Ride Along As The Chevrolet Bolt Goes 240 Miles With 50 Miles Of Charge Remaining – Video

OCT 13 2016 BY ERIC LOVEDAY 101

The Los Angeles Times has just released video from its earlier test drive of the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt.

Video description:

LA Times Test Drive Chevrolet Bolt

LA Times Test Drive Chevrolet Bolt

“The EPA rated the 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV at 238 miles per charge. Charles Fleming test drives one to see if that’s accurate.”

The mostly ride-along style video puts the viewer inside the Bolt as Fleming attempts a 240.5-mile journey.

Fleming notes in his written synopsis of the drive (read here):

“I finished the drive with 240.5 miles on the trip meter, just above the EPA number of 238.”

“But the onboard computer said I could continue driving, perhaps for another 50 miles, bringing my total to over 290 miles.”

Of course, real-world range varies quite considerably, but all of the first-drive reports of the Bolt state that the car is easily capable of exceeding its EPA-rated range.

(We should note at the end of the video itself Fleming says, off the cuff, that the drive was ~237 miles and he had about 60 miles of range remaining..so perhaps he had some time to further analyze the data when he sat down to pen the story?).

The range of the Bolt seems impressive and we’re certain that with the ordering process now open, lots of additional real-world range test videos will flood YouTube in the very near future.

Categories: Chevrolet, Videos

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

101 Comments on "Ride Along As The Chevrolet Bolt Goes 240 Miles With 50 Miles Of Charge Remaining – Video"

newest oldest most voted

Hmmm … that will not sit well with many people here.

Something is up, did he start the drive up in the sky and crossed only a couple of valleys … it’s GM product, it’s not supposed to perform that well, right?

Contrary to some of the hater opinions, GM’s plug-in products have continuously exceeded expectations, especially in terms of range estimates.

The real-world numbers over a calendar year in a Volt, ELR, and Spark EV all are much more consistent than many other plug-ins from other manufacturers.

GM’s conservative approach to battery design, motor/gearing efficiencies, and range estimates has been working quite well for them. Now if they could get their dealers on board…

+1

mxs said:

“Something is up…”

It sure is. This was a drive on a route carefully chosen by Chevy; a scenic drive — literally, mostly along a scenic coastal highway — that ensured the car was mostly kept to a low speed, and thus extended the range quite a bit past what people will generally experience when driving a long distance on a highway.

Any car, whether PEV (Plug-in EV) or gasmobile, driven at such a low speed, would exceed its expected range under these conditions.

It puzzles me that InsideEVs continues to post articles about these carefully arranged “test drives” without noting that they were conducted at a relatively low speed… and without explaining that this is definitely not indicative of the car’s real-world range at highway speed.

So, you think, somehow, that most commuters get to enjoy “highway” speeds during their rush hour drives? Travelling on hwy doesn’t automatically mean highway speed, which I assume you realize.

So again, why do you think that the drive was not representing majority of commuters?

I am not surprised that you replied, just disappointed that you didn’t offer more substance why would most people commutes represent true hwy speeds.

Only 2% of people are stretch commuters, and 80% of those commute 50 to 100 miles each way. So for the vast majority of people, having enough range to commute will not be an issue and that has never been in question. (Not that Chevy’s test drive reflected typical commuting)

What people _really_ want to know is what happens when the car is taken onto Interstates and Motorways and driven at higher speeds and into headwinds? How will range be affected by driving in cold weather with the heating on? Those important questions have yet to be answered.

The EPA hwy range is clearly on the window sticker and it’s larger than any EV with similar pack size.

While this absolute range in perfect weather is great and all, it’s worth noting you can lose at least 40% of your range by driving slowly in a Minnesota winter.

The thing is though, that still leaves a huge margin for you to get home with. I have every confidence that nobody will have any range anxiety even in the most adverse conditions with the Bolt. You can’t really say that with the current batch of EVs in the competition.

Come on, these are optimal conditions.
Now that it exceeds it’s range in optimal conditions is good.
But, lets be honest, modest highway speed and perfect temperature.

According to google maps, the 229 mile route takes 4 hrs and 51 minutes. That’s an average speed of around 47 mph.

That is a good deal faster than the average speed I regularly achieve during my regular commute.

It has enough range for commuting. Not in question. The question is how much range will there be when you really need the range.

Probably around 200 miles at highway speeds, which is very impressive!

EPA highway rating is 217 if I remember correctly.

I’ve got a 2011 Volt that I beat the p!ss out of and charge fully 2X/day. This morning, I had to drive to the GM Tech Center in Warren, MI which is 95% highway for me and about 35 miles. When the car was new, this was my daily commute and was a bit of a stretch on a cold morning. Well, it was 37 degrees this morning and I thought FOR SURE I wouldn’t make it on battery alone, but I set the cruise at 70 (vs my usual 80) and made it with 7 miles to spare. I have EVERY confidence in the Bolt.

PuPU, videos didn’t say the range test is for highway. Given that I get about 100 miles range on SparkEV with my normal driving (95 miles at 55 MPH), Bolt with higher MPGe rating than SparkEV could do close to 300 miles in typical driving, maybe even more. And that’s what the video is showing.

If you extrapolate from SparkEV, 70 MPH would result in about 200 miles range. It’s not going to be far worse like you seem to imply. Often times, you make comments without substantiative numbers as if it’s the worst thing going.

@Pushmi-Pullyu I call bull$h!t. On the 129-mile second half of the trip from Cambria to Santa Barbara, the Bolt did NOT take the low-speed (55 mph speed limit) scenic coastal highway, and instead drove 77 miles at “freeway speeds” on the inland sections of CA-1 and CA-101 (65 mph speed limit), and then drove 37 miles on CA-154 (55 mph speed limit) at “highway speeds” through a mountain pass with a 2,224 foot elevation, which eats up more range even after downhill regen than driving the same distance on a flat as can be Kansas highway. How did the Bolt do on the high-speed second half of the trip? The Bolt used up only 113 miles of range to travel the final 129 miles, showing 173 miles of range in Cambria and 60 miles of range in Santa Barbara (173 – 60 = 113). The reviewer in the video said the following: “The route I’d been given Chevrolet was 229 miles of mixed driving, city streets, 2 lane coastal road, 4 lane highway, and up and down some pretty steep hills.” “At the midway point, coming into Cambria. . . I still had about 173 miles of driving range left… Read more »

This is the inland route taken on the second half of the trip.

http://tinyurl.com/zwcwzud

Arrrg. In reading the source article in the La Times, the reviewer didn’t stay on the CA-101 for very long and instead hopped off after Pismo Beach to take take 55-mph side roads through the farming communities of Guadelupe and Orcutt, then hopped back on CA-101 at Los Alamos for a short while until he reached the turnoff for CA-154 near Los Olivos that took him over the San Marcos Mountain pass.

From the LA Times article:
“Following the Chevy route, I left the 101 below Pismo Beach and drove through the farming communities of Guadelupe and Orcutt, where speeds were closer to 55 mph. I tucked back onto the 101 at Los Alamos but left it again around Los Olivos. Ahead was the San Marcos Pass, the shorter route to Santa Barbara, but also the steeper one.”

Correct route on Google Maps:
http://tinyurl.com/zsecdhl

LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-bolt-ev-drive-20160912-snap-story.html

Why GM pre-arranged the route from Monterrey to Santa Barbara ? Some writers noted that they didn’t turn on A/C for the first half of the drive, and it took more than 5 hours to drove less than 230 miles.

Most drivers use I5 to travel between LA and San Francisco, few use US-101 and very few use PCH.

Bolt’s range is impressive for a 60 kWh battery pack, but on Interstate Highway at normal traffic speed of around 80 MPH the range will be substantially less than 238 miles, partially because of very high drag coefficient.

Christ, if you do a lot of Interstate traveling at 80mph then just don’t buy this car. How friggin hard is it?

Jeeze Louise, Pu-pu! It is a perfectly valid test drive, even though the route was planned by GM. And while it’s not the most challenging route possible, it sure isn’t the easiest route possible either. There are plenty of perfectly flat routes that would yield superficially more impressive results, and it simply isn’t true that it was just a scenic drive. They drove on the freeway for a significant proportion of the trip.

As you know full well, the Ampera-e was driven from London to the Paris auto show and again had plenty of range left.

It also has an EPA highway range of 218 miles. Which you can compare to Model S60.

Whatever way you want to bend things, it is clear that the Bolt has impressive range and it definitely overdelivers compared to what everyone, including you, expected.

“It sure is. This was a drive on a route carefully chosen by Chevy; a scenic drive — literally, mostly along a scenic coastal highway — that ensured the car was mostly kept to a low speed,”

And how does EPA test condition look compared against this particular route?

I am willing to bet that it is extreme similar…

So, it would suggest that BOLT exceeds EPA range on the EPA testing conditions and range.

I don’t know you’ve ever driven on that route, if not try it as its truly one of the great drives in the world , but I wouldn’t have thought its ideal to show an EV’s range. Its a hell of a lot of up and down and quite steep in places. Obviously its all going to be at relatively slow speed but even with good regenerative braking I wouldn’t have thought you could totally recapture all the energy you expend going up all those hills. So I bet they could have chosen somewhere that would be easier on range than that route. One of the reasons though is its just a fantastic trip and bound to put them in a good mood and I’m sure thoroughly researched beforehand.

I regularly get 40-54.8 miles in my Chevy Volt that is a 2015 with 38 miles range. I don’t drive like a Granny either. I drive normally.

Just for reference in my 2014 FFE I never get the full mileage out of the battery like I do on my Volt.

Same here.
I never been able to go the distance my Leaf was suppose to do and I’ve try hard.
So if the Bolt is doing it with spare range, it’s a success and it’s encouraging.

Are you a Schill for the oil companies disn a better way to get around gas guzzlers are so last century get on board

Haha! So true. I’m not a GM fan but I give them props for making and selling some really nice EV products with the Volt and Bolt.

He got a -5 on the driving technique scoring. How in the world do you get a -5 in CA with the temps around 70 degrees? LOL!
Great car, wish it was a bit sportier and I hope that GM has future proofed it by making it capable of charging at a 75 kW charge rate for the future CCS system.

Argh! He got a -5 on Climate settings not driving technique… Oh well. His driving is better than my typing.

70f air temps can easily send the HVAC into heat mode if you have the cabin temp set higher. Newbie drivers typically don’t see the drain so coaches/ratings are good aids.

Interesting. I tend to turn on the AC at around 60 degrees and up. My Volt is just about permanently set on AC Eco 1 in the spring and fall. Doesn’t seem to impact my range too much. Maybe the author likes his car a bit hotter.

I believe the 50 miles left range estimation is heavily based on the last part of the drive which was the downhill run to the coast (and probably little to no a/c use). How many kWh’s left in the battery is the more important figure.

Perhaps, but traditionally, GM’s range estimate of miles remaining has been very conservative, and is based on a longer moving average than just the past few miles.

For example, the range estimates on the Volt and Spark are much more predictable and stable than on the Leaf (which is where the term “guess-o-meter” was originally coined).

Time will tell, people will have Bolts in their driveways soon enough!

+1

You are free to believe what you want, including that there’s an invisible man in the sky who listens to your prayers. 🙂 But your private beliefs aren’t necessarily very interested. Maybe your reasoned opinion is – if you have one. I think it seems entirely plausible. He says he had 73 miles left before starting the climb and ran it down to 43 on the top. Regaining 7 miles of range going down doesn’t seem unrealistic at all. And in ANY case you must admit that going down is unlikely to have depleted the battery further. So if the system is heavily biased by the last stretch of driving like you suspect, he ought to have had at least 43 miles of further uphill climbing left at the top. In any case it seems obvious that he does not have LESS after he’s driven down than he did at the top, which means he had at a minimum 43 miles left when he arrived. I think it’s an impressive car. If it turns out it’s possible to get an Ampera-e this spring – I’m fairly sure Opel Norway won’t get anywhere near enough cars to satisfy demand – I… Read more »

I’ve owned two plug in hybrids so yes I have a very good understanding of EV range, the conditions that affect it, and how the EV range estimate is affected by said conditions.

Again, a look at the remaining kWh’s is a much better and realistic figure on how many miles are “left in the tank”. Also, watts/mile on that drive would be good to know too.

The L.A. Times is a “newspaper” that hates Tesla. Always publishing negative articles about Tesla, often made up. (remember the 5 billion in tax breaks article?)

They are anxious to convey the notion that other BEVs are doing very well. Hence… overly positive news of this sort. Take it with a pinch of salt… it’s the L.A. Times.

That said, the Bolt appears to be doing well on mileage. Let’s see how it fares as we head into winter.

Agree…I think its mainly their fear of lost ad revenue, which Tesla does none and GM does a lot….$$$$$…as usual

What about the other media outlets that did the same journey and got similar results?

Yep, there were like 4 or 5 (maybe more)

http://insideevs.com/chevrolet-bolt-first-drive-reports/

Car&Driver tested the Bolt the same day, these are summary of their test: “My first move was to use the Bolt’s electronic shifter to put the car in “Low” mode, enabling the most aggressive level of regenerative braking to recapture more energy. During the first part of the route on scenic Highway 1, I wasn’t able to push the pace much because of a fair amount of tourist traffic, and cooler temperatures meant that I was comfortable leaving the air conditioning off. After transitioning to the straighter, flatter, and faster Highway 101, the temperature had started to climb, so I turned on the automatic climate control to 72 degrees. Right off the bat, the main range number dropped by around 10 miles (the Bolt’s instrument cluster also displays a maximum and minimum range number). Driving the Bolt EV at highway speeds, between 65 and 70 mph, also caused the number to begin dropping more quickly. When I arrived in Santa Barbara, having driven 237.8 miles, the Bolt’s display showed 34 miles of range remaining. I had used 50.1 kWh of total energy, making for an average efficiency of 4.8 miles per kWh. Impressive numbers all around that clearly show the… Read more »

They are in a sense correct. The Bolt is a much lower performance vehicle. If people drove a Model S the way they would drive a Bolt, they would get much better range than if they take advantage of the power that the car gives them.

In the real world, the Bolt might have more range on average for that reason. It won’t mean a Tesla can’t get that range.

It’s a moot point in real world driving though. With either car, drivers could be able to get five times their daily average, and unless they are on a long trip, nightly charging will mean it won’t be an issue.

On a long trip, if a given Tesla has 20 miles less range, it might mean 3-5 minutes more at a supercharger. Presumably a person would be on a long trip and would have stopped anyway, and wouldn’t likely need a full charge to get to the next stop. For someone who charges during a lunch stop, there wouldn’t be a difference.

“The Bolt is a much lower performance vehicle”
——–

Model 3 = 0-60 in under 6 seconds
Bolt EV = 0-60 in under 7 seconds

Woooowwww.. Yuge difference :/

No, EPA ratings are relatively light driving, the Tesla is less efficient for other reasons and EPA rating reflects that. I imagine less efficient motors and tires are biggest culprits.

“Tesla is less efficient for other reasons and EPA rating reflects that.”

There is no EPA rating for Tesla Model 3, the minimum 215 miles range is an estimate.

if you put in the destination on navigation, would the range predictor be any better, knowing that you will go downhill after uphill ?

I guess the question is whether or not the range estimator takes altitude changes into account, or not. Most of them don’t take into account such things as temperature and altitude changes, but since the Bolt is a new model, we can hope it will.

I don’t know if it does, and I don’t know if he’d programmed his route into the GPS. But IF he had and it does, it did a fairly bad job with it. He states he had 43 miles left at the top and 50 miles when he arrived, so if the 43 miles were supposed to include the future regen he’d have going down, it is conservative in the extreme.

“Fleming notes: I finished the drive with 240.5 miles on the trip meter, just above the EPA number of 238. But the onboard computer said I could continue driving, perhaps for another 50 miles, bringing my total to over 290 miles.”
—————-

In the video he says he drove 237 miles, and it showed 60 miles of range remaining.

No doubt about it. GM designed the Bolt well. All EV proponents should be praising it as a harbinger of great things to come in the industry.

The Bolt definitely raises the bar for PEVs, especially with its great range.

Too bad Chevy thought it needed to exaggerate that range with relatively low speed, scenic “test drives” to advertise the car.

Just how much backlash will there be against the car, when buyers realize that the Bolt doesn’t live up to the promise of these milk-run test drives? Maybe a little, maybe a lot. One thing is certain: There will be some. 🙁

Check out the latest Toyota Prime first reviews/drives. They did the same thing with a city and backroads route that made sure all the drivers ended with meeting or exceeding EPA.

Typical advertising tactics. Very misleading and disingenuous. The EPA range is already spectacular. Why not let people experience the 238 miles in a more typical driving route instead of selecting a route that artificially inflates the range. This will hurt them in the long run. Especially when people who are new to EVs buy this car and then learn the car will not actually do 290 miles.

If they ignore the sticker, the advertisements, the countless easily accessible articles and documents that state 238 miles, then I’m sure that their life is already full of many disappointments and mishaps from poor decision making.

LOL.

I love how naysayers are trying to spin this as a “bad thing”.

There are worse conditions in which range will be significantly less. But actually this isn’t ideal conditions. A good proportion of the trip – a little under half – was on freeways, and there were significant elevation changes.

It’s pretty good real-world conditions. And that’s OK.

The “Freeway” in this test is US-101 with speed limit of 55 MPH. Most traffic is on I-5 and the flow is 80-85 MPH.

I travel between Orange County and Silicon Valley more than once a year, 90% of the trips were on I-5, only 10% were on US-101 because it took about 1-2 hours extra.

PCH is a terrific road for sightseeing, but not for traveling between So Cal and No Cal.

“Too bad Chevy thought it needed to exaggerate that range with relatively low speed, scenic “test drives” to advertise the car.”

It isn’t exaggerating anything. It is that range for that condition which each and EVERY reviewer clearly stated the route and conditions.

You are making it into something more than what it is.

Tesla also states EPA range and various other ranges based on speed as well. When the speed is slower, Tesla also gets far higher range.

Consumer REport will buy the car and do their own testing to show the real world ragne (which TEsla to have lower than EPA range in CR’s testing. But they are extreme and include winter driving).

Other magazine such as Motortrend will sure to do their respective longer term evaluation.

Of course, the fair evaluation would be the LA to LV trip which everyone will be anxious to see.

Currently Bolt can’t make LA to Vegas trip because there is no fast charging on I-15 between LA and Vegas.

maybe, but it is too early to tell.

a more rational approach would be to call it a good design after 1-2 years of sales, maybe the batteries will have some hidden bugs, maybe the renowned Chevy build quality will be not as great, or maybe not. I do wish that Bolt is a success and that tesla will exceed their sales expectations asap. The faster the ICE will die the better.

EV owners in the audience know exactly how to do this. First, have a net elevation decrease. Second, don’t have a lot of ups and downs. Third, and not last, drive 45mph.

+1

Well said! You should have no problem finding a job with VW, MB, BMW et al. nowadays. 🙂

Well this drive was from Monterey to Santa Barbara.

Starting elevation was 26′ above sea level. Ending elevation was 49′. So they actually went uphill. They also went over a large hill, which is not great for efficiency. Besides all this, they still significantly beat the EPA rating.

And for an hour and a half they drove on the freeway.

Granted, it’s hardly the most difficult conditions imaginable. But it is impossible to believe that Pupu and the rest of them would have had the same level of supicion and “skepticism” had this been a Tesla product!

Someone needs to take a Model S60 on the same route.

I nominate Mr. Broudeur from the NY Times. 😉

Lol, it will be out of charge after 150 miles then 😀

Do you think someone would try to compare MPG of Toyota Corolla with BMW M3 ?

Bolt and Tesla Model S are 2 different class of vehicle, one is sub-compact CUV with narrow tire emphasize in fuel efficient(in this case electron efficient), Tesla Model S is a high-performance luxury sedan with wider tire for performance/handling.

Comparing Chevy Bolt with Model 3 is more valid, for both vehicles have similar price and range. I think for city driving Bolt will be more efficient but Tesla Model 3 will be better on highway, especially at speed above 75-80 MPH.

Before we pounce on GM for the preselected route being strategically misleading, consider that this same drive had been taken by several other journalists that had less range at the end of the drive.

Lots of FUD in comments above. Bolt gets better MPGe than SparkEV, and SparkEV with 18.4 kWh at constant 55 MPH resulted in 95 miles range. Then Bolt at 60 kWh should result in 309 miles. Assuming some reserve, it would be less, but the figure in video is certainly real.

Now if you throw in traffic jams and slower average speed than 55 MPH, you’ll do better. My range per full charge is almost 100 miles, even more than 55 MPH range. Then Bolt could exceed 300 miles even when you consider the reserve.

At 70 MPH, SparkEV would do about 70 miles range. Assuming some reserve, Bolt may do close to 200 miles. Yeah, it’s not close to almost 300 miles in the video. But the video never said it’s highway test, and the official figure never stated it’d be 300 miles.

On my trip from Angel Stadium, I drove 90 miles with 4 miles of range remaining in my i3. FWY and stop and go traffic conditions. 5.1 mi/kWh average. 90 miles on around 18kWh of charge,(basically 56% of a gallon of gas energy equivalent). 170MPGe. So to expect 300 miles out of 60kWh would be at the same 5 mi/kWh. That would be pretty darn efficient, but not an achievable in everyday driving.

What are you, a speed demon? 😉

Whenever I go to LA, I get close to 6 mi/kWh (battery to wheels). Traffic SUCKS! Considering I get almost 5.3 mi/kWh at 55 MPH (which is impossible speed in LA) and i3 is more efficient, you must drive like a madman.

I hope Samsung doesn’t make the batteries.

LG makes pretty much everything sans the rolling chassis. If you call the Tesla Roadster a Tesla and not a Lotus, we should really call this the LG Bolt.

PS. BMW sources their EV batteries exclusively from Samsung.

Stop the FUD, the car is designed by GM.

“we should really call this the LG Bolt.”

Only someone who has very little engineering understanding of the automotive field would make such stupid and misinforming statement.

Of course, they will try to defend their ignorance with the list of the components that LG builds but fail to realize that those components put together don’t represent anything even remotely like a car.

What about the LGM Bolt?

So much sour grapes in this comment section! Fact is that the Bolt EV has 238 miles of EPA range, and a bunch of journalists (not just the LA Times) did this real world trip and beat that range with range to spare. Sure it wasn’t driving full highway speed the whole time but in reality you actually don’t drive full highway speed very often at all. There are all kinds of reasons why, sometimes you only need the highway for a shorter bit or there might be a car pileup for some reason.
I really doubt that GM told these journalists to hypermile, if GM did I’m sure they would refuse.

Looking at the efficiency scores, it looks like many didn’t hypermile at all and also used a lot of energy for cabin heating/cooling.

sparkEV+Fiat500e-Leased - M3 Reserved, Bolt-TBD

Cause so many refuse to believe that GM could actually get to market ahead of Tesla with a $30,000 after Fed rebate vehicle with 200+ miles.

Only thing left is the claim that the Supercharger network is all that special.

Let’s see 4 years from now the # of Model 3 hitting the network (or even buying the Supercharger option at that).

Tesla may have an option for Model 3 owners to “pay-as-you-charge”. Model 3 owner just logon their account and pre-pay for some kWh and use supercharger when he/she needs it.

I don’t remember the Tesla Model S being held to such scrutiny when it was released.

Anyway, people will be able to get their hands on Bolt soon, and drive it down some highway at 80mph, and then go on forums, complaining how crappy it is, as it did less than 200 miles.

Can you imagine if this was Broder (a reporter – like this guy is), and the car was a Tesla, and he had problems?

“The guy is a jerk”
“The guy wasted a whole mile in a parking lot”.

ANd now this guy, who was coached by GM that if he doesn’t have 30 miles at a certain point on the trip not to attempt crossing the mountain SHOWS GM DIDN’T KNOW BEFOREHAND THIS GUY’S DRIVING STYLE, OR EVEN IF HE WOULD MAKE THE 237 MILE TRIP PERIOD.

Meanwhile an average reporter took an average regional trip in fall weather, and got effectively 297 miles without trying anything special.

Fortunately, some of the silly people complaining will never purchased this fine automobile. They’re not deserving of such a fine product anyway.

I can hear it now: “Who’d want a lousy Chevrolet”?

From the reporter’s own mouth, “Quiet and comfortable.”

Overall, the best electric car yet, in my opinion. ANd it just so happens to be cheap.

WOZ, who can afford anything is buying one. “Nuff said.

And when they run out of every materials or facts to attack the Bolt.

They will just end the bashing by calling it a LG Bolt again…

LOL. Haters are so predicable… Just like the extreme supporters on both candidates in this election.

one can hope (I don’t, but the operative word is CAN) that post election, the shark-speak will return to occasional murmur from present 110dB. The MyWay or Die crowd can recede to wherever they normally hide.

‘Tis disheartening to see So Many Exclaim intentionally -if not purposefully- limited knowledge — 2016 has been a bust for information exchange on the internet.

Most people drive like NASCAR. They’ll be lucky to get 150.

They don’t make any right turns? 😉

Nice! With the majority of my driving in the city, whatever 200+ mile EV that I buy(Model 3 is at the top of the list) next should offer very good range.

I don’t get all the stupid complains about the range.

This morning I was late to work so I drove mostly 90mph on the hwy to get to work and my Volt averaged about 2.93 miles/kWh. Typically, I average about 3.78 miles/kWh on the same “normal” drive (72mph). I can assure you that I don’t drive slow.

So, even at those efficiency, Bolt is capable of at least 176 miles to 227 mile in range at my type of driving condition (since BOLT actually has higher efficiency than my 2012 Volt).

Um… Pre-production version is a ringer in the range category. Duh!

I heard panic in BMW i3 sales department…..

Can someone please have the wherewithal to bring to market a roof mounted generator to market? It shouldn’t be too hard, and will cure range anxiety.

Not a fan of the idea in general, but if anything, it seems like one of those little platforms that attach to a trailer hitch would be best suited for that sort of thing.

I’m so tired of the range discussion. What matters is charging. Can we please get details about charging rates and charging times?

Lou:

GM says 80% charge in an hour.

Level 1 (using the included “Charger COrd”) – same as the newer VOLTS: 8 or 12 amps selected from the dashboard.

Level 2: 7200 watts, 9 1/2 hours if you have a 30 amp wall box and 240, or a 32 amp wallbox and 225 volts.

Public chargers, usually will be a bit less.

To me this is adequate: I won’t drive 297 miles every single day, and even if I did, I have to sleep sometime so the car might as well also.

I’m used to my Leaf going 80mi, so I’m going to love these 200mi EV’s. I really don’t care if it is 215 or 238 or 290, it sure beats the shit out of 80!
Now, how is that battery going to degrade, that’s a more important question.

Good news on that front Jason:

Based on proven VOLT technology, to me that means 2 big things:

1). No leakage when parked in a parking lot. You’ll have the same mileage left when you come back to the car as when you left it.

2). No aging or degredation. There hasn’t, per GM a single GM pouch needing replacement in all the cars they’ve sold to date.

Bill:

I hope the Bolt will have an option to charge to 80 percent. I figure the battery will last longer and I still will have plenty of range on most days.

Assuming you’ve spent $750 for the CCS fast charge port option, and have several 50 kw fast chargers in your area, which many do (I do not, unfortunately).

If you only can find a 24 or 25 kw charger, obviously you will need 2 hours to get an 80% charge instead of just 1.

Oh, Future Bolt Owner, misunderstood you.

I don’t think it will have an ‘80%’ shutoff simply because it doesn’t need it. Battery Life will be EXCELLENT charging to its normal ‘100%’ (whatever that is) level every time.

Not unlike the 40 ish mpg of the new Malibu Voltec hybrid. Someone asked why there is no ‘economy’ setting, and some engineer said, ‘it doesn’t need it since it gets such great mileage on Normal’.