This is wonderful @Zoomit. I want to thank you first for this before I delve into the data. Cheers!

 

I think what's most interesting here is the question of capability, but not just any kind of capability, what are the capabilities most relevant to you and your needs?

Size wise we see crossover between the Volt, the Kia and the VW to a degree

but then cost wise its undercut by both the Ford and the VW however both of those offer less than half the Bolt's projected range.

The conclusion I'm quickly coming to is that the Bolt is likely to be the best jack of all trades. Not the fastest, not the cheapest, maybe not even with the best range. But I think what we'll see is the Chevy brand and the Chevy network combine with its competitive pricing and competitive range and competitive size to produce one of the best if not THE BEST all around package available.

Of course much of this could change once Nissan shows their next Gen leaf which is ostensibly supposed to bring similar specs to the table. But for now I don't see who's going to really encroach on the Bolt...

 

Range was one of the main concerns that potential electric car owners were worried about and the Bolt EV answers that concern. In terms of range, only Tesla is it's competitor but the Bolt is by far the more affordable model of the three.

For me, the Bolt EV wins hands down unless Nissan can double the Leaf's range.

 

Car & Driver just posted the Bolt EV's drag coefficient and frontal area, so I updated that and a few other things in the table. Since this forum doesn't allow editing posts after a few hours, here's the new table:

Maybe a forum admin can swap out the table link in the original thread post for this one? http://i.imgur.com/iMCyr7U.png

Anyway, if these drag area estimates are correct, it's interesting to note that the Bolt EV drag area is not low compared to the others. Only the Soul EV is worse. This implies that the highway efficiency will be less than the others. Comparing the Bolt EV to the Model S 60, the Bolt EV drag area is about 29% worse than the Model S. But the Model S weight is about 25% higher.

The EPA efficiency and range tests are a combination of city and highway driving. The Bolt EV will have an advantage verses the Model S in the city (lower weight), but will be at a disadvantage at high speed (higher drag area). If those effects cancel out, the Bolt EV would have a similar range to the Model S 60. That car has a 208 mi range, which is in-line with what GM has promised for the Bolt EV.

If you're interested in learning more about drag and cars, I recommend reading Drag Queens: Aerodynamics Compared.

 

@Zoomit

Maybe a forum admin can swap out the table link in the original thread post

Done, nice work

 

that's slightly disappointing, but I would imagine it's a penalty for being a hatchback. Which kinda makes you wonder why GM went with a hatch instead of a sedan...

 

I can speculate a couple of reasons why the Bolt is a tall wagon/hatchback:
- Avoid more direct competition with Volt
- Higher seating positions are desired
- A BEV already compromises range and flexibility and so the additional interior space helps to compensate
- It helps highlight the packaging efficiency of the flat floor and dedicated platform

But just to be clear, ALL the cars on the list are 5-door hatchbacks, including the Model S. Some are more "liftback", like the Volt and Model S. Some have more vertical 5th doors like a traditional wagon, such as the Bolt EV and Soul EV. It's the base drag from that abrupt end that hurts the Cd number.

Another point of reference is the Cd for the Tesla Model X, a CUV with a slanted rear door, which is 0.24.

 

To be fair, these are claimed drag coefficients. Car and Driver testing got 0.32 for the Leaf, for example. Even the C&D testing can't necessarily be relied upon. I'm also not sure where C&D got 0.312 from for the Bolt. I haven't seen it published by anyone else.


Really what matters is efficency. When the Bolt's EPA efficiency numbers come out late this year we'll be able to get a better handle on how efficient it is compared to these other cars.

 

Excellent point--what matters is what's experienced on the road and even the EPA numbers are only a surrogate for real world performance (reference VW).

 

I updated the table again based on feedback.

Changes include:
- Added the Hyundai IONIQ BEV; not much is known about it but it should hit the market this fall.
- Added info on cabin heating technology since that can significantly effect winter driving range.
- Added the "anticipated changes" row at the bottom that is more speculative
- Corrected a few errors

Link to updated table: http://i.imgur.com/GPAPkih.png

Please let me know if you see anything else that should change!

 

I personally believe GM has the highest level of engineering expertise....

Styling could have been sexier like tesla does for strong sales...but from a spec sheet....in my opinion no one comes close to GM..

 

More info on the Hyundai IONIQ Electric was released.

http://insideevs.com/hyundai-ioniq-has-a-28-kwh-battery-105-miles-real-range/

So I updated the table. I reordered the cars based on anticipated available EPA range at the end of this year when the Bolt EV will first be available. I also deleted the "efficiency" row that was misleading.

Here's the revised table:

 

Here's another update to the spec comparison. There were lots of changes including:
- Added Model 3 info known to date
- Added Smart ED, Model S 90D, Model X 90D, Fiat 500e, BMW i3 REx
- Added general categories (200 mi BEV, 100 mi BEV, Ext Range, Lux BEV)
- Reordered based on advertised range within category
- Added more EPA data, battery supplier, motor type, DC fast charging data, and automation
- Delineated optional equipment in blue text

As always, suggestions or corrections welcome.

Link to spreadsheet on OneDrive

Link to image of spreadsheet --> http://i.imgur.com/pSI9JE5.png

 

Admittedly, i just looked at the 200-mile BEV section with just the Model 3 and Bolt EV since they are the most relevant models to me. The Model 3 does have more features including an AWD option but the wait for one is going to be brutal compared to the almost out Bolt.

Just a question, what's liquid active thermal control and tesla thermal management?

 

Just a question, what's liquid active thermal control and tesla thermal management?

http://insideevs.com/chevy-bolt-200-mile-ev-battery-cooling-and-gearbox-details-bower/

Much of the LEAF battery degradation issue is related to their lack of thermal management. They use a completely passive system (no fans) of air cooling. Admittedly, the newer iterations of the battery pack have been much better, but if I were to own an EV (vs lease) it would certainly have active thermal management. Flat out truth - Heat kills batteries. (Hence the caution many manufacturers make against too frequent Quick Charging)

 

Thanks for the spreadsheet Zoomit! All the models are so organized and easy to compare on the chart.

I noticed that most of the electric cars have a small tires than the Tesla models. From what I can understand, smaller tires are supposed to be more fuel efficient, guess Tesla is confident enough in their battery range to not need the little things that increase range.

 

I think that's the case with tesla since their vehicles put out more power and when you have that sort of power being put down and available on tap, ensuring it can be controlled properly and safely is required. Much like how you see high end sports cars running tires high 200, to 300 wide.

 

Good observation. The tire size choices that Tesla made for the Model S and X are not the most efficient possible. The large Model 3 tire size shown is likely a performance option that also uses a larger battery. I'm sure the base Model 3 will have smaller tires, but still it's very possible they will be larger than those on other similarly-sized BEVs. Those tires are less compromising to the vehicle's handling and performance, at the expense of rolling efficiency and a slight hit to aerodynamic drag.

I would not say that Tesla is more confident in their battery range than other manufacturers. All manufacturers have very well developed analysis tools that predict their vehicle's performance and can assess different engineering solutions. The Tesla development team just came to a difference conclusion than the other manufacturers when considering their tire choices.

Generally, the Tesla engineering trades and design decisions have a notably different flavor than the other EV manufacturers. They are forced to be less conservative because they are always in a "make or break" scenario as a company. Their decision to create and fund Superchargers, their use of much larger batteries, and their targeting of luxury vehicle purchasers are examples of their long reach that more established manufacturers, for a variety of reasons, were not willing, able, or required to attempt.

 

I would update the Model S 60 specs with those of the Model S 70. They don't even make the 60 anymore. For fun (but not necessary) add in the P90D specs.

 

What about the Fiat 500E how does it compare?

 

Ace007--The S 60 was included specifically because it is the cheapest Model S available used, for prices close to the Bolt EV or Model 3.

webweavers--See post #16 for 500e information.

 

Thanks, Sorry I didn't see it. Great Job!

 

I updated my spreadsheet of BEV spec and performance data. There are lots of additions to the future models, but few specifics. Amongst the changes, I added red text for my speculation on some of the numbers. I also added more performance data where available. Each different available battery/range option is now a separate column.

Fullsize link: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/media/20160507-bev-comparison.114929/full

 

Wow! Excellent resource! Thanks!

 

MPGe isn't what we need to compare BEVs

I don't trust the EPA's MPGe since it is a comparison to simulate the gas engine effciency of MPG. For me as an EE, the correct efficiency value of a BEV is the energy needed to travel a certain distance, and since the battery energy is rated in kWh (the correct value for energy should be joules which is only a watt-second), the best value must be miles per kWh. The Spark EV has reach and passed 5 miles per kWH, and many present BEVs have reached up to 4 miles per kWH.

Knowing this value will let the consumer calculate their true cost per mile if their present utility rate is used to establish cost per kWh. If 4 miles per kWh is a sample value, then a consumer would just divive their cost per kWh by 4 to get their cost per mile. Easier to use and understand!

But I still predict that some Bolt EV owner will reach and pass 6 miles perkWH by summer 2016, and I stick to it. Comment on this post next year

 

Here's another update to my spec sheet, which includes a number of changes since last May. I apologize for the size; a large screen is helpful. As noted at the bottom, the red text is speculative, blue text are options. Any corrections are welcome.

Direct link to the full size image: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/media/20161029-bev-comparison.116204/full