Test-drove a Bolt twice today (LT and Premiere)

[SeanNelson]

Good grief. Anyone who expects EPA ratings to exactly apply to their particular circumstances is a rube and has nobody to blame but himself. Prius owners don't expect to get the EPA rating at 80MPH, why should Bolt EV owners?

I merely stated that many first time EV buyers will look at the GM/EPA range estimate and accept 238 as "the" number. Why wouldn't they? It isn't that they are "idiots" as someone else called them (very classy by the way), they are EV newbies that are being told by GM corporate, it's advertising, and their dealers that their new Bolt will get 238 miles of range. Putting the E-P-A letters on the rating even makes it sound official, as if it's been an audited.

It's the EPA that dictates the test conditions, the rules that require GM to publish that figure, and the rules that prohibit them from publishing any other figure. And they're required to format the information in a standard way on the Monroney sticker for the car, which already includes a disclaimer stating that actual results vary from the published rating depending "driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle".

You can't expect GM to include advertising text to the effect of "oh, and by the way this vehicle may not go anywhere near what the EPA says if you drive it at high speeds in winter" when it's competitors aren't required to. So why single out GM and leave Tesla, BMW, Nissan, etc. off the hook? Wouldn't it be an industry issue for all EV manufacturers? If there's really a problem, then the best way to solve it would be to enhance the disclaimer on the Monroney Sticker, since that's the law requires all automotive manufacturers to disclose this kind of information.

 

[oilerlord]

It's the EPA that dictates the test conditions, the rules that require GM to publish that figure, and the rules that prohibit them from publishing any other figure. And they're required to format the information in a standard way on the Monroney sticker for the car, which already includes a disclaimer stating that actual results vary from the published rating depending "driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle".

You can't expect GM to include advertising text to the effect of "oh, and by the way this vehicle may not go anywhere near what the EPA says if you drive it at high speeds in winter" when it's competitors aren't required to. So why single out GM and leave Tesla, BMW, Nissan, etc. off the hook? Wouldn't it be an industry issue for all EV manufacturers? If there's really a problem, then the best way to solve it would be to enhance the disclaimer on the Monroney Sticker, since that's the law requires all automotive manufacturers to disclose this kind of information.

I've already stipulated that in a prior post:

This isn't at all being critical of the Bolt, it's about the EPA, and how an EV range number is determined.

Of course it's the law to publish EPA mileage / range estimates on the sticker. No dispute there. Back in 2013, the EPA adjusted how an EV's range is determined because several cars didn't even come close to delivering range as advertised.

http://www.plugincars.com/changes-epa-range-formula-126624.html

With the release of the Bolt and the Model 3, there will be a surge in the number of EV's hitting the streets. In addition to the existing YMMV disclaimer in the fine print, I'd like to see the EPA adjust either the testing parameters or their formula again so that the rating is more grounded in reality. That would manage expectations using the sticker (as it should be) instead of conflicting information from dealers and Internet forums posting numbers ranging from Joe Public getting 150 miles in a New York winter to hypermilers cracking 300 miles with the car in California. Having a city/highway/combined rating on EV's would be a good place to start.

 

[CGameProgrammer]

They already have a city/highway/combined rating, in "MPG-e". Each MPG-e is the distance traveled on 33.7 kW-h of energy. The Bolt's rating is 128 city, 110 highway, and 119 combined.,

 

[oilerlord]

They already have a city/highway/combined rating, in "MPG-e". Each MPG-e is the distance traveled on 33.7 kW-h of energy. The Bolt's rating is 128 city, 110 highway, and 119 combined.,

If you tell 100 people that the Bolt can travel 200 miles on a charge - they get it. The number instantly makes sense. If you asked those same 100 people, what MPGe is, or how it's calculated, how many do you think would know what it means? Do you see where I'm going with this?

A lot of us assume that Joe Public is educated on all of the technical acronyms and ways to measure an EV's efficiency. They aren't. Why do we need to make it more complicated than it needs to be?

 

[CGameProgrammer]

Because range is something everyone is aware of so when they fail to meet the EPA estimate, they bitch about it. On the other hand real-world MPG is something very few people are aware of; they look at the EPA's highway figure and just assume that's what they get. So they might assume they always get 40 mpg in their car when they actually get 31 because they don't try to divide gallons by miles driven or they don't look at their car's onscreen MPG estimate if it has one.

 

[oilerlord]

Because range is something everyone is aware of so when they fail to meet the EPA estimate, they bitch about it. On the other hand real-world MPG is something very few people are aware of; they look at the EPA's highway figure and just assume that's what they get. So they might assume they always get 40 mpg in their car when they actually get 31 because they don't try to divide gallons by miles driven or they don't look at their car's onscreen MPG estimate if it has one.

Stay with me on this, one obstacle at a time.

We agree range is a measure that everyone is aware of. All I'm saying is that the EPA mandates testing to reflect a realistic range number that the majority of the population can reasonably expect to achieve in a multitude of driving styles. I hold out hope for humanity that most of us can still recognize the difference between city and highway MPG and/or range estimates without having to google it.

There would be nothing wrong with this:

2016 Chevrolet Bolt
EPA Range: 238 city / 190 highway miles

Until the EPA modifies testing to better reflect real-world driving, this would at least be a start. Sure people will complain if/when they don't get 190 miles, but at least there would be less "bitching" than posting one 238 miles range number. It's so much better for new EV buyers to have realistic range expectations, instead of thinking there is something wrong with their car - or that they've been lied to.

 

[michael]

As I've said elsewhere, I would tell my friends...

You can absolutely depend on 120 miles, don't need to even think about it. Under good conditions and if you watch your speed you can go twice that.

 

[DucRider]

There would be nothing wrong with this:

2016 Chevrolet Bolt
EPA Range: 238 city / 190 highway miles

Until the EPA modifies testing to better reflect real-world driving, this would at least be a start. Sure people will complain if/when they don't get 190 miles, but at least there would be less "bitching" than posting one 238 miles range number. It's so much better for new EV buyers to have realistic range expectations, instead of thinking there is something wrong with their car - or that they've been lied to.

The actual EPA ratings are:
City 255.1
Highway 217.4
Combined 238

These numbers are readily available for all EV's, just not added to the Monroney Sticker.
I believe that these are reasonable estimates of what most people will be able to achieve. Only time will tell - and if you are using the car in radically different conditions or a in a much different way than what the tests are designed to measure, then you will get different results.

 

[CGameProgrammer]

Do you have a source for that, or are you calculating it based on the MPG-e proportions?

 

[JeffN]

255/217/238 (city/highway/combined):

http://insideevs.com/detailed-range-ratings-for-the-chevrolet-bolt-ev-255-miles-city/

 

[Zoomit]

Do you have a source for that, or are you calculating it based on the MPG-e proportions?

Download all the data you want. It's here in the 2016 and 2017 Datafile spreadsheets. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml

Look in EV tab on the far right of the spreadsheet.

Alternatively, I have the numbers in my compilation of BEV specs here: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/media/20161029-bev-comparison.116204/full

Don't forget EPA Fuel Economy (MPGe) data includes charging losses from the wall to the car. EPA Range data is just a function of battery energy and how efficiently it's used by the car.

 

[oilerlord]

As I've said elsewhere, I would tell my friends...

You can absolutely depend on 120 miles, don't need to even think about it. Under good conditions and if you watch your speed you can go twice that.

Until people find this out for themselves, they read 238 Miles Per Charge followed by "Your actual range may vary based on several factors including temperature, terrain, and driving technique." as a footnote in fine print.

http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html

Yes, only time will tell as actual owner results are posted here so until then - caveat emptor applies.

 

[SeanNelson]

...only time will tell as actual owner results are posted here so until then - caveat emptor applies.

...as always it does.

 

[mbepic]

Until the EPA modifies testing to better reflect real-world driving, this would at least be a start. Sure people will complain if/when they don't get 190 miles, but at least there would be less "bitching" than posting one 238 miles range number. It's so much better for new EV buyers to have realistic range expectations, instead of thinking there is something wrong with their car - or that they've been lied to.

The actual EPA ratings are:
City 255.1
Highway 217.4
Combined 238

These numbers are readily available for all EV's, just not added to the Monroney Sticker.
I believe that these are reasonable estimates of what most people will be able to achieve. Only time will tell - and if you are using the car in radically different conditions or a in a much different way than what the tests are designed to measure, then you will get different results.

I agree with the actual EPA ratings and they likely come close to reflecting 'real world' driving; however, Joe Public's 'real world' driving is all over the map and Joe Public has a tough time understanding what that 'real world' driving is relative to someone else. Unless you can prove defective product or completely dishonest information provided to you, you basically have to accept the information as generally valid for the product you purchase. That's my .02cents worth.

 

[Mailman13]

Nobody expects the car to be able to do 238 miles at 80mph.

Nobody - Except many first-time EV customers that accept what they read and what they are told at face value. This includes GM marketing claims, and assurances from their salesperson that the car will get 238 miles of range. Remember the backlash as a result of original Leaf claim of "100 miles"? Instead of putting out a number for what's "possible", GM needs to set realistic expectations.

We're going to see dozens of "what's wrong with my car's range" posts from frustrated EV newbies. It's only a matter of time.

Speaking of the Leaf;
The ole Nissan Leaf. I had a 2013 "S" model that I drove practically for free for two years after the Fed and State tax kickbacks.
I drove it to work and back each day, 35 round-trip on the Interstate (below Atlanta) and it would be flashing "Low battery" as I neared my house almost every day! Now that was driving 80 mph on the interstate and sometimes with the heat on.

On a mild day of 75F, the guess-o-meter would show 108 miles range, but it would drop 10 miles off of that just leaving my neighborhood!

The A/C was 250% more efficient than the heater, so the Summer wasn't as much of a problem as the Winter in the South where I live.
I still sweated bullets many times praying that I'd make it home, Winter or Summer.

On the home charging, I couldn't even get 3/4 charged for work the next day using the 110, wall outlet, so I bought a 240 volt, 30 amp power supply that would recharge the Leaf in about 5 hours.

I can't wait to get my Bolt here in Georgia and I know that the range will be double the Leaf easily, but a lot of people are in for an eye-opening experience if they drive the Bolt average highway speeds of 75 to 80 mph like I do.

 

[CGameProgrammer]

With temperatures in the 50s, highway trips at 80 mph have been averaging 2.7 miles per kW-h for me, for a theoretical range of 160 miles. Obviously slower speeds are much more efficient.

Also I have found that the estimated range indicator is very accurate.

 

[Mailman13]

With temperatures in the 50s, highway trips at 80 mph have been averaging 2.7 miles per kW-h for me, for a theoretical range of 160 miles. Obviously slower speeds are much more efficient.

Also I have found that the estimated range indicator is very accurate.

I welcome 160 myself. Funny that people were posting that in Atlanta and with the Leaf, they would wear parkas so they didn't have to use the heater!
Of course these were the same drivers that were waxing their cars every weekend, so that they could get every last bit of mileage out of them.

 

[EldRick]

What is "L", or what is it supposed to stand for?

The question of the day!
It isn't "Low". Anyone have an appropriate "L"-word?

 

[EldRick]

To maximize battery life, it's important not to recharge until the batteries are relatively low, and ideally to only recharge it to around 80%. The worst thing you can do is to constantly top off the battery charge.

Not correct. Aside from temperature, it does not matter if you charge from 40% to 90% as one 50% charge, or five 10% top-ups.

 

[oilerlord]

Not correct. Aside from temperature, it does not matter if you charge from 40% to 90% as one 50% charge, or five 10% top-ups.

Perhaps his point is to avoid having the SOC near 100% on a consistent basis. I tend to time my charges to 100% an hour or so before heading out instead of plugging in the car at 6PM the night before (when possible). Having the car sit at 100% for ~12 hours per day = 182 days per year. If I leased, I'd just keep the car plugged in all the time but I plan to keep my car for 6+ years, so perhaps it will make a difference over the long term. We'll see.