Chevrolet Bolt & Bolt EUV

[GRA]

I think they would have had significantly better sales if they had not made it so utilitarian and cheap looking.

I have mixed feelings about that. I like utility (and love the Model S hatchback and am disappointed in the Model 3 trunk design); I don't care a whit about looks. But I realize that sexy looks is a big deal to many and you may well be right that the utilitarian Bolt might sell better with a more attractive design. Perhaps Chevy will come out with a nicer looking sibling vehicle someday. What they really need is an electric Corvette, but that's a step too far for stodgy GM.

Chevy has made it pretty clear that they designed the Bolt as an urban/commute car, one which moreover will be used early for autonomous car-sharing, and for that purpose the design choices makes perfect sense. Nothing would stop them from taking the powertrain of the Bolt and putting it in a lower, more aero body more suitable for road trips. Comparing the Bolt to the Model S60 with its 210 mile EPA range, at 70 deg. and 70 mph the latter is credited by Tesla with 199 miles of range (to empty), and at 65 mph with 219 miles of range. I'm pretty confident that we can expect the draggier Bolt to get between 200 and 220 miles of range at a constant 65, flat ground/no wind/no HVAC use, and around 20 miles less at 70.

 

[jkline]

With that kind of range, I don't care if it looks like a Conestoga wagon. That one car would replace two that I have now: a leaf and a Suburban.

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

So, in the worst of winter, with liberal heater use, I can still go to Boston and back on one charge? Sounds good.

Where's GM at for federal credits?

 

[GRA]

With that kind of range, I don't care if it looks like a Conestoga wagon. That one car would replace two that I have now: a leaf and a Suburban.

If your road trip range requirements are fairly modest. Consider that the S60 range @ 70 mph @ 90 deg. with A/C drops from 199 to 190 (185 at 50 deg. using heat), or from 219 to 208 at 65. And then you're probably going to be prudent and want to keep at least a 10% emergency reserve (and protect the battery), right? And maybe GM, like Tesla and other companies, will say that they don't recommend charging to full, so you'll only want to charge to say 90% except in emergencies. And for short QC stops, you only want to charge to around 80% so you don't get well into the taper.

So, what's a more typical, practical road range, using the S60 stats, 70 mph, 90 deg. with a/c, 90% charge and 10% reserve? 190 x .8 = 152 miles, and you'll probably want to allow some for moderate head/sidewinds and small amounts of climb, so say 140-145 miles. After a QC to 80%, it's 190 x .7 = 133 - wind/climb allowances as above, or 120-125 miles. Given its relatively barn door aero, maybe the Bolt can only do that at 65 instead of 70; we'll see. In any case, it's about a two hour 'no worries' car at moderate freeway speeds (at least when new), which will be enough for shorter road trips for many people, especially in the New England area. Out west, with higher speeds, greater distances and ascents, its usefulness for such trips will be more limited, but still acceptable for some.

 

[GRA]

So, in the worst of winter, with liberal heater use, I can still go to Boston and back on one charge? Sounds good.

Where's GM at for federal credits?

They've got around 90k cars to go before the credits start tapering off. By the time the Bolt arrives, it will be more like 80k.

 

[TonyWilliams]

A couple quips with the above. The Bolt isn't going to "taper" much with a 50kW charger in a 60kWh battery. That's an easy charge rate.

But, using a highway cruising range of 100-150 miles is prudent, perhaps stretching that to 175 miles in ideal conditions.

With my Tesla Model S-70D with 240 EPA miles and VERY aerodynamic, I can charge at each Supercharger that are typically 100-150 miles apart, driving 75mph or so. It takes 20-40 minutes using a 120kW capable Tesla Supercharger to reach 10% over the distance to the next station.

I want to arrive at the next Supercharger at 10% or less. Since the Supercharger is ALWAYS reducing its power into the battery, you want the battery low as possible to get the maximum charge speed. Charging above 70-80% is normally just a waste of time, unless there is some real need, like exceptionally cold weather, or headwinds, etc.

The Bolt experience (with 238 EPA miles) is a bit different. For starters, 75mph would KILL the range. Secondly, because most of the CCS chargers are either 20kW-ish or 40-50kW, the charge speed will likely remain the same over a broad range of battery charge states, perhaps from 0% up to over 80%, so it's not so important to burn the battery all the way down.

That 20-40 minutes that I spend at a charger will be a LOT more time for a Bolt. The same is true if I use the CHAdeMO adapter and charge at 40-50kW in my Model S.

 

[LeafMuranoDriver]

Got an email about pricing was released. Starting at the price we already knew, $37,495. Nothing about options though.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Got an email about pricing was released. Starting at the price we already knew, $37,495. Nothing about options though.

I don't see how that price will sustain once other EVs hit the market and with the mentioned sub-par aerodynamics many are likely under the false pretense of good range at freeway speeds. My prediction is that leases are subsidized after early adopters buy. The freeway range, price, DC charging challenges,and utilitarian styling is going to hurt sales more than they anticipate. The secret weapon will be significant lease deals like they had on the Spark in some areas. In at least a few areas I think GM blew it, again.

 

[GRA]

Got an email about pricing was released. Starting at the price we already knew, $37,495. Nothing about options though.

I don't see how that price will sustain once other EVs hit the market and with the mentioned sub-par aerodynamics many are likely under the false pretense of good range at freeway speeds. My prediction is that leases are subsidized after early adopters buy. The freeway range, price, DC charging challenges,and utilitarian styling is going to hurt sales more than they anticipate. The secret weapon will be significant lease deals like they had on the Spark in some areas. In at least a few areas I think GM blew it, again.

I think GM designed an urban/regional commute car, one which is well suited for autonomy. Whether the public wants to buy such a car remains to be seen.

 

[EVDRIVER]

Got an email about pricing was released. Starting at the price we already knew, $37,495. Nothing about options though.

I don't see how that price will sustain once other EVs hit the market and with the mentioned sub-par aerodynamics many are likely under the false pretense of good range at freeway speeds. My prediction is that leases are subsidized after early adopters buy. The freeway range, price, DC charging challenges,and utilitarian styling is going to hurt sales more than they anticipate. The secret weapon will be significant lease deals like they had on the Spark in some areas. In at least a few areas I think GM blew it, again.

I think GM designed an urban/regional commute car, one which is well suited for autonomy. Whether the public wants to buy such a car remains to be seen.

So they made it have poor highway range as a compromise to shoot themselves in the foot. I think it's bad design and foolish GM planing as usual. Nissan is also crippled in other ways, I think it;s corporate culture and Tesla has proved this as fact. I remember Lutz mocking Musk and saying he would fail and he could never make a production EV.

 

[GRA]

I think GM designed an urban/regional commute car, one which is well suited for autonomy. Whether the public wants to buy such a car remains to be seen.

So they made it have poor highway range as a compromise to shoot themselves in the foot. I think it's bad design and foolish GM planing as usual.

That all depends on how people plan to use the car. They didn't 'make' it have poor highway range, it has relatively poor highway range as a consequence of trying to keep it short to make parallel parking as easy as possible in urban use, while still being able to carry five adults in reasonable comfort. All design is compromise, the question here is how much of the public will be willing to buy a car whose design compromise emphasizes this particular use case. BTW, the Bolt's Cd is 0.32, my Forester's 0.35 IIRR, while their frontal areas are comparable. The Forester's got the equivalent of 536 kWh instead of 60 kWh of energy stored on board, although it uses it much less efficiently.

 

[abasile]

That all depends on how people plan to use the car. They didn't 'make' it have poor highway range, it has relatively poor highway range as a consequence of trying to keep it short to make parallel parking as easy as possible in urban use, while still being able to carry five adults in reasonable comfort.

While that may be true, GM seems to be neglecting the fact that real-world range, not merely EPA range, is king in the world of EVs. And lots of range isn't generally needed unless one is out on the highway, at highway speeds. Urban dwellers who own cars in the Bolt's price range typically want to have the ability to drive far away from the city at times. Besides, with parking sensors and "around view" camera monitors, parallel parking isn't as hard as it used to be.

Although short-range EVs can make a lot of sense for multi-car families, most people seem to greatly prefer buying cars that offer more general functionality. With so-so aerodynamics and limited intercity charging options, the Bolt is essentially a short-range EV on steroids. I still hope it succeeds, because I want to see more EVs on the road, but I hope for GM to do better with future EV offerings.

 

[GRA]

That all depends on how people plan to use the car. They didn't 'make' it have poor highway range, it has relatively poor highway range as a consequence of trying to keep it short to make parallel parking as easy as possible in urban use, while still being able to carry five adults in reasonable comfort.

While that may be true, GM seems to be neglecting the fact that real-world range, not merely EPA range, is king in the world of EVs. And lots of range isn't generally needed unless one is out on the highway, at highway speeds. Urban dwellers who own cars in the Bolt's price range typically want to have the ability to drive far away from the city at times. Besides, with parking sensors and "around view" camera monitors, parallel parking isn't as hard as it used to be.

Although short-range EVs can make a lot of sense for multi-car families, most people seem to greatly prefer buying cars that offer more general functionality. With so-so aerodynamics and limited intercity charging options, the Bolt is essentially a short-range EV on steroids. I still hope it succeeds, because I want to see more EVs on the road, but I hope for GM to do better with future EV offerings.

I think what GM aimed at, and hit, is a car with enough real-world range that it can be used for no-worries year-round commuting and errands by almost everyone, for at least a decade if not more. It can also be used for intra-regional trips, and for short (one enroute QC each way, w/wo destination charging) weekend trips. It's not intended to be a family's sole car, although it can be for some, but it is intended to be the primary car.

Re parallel parking, it's not the ease of parking that's the primary issue, it's the ease of finding a long-enough parking space that's the main consideration. The shorter the car, the easier it is to find a suitable space when they aren't marked. Think of the Smart TV ads.

BTW, as promised I've now posted the first draft of the intro for the Yosemite proposal, so please feel free to check it out and add any comments: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=22595

 

[wwhitney]

So they made it have poor highway range as a compromise to shoot themselves in the foot.

If the EPA combined range is 238 miles, and the EPA highway/combined mpge is 110/119, then the EPA highway range is 220 miles. I wouldn't call that a poor highway range.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[LeftieBiker]

Well, GM has released the base pricing and features list for the Bolt, and...they've screwed up, badly. No heated wheel or seats (or mirrors) on the base LT version unless you order an option package with them, and, worse by far, no surround vision on the LT - not even as an option. I don't want "leather-appointed seats" even if I could afford the Premiere (and if they follow Volt pricing, I won't be able to afford it) and I won't lease or buy one without surround vision. So, having had a fast, long-range sporty little EV dangled in front of me, I'll now have to settle for a long in the tooth, short on range, Leaf. Chevy will see a lot of Premieres sitting on their lots until they have to cut the price (not yet listed), by which time I'll probably be driving a facelifted Leaf.

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/da...ew/02_Pdf/bolt-ev-trims-comparison-081016.pdf

 

[Firetruck41]

Well, GM has released the base pricing and features list for the Bolt, and...they've screwed up, badly. No heated wheel or seats (or mirrors) on the base LT version unless you order an option package with them, and, worse by far, no surround vision on the LT - not even as an option. I don't want "leather-appointed seats" even if I could afford the Premiere (and if they follow Volt pricing, I won't be able to afford it) and I won't lease or buy one without surround vision. So, having had a fast, long-range sporty little EV dangled in front of me, I'll now have to settle for a long in the tooth, short on range, Leaf. Chevy will see a lot of Premieres sitting on their lots until they have to cut the price (not yet listed), by which time I'll probably be driving a facelifted Leaf.

http://www.chevrolet.com/content/da...ew/02_Pdf/bolt-ev-trims-comparison-081016.pdf

As long as price is in line with other vehicles out there, I think it is fine that heated seats/mirrors are available in an option package. There are large segments of the country that do not need either. It is nice they are available in a simple package and not tied into a bunch of other luxo bits. Don't care much about surround vision.

 

[LeftieBiker]

If the pricing is in line with the Volt LT/Premier, the LT will be affordable and the Premiere not. Just as most people passed on the Prius Prime in favor of the Base, and the Volt LT gets more sales than the Premiere, they will guarantee that the Premiere sells weakly, because instead of biting the financial bullet to get the Surround View, people will just buy a Leaf or a Tesla with it. I don't really have a huge problem with making the heated seats and wheel an option, even though about 75% of the country would benefit from it. The main issue is with making the 4 camera system available only on the (probably) overpriced Premier. There is already a safety option package planned for the LT, so all they'd have to do would be to include the Surround system.

 

[RegGuheert]

I think what GM aimed at, and hit, is a car with enough real-world range that it can be used for no-worries year-round commuting and errands by almost everyone, for at least a decade if not more. It can also be used for intra-regional trips, and for short (one enroute QC each way, w/wo destination charging) weekend trips. It's not intended to be a family's sole car, although it can be for some, but it is intended to be the primary car.

+1

I think that is exactly what the Bolt is. If the Chevy Bolt is as well-engineered as the Chevy Volt, then I expect it will be extremely successful.

I also expect the Tesla 3 and the LEAF II to be extremely successful when they hit the streets. That said, Chevy is the first automaker to fill this space. There is plenty of room for Nissan and Tesla to also enter this space, but they will need to do it fairly soon and execute very well to gain a decent share of the market.

Let's also not forget that this is also somewhat of a showdown between Tesla and LG Chem for share of the automotive battery market. Both are wooing the world's automakers and LG Chem's offering appears to be very attractive right now. I think it will be very difficult for other battery makers to enter/survive in this market, including Nissan and their partners. (FWIW, LG Chem and Tesla are also battling for control of the home/commercial/utility market for Li-ion batteries.)

 

[EVDRIVER]

Heated seats should be standard in every EV model made.

 

[EVDRIVER]

I
There is plenty of room for Nissan and Tesla to also enter this space, but they will need to do it fairly soon and execute very well to gain a decent share of the market.

Excluding Nissan out of the equation, I find this statement to be very entertaining) Tesla would have to produce a lemon to have to worry about gain in market share let alone having a parallel segment of their own. Even with a delayed release the price disparity will have to be huge to make an impact. Let's see how pricing changes on the Volt once it is available nationwide.