[bro1999]

I am definitely one of those 97%. Even with hilltop reserve activated (and only ~88% of the battery charged), I STILL exceed the 238 mile range.

Other tidbits:
- 56% of Bolt owners cited range as #1 reason for purchase
- Bolt owners charge once every 3 days on average
- 33% of owners did not own an alt-fuel vehicle previously; 33% traded in an ICE
- 70% of Bolt owners are new to Chevy
- 150,051 plug-ins sold by GM in the US to date

http://wardsauto.com/engines/gm-sees-evs-going-mainstream-federal-credits-drying

 

[Upper5Percent]

Would rather have the vendor be conservative with their estimates than "blue-skying" their estimates...

 

[sosmerc]

Those are very positive statistics and I hope GM is paying attention. I hope they continue to improve it and add important features like ACC as well as increased fast charging options.

 

[Fyodor]

Would rather have the vendor be conservative with their estimates than "blue-skying" their estimates...

Agreed. How often does that happen? In this case, though, it seems to be be the EPA test that gave a low estimate.

 

[llninja]

Kind of a strange metric. All it takes is one good day, and you can report exceeding that EPA range. Conversely, I've got to wonder if the 3% who didn't exceed 238 haven't pushed their cars long range yet. Since the car is relatively new, especially now that it is available nationwide, I would have thought some owners haven't attempted it yet - certainly more than 3%. So maybe numbers were warped by the real question: if you have made a long distance attempt on a single charge, have you every exceeded the 238 EPA range? Or it could be as simple as: have you seen an estimated range exceeding the EPA 238 miles number (whether or not you actually drove that in one charge).

95% of statistics quoted were made up on the spot by the person saying it to make a point. Let the fact checkers refute it after the damage was done and nobody is listening.

 

[Barry]

That is great news, but on the other hand, let's see what the real world range looks like in January. That's the number I would want to know before buying.

 

[jeff_h]

That is great news, but on the other hand, let's see what the real world range looks like in January. That's the number I would want to know before buying.

I've had mine since January and keep track of my morning commute (54 miles - afternoon commutes are too unpredictable due to traffic) with kWh used and outside temp. Here is a basic scatter chart with about 120 data points on it, may help show the variance at least from one car and of course the temps in VA generally don't get too cold so efficiency may fall off further when it really gets chilly.

 

[Upper5Percent]

Agreed. How often does that happen? In this case, though, it seems to be be the EPA test that gave a low estimate.

But remember how the EPA tests take place...this is a comparison between the US and EEC...

 

[quirkySquirt]

Wow, didn't realize how thorough the EPA was. I'm impressed. Makes the manufacturers work harder to prove their stated numbers.

 

[TheBlueFlash]

Those are very positive statistics and I hope GM is paying attention. I hope they continue to improve it and add important features like ACC as well as increased fast charging options.

and a moonroof!

 

[bro1999]

Whoops, my title was slightly off. 97% of Bolt owners say the Bolt's range exceeds their expectations, not necessarily the EPA range.

 

[obermd]

Agreed. How often does that happen? In this case, though, it seems to be be the EPA test that gave a low estimate.

The new GM under Mary Barra tends to underreport their EPA estimates. Car manufacturers to this testing, not the EPA. This is how Ford and Hyundai/Kia were able to over report their EPA numbers back when 40 MPG first became a realistic target for high efficiency. Of the "new" 40 MPG cars, GM was the only one to not have to rework their numbers after the EPA actually tested the cars.

 

[llninja]

Whoops, my title was slightly off. 97% of Bolt owners say the Bolt's range exceeds their expections, not necessarily the EPA range.

Fits right in with the 95% of all statistics are made up (or warped) to fulfill one's agenda/argument.

 

[El Dobro]

The Bolt owners I spoke to at the EV gathering last night all said they exceed the EPA ratings. They weren't shy about traveling distances either.

 

[Raymondjram]

and a moonroof!

A hack saw and duct tape will do it!

 

[Raymondjram]

Whoops, my title was slightly off. 97% of Bolt owners say the Bolt's range exceeds their expections, not necessarily the EPA range.

Maybe they read the estimated range from their displays. But some may have actually tried and did drive over the EPA estimated range, as seen in past posts here. The unofficial record is an Ampera-e that reached 387 miles:
http://insideevs.com/opel-ampera-e-goes-387-miles/

 

[bro1999]

Maybe they read the estimated range from their displays. But some may have actually tried and did drive over the EPA estimated range, as seen in past posts here. The unofficial record is an Ampera-e that reached 387 miles:
http://insideevs.com/opel-ampera-e-goes-387-miles/

That was one-upped (and then some!): Opel Ampera-e goes 466 miles on single charge

 

[Steverino]

I've never tried driving 235 miles. Probably never will. But the range estimator is pretty convinced I could drive further than 235 miles if I wanted to.

I recharge nightly using the Hilltop Reserve setting.

Winter will see the range dip of course. But even if it drops by 50% in the worst case, that still gives me double the range I need for the commute. I think of the Bolt as a 60 mile car with a 175 mile range extender. Of course I could also plug in at a public station if needed.

 

[Qinsp]

GM and in particular, Chevrolet, have been understating specifications for at least 20 years.
Trucks, cars, weight, power, mpg, range, etc.

At the press release for the Bolt, they threw keys to journalists and gave them a destination 240 miles away. That's GM.

I doubt you will see too many other car companies pull stunts like that.

My first personal experience was a new 2000 Camaro SS. It was advertised as having 320 SAE horsepower and weighed 3660lb raceweight (me in the car, fueled). At Carlsbad raceway, the first pass I ran, it would not get traction to save it's arse. Spun 1,2, and a little of 3rd. But I get the timeslip, and it's like [email protected] WTF???? No way. I ran it again and again. Worst traps were in the high 106's.

Later with some fine tuning, but no added parts but tires, it ran [email protected]

That 107 mph was at least 350hp no matter how you cut it. After tuning, about 390'ish SAE hp.

And still today, no GM has ever disappointed us based on advertised specifications. Our newest, 17 years later? Advertised at 111 kW, you Gen 2 owners know what it really puts down. 120 kW, and has the 0-60 creds to back up that number. Solidly quicker than our 2013, which when compared by Power to Weight to a PiP should have been slower than the PiP but instead is much quicker.

 

[Norton]

That is great news, but on the other hand, let's see what the real world range looks like in January. That's the number I would want to know before buying.

But then, which January and where? And how frugal the geek owner is with the heat, etc, etc,...
There is no set lower number for a "Bolt in January"

And, for some unexplainable reason , weather patterns are getting strange.
(For instance, I didn't use any AC at home in August this year! Unheard of in any other August. And more rain than any August ever....)

This article is an inspiring piece for potential Bolt owners (me)!
But if I am going to take the plunge, I want newer tech than my current Chevy BEV , ACC.