the lack of success with the Volt. It’s a great car, but people go “eww…Chevy…no thanks.”

It’s not always just about one metric. Perception of the brand has just as much, if not more, to do with the purchase decision.

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

Their loss – our gain.

Never been a GM fan based on styling, but they won us over with the Spark. Will they keep us with the Bolt? Our dog is the deciding factor.

too true

LA-Tahoe is 450 miles, so you need a couple of fast-charging stops. No way Bolt wins that race.

I don’t think Bolt can win a range contest at 70 mph, either.

But what if it does?

Very unlikely. Aerodynamics on the Model 3 are so much better than the Bolt and that is the dominating factor at 70 mph.

I expect the Bolt to have better city range, the base Model 3 to have better highway range, and the combined number to be about the same with Tesla edging out the Bolt.

Still didn’t answer the question.

If the Bolt has better 70 mph range than the base Model 3 I will be surprised. It would be an embarrassment to Tesla that would hurt them in marketing and word of mouth, and would hurt sales of the base Model 3.

I’d guess the Bolt EPA highway range is about 210 or 220 miles. If the base Model 3 can’t do better than that, then it’s not a credible ‘do everything’ car that can sell hundreds of thousands as Tesla plans.

“But what if it does?”

If the Bolt brick manages to have more range than the M3 at 70 mph then I’d expect Tesla to talk about other stuff. Like Supercharging. Or colonizing Mars 🙂

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

Who really cares — pissing match on range;
Different cars for different needs.

If M3 maintains a good range and performance, it’ll replace my G37+Fiat

If Bolt is capable hauler for the family, will replace the CRV+Spark

And then we’ll be a mostly EV family instead of giving so much DMV business to the State

Regardless of what Tesla says, I know it will be an interesting conversation on this site. I will brace myself for the spin.

too true, inevitability is a beotch..

If Bolt wins range and some other metrics, then suddenly GM finds itself in a position where everybody wants Bolt.

That means bigger orders for LG and bigger capacity increases.

EVs benefit.

Heck Musk can die today, fire can devour Teslas factories….

And it will mean nothing to EV revolution. Everybody felt the blood already. EVs are a way to win top luxury segment. Every company will be pressed by stakeholders to make a plans for that segment involving EVs 😉

Tesla demise would actually accelerate the process as there would be vacuum there. 😉

So GM provide better EV at that price tag? Good. Tesla provide better EV at that price tag? Also good.

That 48 MPH average really helps the less aerodynamic cars look like appealing Long Range Leaders. There should be a mileage test for the constant speed of 65 MPH between useable battery capacity, of 80% down to 20% remaining. Li-ion car batteries are better cycled in that 80%-20% charge window. The longer trips, with multiple recharges, are benefited with shorter stops, and less battery heat build up and degradation. Lighter cars that slip through the wind at high speed(65+MPH), should get an EPA measurement metric all their own, that gives consumers some comparison numbers on miles per kWh used at around 65 MPH from battery capacity 80% down to 20%.

“Tesla can have magazine writers pit M3 vs. Bolt at 70 mph on real trips (e.g. LA to Tahoe like the recent Tesla vs. Mirai test by Edmunds)”

Well, Edmunds already did the test and Tesla already lost badly despite all the supercharger network, going shorter route over Nevada, Mirai driver missing exit and traveling extra 18 miles or so, and Model X being leased for around 3 times more than competitor. The reality is if you frequently travel significantly over battery car range, you will waste a lot of your time. It may be ok to extend range to some 300 miles with short charge during some rare road trip. But going over the whole mid US at 80 mph speed limit – I wouldn’t advise it to anybody. Just get Volt or Prius and forget the hassle.

very true
Presently, not forever we hope, but Presently — the flyover states with scenic vacations to Die for are a DC charge wasteland. and sadly lacking in good “tweets” about how much the situation is improving, what we were led to believe would be the case. Glad Europe is getting love, as the Much of the US.. Isn’t.

In the grand scheme of things, does 23 (worse case) miles make any difference? I live in L.A. and it appears both vehicles would get me 200ish miles to Vegas without needing to charge…However, to make it Mammoth Lakes CA, it’s 300ish miles, I couldn’t make it to either without charging…Additional issues are there may be no way to charge where-ever I stay overnight (lots of rental cabins) so I’d still have to deal with destination chargers and again charge on my way back home…

At the speed of that corridor, neither car may make it. EPA is not range at 75 mph. So that 20 miles might make the difference. Usually, you could make it up by driving 70 but that might be annoying to you.

Given that the Tesla site advertises 215 miles, it will have 215 of EPA range.

What Tesla will also do is provide a range chartfor 65 mph which will exceed the EPA (just like it did for the Model 60) to give the impression of greater range to consumers without putting it on the base model window sticker.

That’s how Tesla will play the base model 3.

The reason it’s important is market perception. Tesla is supposed to be the leader of the EV revolution, that’s how they sell their cars and that’s what is keeping the stock price up. If it turns out that once one big name manufacturer put some effort into an EV they knock Tesla out then what does Tesla have left? Supercharging maybe but that is also just a temporary lead. 150 kW CHAdeMO and CCS are coming which will even out Tesla’s advantage in that regard. Drag racing? You can only go so far on a 1/4 mile strip (lol).
Tesla is getting some serious competition now, which is good or bad depending on how you see it.

You have little idea how vastly owning a Tesla differs from other cars.

Yes this gap may diminish one day but all I see is talk.

It sure is different when it comes to paying for repairs not covered by warranty but not in Tesla’s favor.

Who wants to make a bet, mine is:
– Base Model 3 with 55 kWh battery, 252 miles EPA range and 5,6 s for 0 to 60 mph;
– Model 3 with 70 kWh battery, 318 miles EPA range and 4,5 s for 0 to 60 mph;
– Model 3 P with 70 kWh battery, 300 miles EPA range and 3,9 s for 0 to 60 mph (Ludicrous mode with 3,3 s for 0 to 60 mph).

sure, I’ll bite:
add a second to every metric but the DL (at a price commensurate with the lowest-priced MS), which will come in at 3.9

I don’t see Tesla undercutting their own products with no viable competition elsewhere.

one crisp Benjamin – my charity is the same as Amazon:

Wounded Warrior Project
c u in ’18!

I have both a Bolt and a Tesla M3 on order. I don’t consider them to be in competition at all. I would not, and don’t plan to, use Bolt for long distance trips after the M3 arrives. My most common trips here in California are from San Jose to LA, and San Jose north to Oregon. For both trips the Tesla would be markedly superior, with half the charge time.

The reason I will go bolt is for the hatchback and the first to market arrival. It will get used for longer trips around the bay area than I could practically do with the Leaf, but I expect the Tesla to get that role after it arrives.

I am leasing the Bolt instead of buying because I believe that GM will be forced to upgrade their charging abilities to meet competition. Thus the car is a placeholder for now.

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

Do you have the lease details available since on order already?

Nope. Planning to call them this week, but that is based on information I saw here at insideevs.

“For both trips the Tesla would be markedly superior, with half the charge time.”
Note that the Tesla will not charge twice as fast as the Bolt EV.

Bolt EV 30 minutes = 90 miles
Telsa M3 30 minutes = 102 miles

What do you base these numbers on? I bet there will be a bigger gap.

GM’s Bolt EV website:
“Bolt EV offers available DC Fast Charging capability, which provides a GM-estimated up to 90 miles of range in about 30 minutes of charge time.”

Real-world testing done with a Model S 60:

(before you say this was the “old” Model S 60 battery, do you think they are going to put 15kWh of extra cells in the base Model 3, that are software blocked?)

You use GM website for Bolt charging range/time but you didn’t use Tesla website.

Compare Apple with Apple please.

Tesla’s website doesn’t have data for the Model S 60. (nor the Model 3)

As you can see from the graph, only first 10 minutes charging from empty or so exceed 60 kW charging power (1 C rate). Not so much difference in practice when you restrict power to 50 kW (0.83 C rate) for 60 kWh battery, especially keeping in mind that you don’t want to try your luck and plan to arrive to charging station with zero reserve. Now you may scream that Soul EV or Spark EV (at least with early battery version) can charge at much higher C rate most of the time. E.g. 70 kW on Soul EV. But they have different battery chemistry with lower specific energy. If it would be so easy to do it with NCA or NMC and keep longevity and specific energy in place, Tesla would had done it long time ago – but they didn’t. It isn’t impossible, maybe it will happen by the time Model 3 will reach mass production some years later. But I’m not holding my breath, it looks like M3 will use the same NCA as Model S in a bit different form factor. It looks Bolt will be limited to 50 kW too in the first model year,… Read more »

newer Ses have better tapper curve

2015+ SparkEV with LG’s NMC charges / discharges at higher C rate than 2014 SparkEV (LFP?). 2015 has smaller battery, but same power. Actually, 2015+ is rated slightly higher discharging power than 2014. If strictly going by chemistry, LG’s NMC is quicker.

But C rating is more than just chemistry. We know Tesla overheats on extended high speed driving which is discharge power levels of superchargers. If it didn’t overheat, would it be capable of higher power? I suspect it could.

I’d hesitate to apply results from Model S 60 to the Model 3, which is an all-new design.

Tesla has already applied new pack construction and cooling tricks to the Model S, in the new P100DL, and I would not be at all surprised to see the Model 3 designed and built to accept a higher charge rate than the old Model S 60 accepted.

Also, GM’s ‘up to 90 miles range’ doesn’t give us very much real info. Are they talking about EPA highway, steady state 45 mph, EPA city, or what? Big differences between those figures.

Where do you get these data ? Especially 90 miles for 30 minutes on Tesla Model 3. As far as I know all current Tesla vehicles can get about 170 miles for 30 minutes at supercharger.

I said 102 miles for the M3, not 90.

The “170 miles in 30 minutes” on Tesla’s website is based on the 90kWh car. Bigger batteries charge faster. It is expected the M3 will have a battery smaller than the S60. (unless Tesla has to rethink their strategy now that the Bolt EV has more than 215 EV miles).

Here’s the forum at Tesla where all of this was discussed. Enjoy.

Supercharging profile with the latest 90 and 100 kWh packs has changed.

It is highly unlikely that the Model 3 has 2013 era technology in the packs.

Therefore, your conjecture is certainly wrong.

90 and 100KWh packs will charge faster due to size. This has already been said several times. The M3 was reportedly to have a battery smaller than the Model S60, and would charge even slower than the S60.

If you are trying to say Tesla has some magical chemistry now which totally changes the charging times from the previous, the data doesn’t support this. The new packs are more energy dense, but nothing about increasing C-rates.

Cell chemistry isn’t the only variable in charge rate. Cell and pack construction, cooling, and power electronics all will affect. I agree with the poster above who suggested that the 2017 Model 3 will have more advanced technology than the 2013 Model S 60 had, and I expect they will achieve faster charge rates, even if it’s the same chemistry.

Model 3 range is bad, but also if you look Model X75 range is not good enough.

Abase model with the 215+ mile range would make sense if Tesla has fleet sales in mind. Government agencies, delivery services, utility companies, and car sharing services don’t need 300+ miles of range like a personal purchase would.
I’m as hopeful as the next person that there will be a 300+ mile option on the Model 3 (or Model Y).

Anyone who currently owns a VOLT and a TESLA knows the answer to this question. Tesla corporate is more honest than their sychophants.

Can’t wait until Motor Trend takes a BMW 3 Series out to the Mojave desert and drives it until it runs out of gas. Behind it will be a KIA Soul.

Perhaps this will be the new metric as to how ALL cars will be judged? Gas tank size will come into play when others judge the merit of all cars. And due to gas tank size, trucks will be range tested vs. sports cars and CUVs against luxury coupe and sedans.

Who cares. I mean really…?

On a side note I would say that this is probably the only thread on inside EVs where the word “fool” is accurately used 🙂

I hope nobody forgot that Elon Musk said that the Model III would be using the next-generation batteries. Regular InsideEVs readers know three things:
*The GM Bolt/Ampera is using LG Chem batteries
*It has a coefficient of drag on par with a Ford Transit Connect
*It is a smaller car than the Model III and ought to be lighter

My expectation is that the Model III will be EPA rated at 230 miles on the standard battery, and 270 miles on the larger battery. I also expect that six months after production, Tesla will announce that the standard battery is the extended battery, and it is software upgradeable for a price.

I for one sure how they don’t do that idiotic software limitation thing. It’s an insult to every intelligent being.

Can you please explain to me why building a more expensive pack and then software limiting it is better than building a pack that actually has fewer cells and therefore is cheaper to make?!?

I’ve even seen people bring to the table the truly insane idea that this is good because Tesla can enable the excess capacity when customers swap their car – “to fight depreciation”!

Please, show me the numbers. Do the math on how much more it costs to use the software-limited pack than it would to use a reality-limited pack, and how more than this amount is recuperated later.

I truly hate this kind of business practice. It’s just like the other modern segmentation crap – like selling the exact same chocolates at ten times the price in a fancy box compared to those in a simple plastic bag. If it wasn’t so common and some small business fifty years ago had done the same, we would all have regarded it as fraudulent behaviour.

Have to point out the blatant click-bait nature of the headline. Bolt only has one battery size while Model 3 has announced larger battery option since unveiling.

But there’s only 1 battery size for the “$35K” price point.

I think that GM has done their homework. Tesla needs to work on their wall-to-wheel losses, and I hope they revise their regen design, too.

Of course, we don’t know what the pack capacity will be on the base model 3 will be.

Maybe, it gets 215+ miles on a ~50-55kWh pack?

Not sure why everyone compares the Bolt to the Tesla. The Chevy is butt ugly and they are priced similarly.

It is very much similar to comparing Toyota RAV-4 to BMW 340i.

Personally, I found both Bolt and Model 3 to be ugly.

Model X is even worse.

Model S is the only supermodel of the family.

That makes no sense since all the Teslas are so similar.

I think Model 3 looks best of the bunch. The S looks really cool after the facelift. The X looks cool too, but is extremely imposing.

I think the Bolt looks good too, but not as good as the initial concept. And clearly not as sporty as the Teslas.

What cars do you think look great? F-150? ?

Similar isn’t the same. Model S is definitely the supermodel of the family.

Just because a family member is closely related to a supermodel, it doesn’t mean they are all supermodels…

Model X is too chunk for my taste. Looks like a Supermodel that gained 50% weight by going on Big Mac and Pizza diet without exercise for about 3 months…

Model 3 has slightly short proportion that looks too short in the rear and too thin in the front…

Bolt is just generic eco box looks. I mean it is as ugly or as good looking as a Honda Fit wherever that fits on one’s beauty scale.

F-150 doesn’t look good. But it looks powerful and muscular like what a “truck” should look like.

Did you just say you weren’t sure why everyone compares them…. and then compared them?

LOL. Are you surprised?

It is only logical if you agree with their “twisted” logic.

lol both

Well, 215 miles version of the Model 3 has just been cancelled due to low demand. /S



Good One! MMF made a funny.
(Checks to see if the sky is falling).

It is amusing to read word “certainly” when it is all about vaporware that exists as concept or at prototype level only. You can assign whatever features you want to it, even ability to fly to the Mars as 1,000,000 flying car squadron.

Seems like a fairly obvious answer. The Bolt EV goes further than the base Model S, and it’s hard to believe that the base Model 3 would have a greater range than the base Model 3. Doing that wouldn’t seem like a good idea from a marketing standpoint. So unless the base Model S gets a larger pack …

For me, a car’s performance ability is way more important than the range. Any EV with over 200 miles range is more than enough, especially if there is level 3 charging available. Frankly, I think focusing on range instead of acceleration speed and driving dynamics shows silly range anxiety, which is a product of ICE age thinking.

My ’70 ‘Vette had a ‘range’ of 150mi give or take. I had no problems getting to work and back.

Well, yes. And no. You’re probably right about range being pretty much the stupidest thing to focus on for most people when it’s high, let’s say above 200 miles. But we do live in the ICE age! People are super afraid to go electric because they imagine range is not sufficient and they’ll be stranded somewhere or at least constantly worried about it. So right now it makes perfect sense that the marketing focuses a lot on range. In the somewhat more mature but still emerging market of 2020 the focus may be elsewhere, perhaps autonomy. But for 2017 more affordable range really is what we needed and got, and hopefully the Bolt will allow many more to join the revolution.

If you want to use your car for long range travel, then range is important. Especially when you consider traveling in bad weather and in the mountains where EPA highway range will not be achievable. And it’s also important when you consider that you don’t want to have to charge to 100% at every stop because the charge rate slows down.

From my house the nearest SuperCharger traveling north is 243 miles away, through mountainous terrain, just as one example of where the difference between a low 200s mile range and a high 200s mile range could make a very big difference in travel time.

“We have identified a new cell that has 31% more energy than the original Roadster cell. Using this new cell we have created a battery pack that delivers roughly 70kWh(245 miles) in the same package as the original battery.” – Tesla

In true Tesla form, I expect there will be 2 to three different battery pack options. With the lowest range/entry model offering more range than the Bolt.

Does anyone have data on the 0-80% SOC DCFC time for the Bolt? I can calculate an estimate based on the “90 miles in 30 minutes” comment on their page and the 238 mile range but it would be great to see if anyone has a measurement available.

I find it hard to believe the 238 mile rating of the Bolt. May be the battery is actually more than 60kWh. I’d like to try this car for a week or so..

Late to the party, and who cares, but:

the 55kWh battery of the Base Model E will produce less total miles that the Bolt.

The Standard options of the Base Model E will be less than the Bolt.

The acceleration will improve upon the Bolt, I’ll guess 0-60 6.4-6.6 sec.

The seats will be Better than the Bolt.

For the few that have read the Whole history of the guy, GM stepped up to the challenge and answered Elon’s call to make a Good EV. He will not compete directly with it (he doesn’t Have to) nor is it in his interest to do so — his product is perceived as higher value buy the buyers, he Will offer Bolt-Beating (crushing) stats, just Not/Never at the Bolt’s price-range.

The Tesla will Never Ever be a price-conscious car – the $35k is a bottom-line This-is-Not-a-Model-S but it’s still a nice car that Approaches the Model S capabilities but is Obviously a lesser car than the flagship.

This is HS Marketing, for gawd sakes, and any who believe otherwise are oblivious to the Fact that this is a publicly traded company with shareholders holding Sir Elon accountable.

MHO (FUDless, I assure those-that-slowly-being-ignored)