Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Before you jump, although the title was designed to do that, please read and let the thought sink.

So, imagine a theoretical situation.
You drove 160 miles, battery use says 40 kWh. Average mileage is 4 miles/kWh. All seems to be good.
Now, EPA says - 4 mil/kWh equals to 135 MPGe. Still nice!

Sounds awesome.
Nope, not for me.

The next step is charging.
To recharge the 40 kWh you need to deliver about 44 kWh (just assume no energy needed for battery thermal management - cooling or heating).
Then, how much would it cost you? Say, you charge at home. In Michigan, in my area, 1 kWh costs (including distribution charge) is about 15 cents.
Therefore, I need to pay 44x0.15=6.6 USD.
At this moment, my mileage changes into actually 3.64 mil/kWh, what would result in 122 MPGe

Let's got one step further.
Assume I have a ICE car. How much petrol can I get for 6.6. USD?
My local Costco is $1.80 for 87 and $2.20 for 93. Other places - about $1.90 for 87 grade.
I would be driving my tuned KIA Forte5 SX or a GTI, so I would need 93.
In either situation.
87 octane will pump 3.67 gallons, while 93 will result in 3.00 gallons.

If I burn 3.67 (or 3.00) gallons doing 160 miles, my mpg turns out to be: 43.6 mpg and 53.3 mpg respectively.

Yes, it is a bit twisted - at 87 octane your fuel economy is worse than with 93 based on the example. Do not worry...



The idea here is to show how facts can be represented.
This is based on MI prices. If you use, say TN where the petrol is even cheaper, EV will be less cost effective, but then, if you use CA $3.55 a gallon, then you will end up with 86 mpg.

While it might be a stretch, I think that is the most fair comparison for ICE vs EV. This gets worse in winter season, where ICE gets affected a little (10-15%), while EV gets hit with almost 50% drop. Again - MI.

And in the defense of 44 kWh to recharge - let's make it clear. I do not care what the car says "how much energy it used". It is important what it takes to replenish it.
If I look on winter time charging - I hit 15% increase vs what was used due to battery heating needs. Summer is better as cooling is not always needed and it is still more effective being a heat pump and temperature difference is smaller.

Let me what you think.

Cheers, guys.


P.S.
After doing that I was thinking - heck, I should have thought about it earlier. I think I would have kept my KIA then and just sell the 2014 500e, or maybe keep it for my daughter. It was a really fun car. But still - it showed me that in current situation, where electricity is quite expensive comparing to petrol, EVs are not so much money savers.
Although I love the instant power, being always in the right gear, and quiet ride. Yes, no maintenance, but that is hard to really justify, as tires are used a bit faster... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
... it depends... my EV rate is about 5 cents per kWh, so 195-225 mpg.

For the gasoline engine, make sure you include the cost of premature failure due to excessive moisture in the fuel, think 15% ethanol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
So if I read this right, you are stating that the Bolt(?) EV is only ~2.5 - 3 times better efficient (43/53 mpg vs 122 mpge)?
Also, I didn't know there is a 10% charging loss.
Electricity is rather expensive in Mi too. Are there any renewables contributing to the electricity, or is it all coal fired?
Just for extra credit, those 3 gallons of gas burned will contribute at least 60 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere, but since you can't see it, smell it, carry it, dispose of it properly... who gives a sh*t, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
In Las Vegas average price for gas is $2.66 for 87 and Over $3.00 for 91 power is 10.5 per KWH but I pay 4.5 Kwh During winter special prices for electric car. I save over $400 a month with two Chevy bolts Your gas is to low and power way to high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
I prefer to normalize the numbers to ₩/km (or cents/mile).

Exchange rate is around ₩1175/US$.
Gasoline is averaging around ₩1350/L at the moment in my country (Korea).
Public DCFC charger costs ₩255.7/kWh.

Assuming that a gasoline car gets about 12km/L (28.2mpg), this would be equivalent to ₩112.5/km (15.4 cents/mile).
Bolt's official efficiency figures in Korea is 5.5km/kWh, accounting for charging loss. If you use the public chargers you'd get ₩46.5/km (6.4 cents/mile).

So that would mean that Bolt can go 2.4 times the distance for the same money as a 28mpg gasoline car, or about 67mpg equivalent.

Curious enough, this is about the same conclusion as @PLP . However, assumptions for Bolt is closer to the worst case scenario. Charging discounts are easily available and so the real-world costs are around half that. Also, I've been getting a lifetime average efficiency of 7.66km/kWh and charging loss of 13.3%, so the effective efficiency is 6.64km/kWh, or about 21% better than the official numbers. So my real-world result is more like 162mpg under the current pricing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
.... Are there any renewables contributing to the electricity, or is it all coal fired?
....
I doubt any local grid is '100% coal fired'.
You can find the recipe of what goes into your local electrons here: What's in my electricity?

This is my local brew (SPNO)!
Getting better every time I check!
Love seeing those brand new windmill blades being shipped on trains and on the highway!


30592
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
Getting 45-50 mpg (160 miles using 3.00 gallons of gas) is the exception, not the rule. Most people get 25 mpg, or worse. So Evs are efficient. As they say, YMMV.
But I didn't buy mine to save money on gas. I bought it because I don't have to hassle with maintenance. I love that it only has a handful of moving parts, compared to thousands in an ICE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
We have cheap gas around here around $1.99 a gal. But also cheap electricity at $0.055 per KWh all the time. I average 4mi/KW and that puts me at a dollar per dollar of 132 MPGe if compared to a 35MPG vehicle. That also does not account for the smiles per mile of the Bolt!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Cheap electricity makes the difference (or not).

Regular gasoline in California is averaging $3.23/gallon. At PG&E's tier 2 off-peak (anything above extremely minimal usage basically), we're paying ~$0.30/kWh, so $3.23 will get us 10.7kWh, which assuming 10% charging losses and 4miles/kWh is ~39.4 miles.

Which is why I prefer not to charge at home (at least local L2 charging with ChargePoint ends up at ~$0.16/kWh).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
OP ..

you don't get an increase in MPG using 93 octane ..both 87 and 93 octane contain up to 10% ethanol.


Octane doesn't get you better mpg it simply reduces dangerous "knock" in high compression engines.



Yes the spread mp/e between Gasoline and Electric is closer today than it was 1-2-3 years ago .. (still getting far more mpg/e than gasoline ..even in your own examples you are getting 20-30 miles further with EV than your high MPG ICE vehicle)



That spread will continue to narrow IMO because between ethanol and EV's demand for oil; keeps falling .. it's simply competition


When we use ethanol and electric we lower the demand for OPEC oil and reduce the likely hood of war in the Middle East ..lowering our dependency on Middle East Oil that funds radicals as well as OPEC "gang"




I live 10 miles from a Nuke reactor ...so we have all the electricity w need here. I am at 13 cents kw in Minnesota.


How was Winter for you last year in Michigan? MPGe and driving ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
you don't get an increase in MPG using 93 octane ..both 87 and 93 octane contain up to 10% ethanol.
You are correct that a gallon of 87 has the same energy as 93. if you run 93 in an engine that's designed for 87, then you're just wasting money.

On the other hand, if you run 87 in a car that's designed for 93, the car will "de-tune" to prevent knock and therefore give you lower gas mileage. The high compression ratio of the "93" engine can't take advantage of all of the energy in the 83 octane gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
I will try to address all the comments. I see some misunderstanding happening here.

The major comment - mpg and MPGe. Two different things. This was the reason I used lower case for mpg and upper case for MPGe.

1. I used 93 octane for my comparison, because my tuned KIA needed 91 or higher to get the fun factor. Normally it would drink 87.

2. I never stated higher octane would give better fuel economy. However, and that is VERY misleading, in this particular comparison, a hypothetical car, would be filled with either 3.00 gallons of 93 octane or 3.67 gallons of 87 octane - you just get more cheaper fuel for same amount of money. And then, hypothetically, if you were to drive same distance on both - the 87 octane would need to achieve WORSE fuel economy than 93 to match EV used in comparison. In short - say you have 10 dollars and need to drive 100 miles. You can get, say, 4 gallons of 93 octane or 5 gallons of 87. A car using 87 would need to reach 20 mpg, while 93 one needs to be at 25 mpg for the same distance.

3. Yes, I know, ICE would spit CO2, but electricity does it, too. Some is nuclear, some wind, but MI is still mainly coal.

4. It all depends where you live. CA examples with over $3 per gallon and FREE work charging - I would be all in. But not here. MI, Detroit/car state - no likes EVs. We had several free stations in Lansing area - all gone. I asked my employer - forget.

5. Be careful when comparing electricity cost. I clearly said - my kWh is about 14 cents TOTAL, where 8 cents for kWh and 6 cents for distribution. So energy is relatively cheap, but distribution adds another 40% to the cost. I would love to have it at 5 cents TOTAL...

6. Current average mil/kWh is 3.5, winter was about 2.2. Summer seems to be over 4.2, with one "tank" being at 5.0.

7. My observed "car used kWh" vs my meter (or ChargePoint built in meter) kWh shows about 10% more. Except a few days when battery had to be heated or cooled, that adds anywhere from 1% to 5%. Of course the less overall charge you add, the more difference you can observe. Say, very cold battery will take 2 kWh to warm up, so adding 10 kWh charge will seem like 13 kWh, (30% more), while adding 40 kWh will seem like 46 kWh (15% more).


Fun factor takes a bit play for me.
My ideal car would be something like e-GTI.
VW said they were about to make one, but they dropped the idea. I was looking at Audi A3 e-tron for a long time. I almost got one.

Anyway, perfect car? PHEV. So gain, FWD GTI with at least 60 miles (preferably 100 miles) electric range with electric motor being in RWD. Kind of iAWD Toyota has. Of course in GTI style (A3 can go up to 80 mph in EV mode only - perfect!).
For me the car must be potent and brisk. That's what Bolt is. That's what my KIA was.
And this is the very reason why I may need new tires at 15-20k mark. Or sooner...


In the end of this post - this comparison was used to show what is the true life cost of driving BEV vs ICE. Just the cost to get from place to place. No other factors are in, like insurance, maintenance, registration, resale value, or even range anxiety. I am still testing Bolt if I can go 150 miles round trip on a hot day. I will see if I can do the same trip on cold winter day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Андрей Т.

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
You seem to be calculating something closer to "miles per dollar" than "miles per gallon". Equivalent MPG doesn't change as the price of a gallon of gasoline changes. You're buying the same gas and that gas has the same energy per gallon as it did when it was $5.00/gallon. So as gas prices fall, you're not getting more MPG; you are just getting more miles per dollar spent. A valid metric, no doubt, but I don't think it should be used to cloud "miles per gallon".

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
You seem to be calculating something closer to "miles per dollar" than "miles per gallon". Equivalent MPG doesn't change as the price of a gallon of gasoline changes. You're buying the same gas and that gas has the same energy per gallon as it did when it was $5.00/gallon. So as gas prices fall, you're not getting more MPG; you are just getting more miles per dollar spent. A valid metric, no doubt, but I don't think it should be used to cloud "miles per gallon".

Mike
I see your valid point. Car achieves same mpg each time despite petrol being 1.5 or 6.5 USD per gallon. Well, I guess one might drive more conservatively if they had to pay 6.5.

Anyway, my idea is a bit more complex here.
I started with cost of electricity to recharge the Bolt and I used this money to buy liquid fuel. I went with 93 octane as this is what my car uses now. See above post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Yeah gas is cheap for the moment. I said it before though, if our only considerations were the number of dollars spent for miles driven we'd all be the fifth owners of late '90s Corollas held together with bondo and prayers. Or 70cc scooters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
I will try to address all the comments. I see some misunderstanding happening here.



2. I never stated higher octane would give better fuel economy. However, and that is VERY misleading, in this particular comparison, a hypothetical car, would be filled with either 3.00 gallons of 93 octane or 3.67 gallons of 87 octane - you just get more cheaper fuel for same amount of money. And then, hypothetically, if you were to drive same distance on both - the 87 octane would need to achieve WORSE fuel economy than 93 to match EV used in comparison. In short - say you have 10 dollars and need to drive 100 miles. You can get, say, 4 gallons of 93 octane or 5 gallons of 87. A car using 87 would need to reach 20 mpg, while 93 one needs to be at 25 mpg for the same distance.

Ummm


My local Costco is $1.80 for 87 and $2.20 for 93. Other places - about $1.90 for 87 grade.
I would be driving my tuned KIA Forte5 SX or a GTI, so I would need 93.
In either situation.
87 octane will pump 3.67 gallons, while 93 will result in 3.00 gallons

et's got one step further.
Assume I have a ICE car. How much petrol can I get for 6.6. USD?
My local Costco is $1.80 for 87 and $2.20 for 93. Other places - about $1.90 for 87 grade.
I would be driving my tuned KIA Forte5 SX or a GTI, so I would need 93.
In either situation.
87 octane will pump 3.67 gallons, while 93 will result in 3.00 gallons.

If I burn 3.67 (or 3.00) gallons doing 160 miles, my mpg turns out to be: 43.6 mpg and 53.3 mpg respectively.

Yes, it is a bit twisted - at 87 octane your fuel economy is worse than with 93 based on the example. Do not worry..
.




You are saying you get better MPG on 93 ...but that isnt how it works...The Octane makes no difference ...you'll use the SAME amount of fuel for your 160 Miles ..UNLESS you have Specifically LEANED out to run 93 ..putting up with some knock for better fuel efficiency ..but then there is no way you can run 87 Octane in it if that's what you did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Also read your "Headline again..
""""""""""A very true EV mileage representation - Bolt gets 65-75 mpg, or less...""


that is still nearly 3 times the MPG of the average vehicle...and at least 40% BETTER than your own high MPG vehicles


The bottom line is even in Michigan with low gasoline prices and driving 2 of the highest-rated MPG vehicles you still come out ahead mpg wise wit theBolt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I think someone is upset here... I am sorry I got you stirred up, that was not the point.

My idea was to show that EPA claims of 120 MPGe is not really so sweet. And one thinking that will save so much in running costs is far from reality.

Yes, 65 mph is much better than 25 mpg I would get from GTI.
However, if you want to go this route - let's consider similar size cars. Golf and Bolt. More or less same.
I can get Golf for $22k OTD, GTI maybe at $26k OTD.
Bolt: LT at $29k OTD, Premier $32k OTD.
All same - Michigan.

Now, I register it - assuming similar price, the base registration is same. Yet, I pay premium of $130 for BEV. Insurance is higher, though. Not much, but about 300 a year.
In summary for now - GTI is less expensive at 3k to buy and cheaper to insure/register at almost 450 a year.

Running cost.
I use what I calculated above.
Bolt gets 65, GTI gets 25 mpg. Average annually 10k miles. Bolt will cost $385 in "fuel", GTI $1000. So I would save about $185 (the insurance/registration difference).
Take it one more step.
Winter!!!
I get about 2 miles from kWh. Hence, my calculation would be now: Bolt say 35 mpg, GTI 20 mpg. That is 714 vs 1250 a year, saving 106.
Taking both seasons in average, I get 150 annual saving.

I paid 3'000 extra for Bolt. When will it pay off? On fuel cost I save 150 a year (20 years to pay off?) Oil changes - yes, maybe 50 a year. Engine repairs? In the first 5 years none to be expected. Timing belt? Nope. Brake system, both are in need of same fluid changes. Pads/rotors GTI will need. I would spend maybe 500 on it...

so overall there is not much saving here...
I am driving greener.


Oh, and very important fact.
In GTI in winter time I can crank up the heat all the way without worrying I may not get home.
Also, when I see I am low on fuel, I will refill within 5 minutes and be good for next 300 miles.
I can take it to track. I can tune it to get extra 50 HP

Bolt?
I like Bolt, I like BEVs. I am not saying they are bad.
I am just questioning the not so realistic view of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Андрей Т.

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
I think the problem here is that you're cherry picking your data. The other problem is that BEVs are never going to be for everyone and it doesn't sound like it's ideal for your situation: you drive less than average, pay more than average in electricity and way less than average for fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
I think the problem here is that you're cherry picking your data. The other problem is that BEVs are never going to be for everyone and it doesn't sound like it's ideal for your situation: you drive less than average, pay more than average in electricity and way less than average for fuel.
and still it is less expensive for him to drive the Bolt ...

Sounds like his biggest complaint is needing to take time to charge/range and less about money

agree ...At THIS Point EV"s are not for everyone
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top