[Packard V8]

Our Bolt is weeks of local urban and only the occasional highway run. Today it used 80 miles of GOM range for 40 miles of 60 - 75 MPH highway travel with the climate control on. The return trip was only slightly less, using 65 estimate for 40 miles traveled.

It takes some mindset adjustment, as fifty years of ICE experience was pretty much the opposite. A typical ICE averaging 20 MPG around town might go up to 25 MPG on a highway run.

The plus side is for such a small hatchback, the Bolt is incredibly smooth, quiet and competent on the highway; as long as it is a very short highway.

jack vines

 

[NewsCoulomb]

It is a matter of mindset; the actual physics might surprise you. The energy consumption of EVs and ICE vehicles at freeway speeds is very similar. The difference is that in city driving, ICE efficiency drops even more while EV efficiency improves.

What was your GOM reading before you left? Without knowing that, I have no way of assessing how unrealistic your expectations were. I regularly see the EPA highway rating for the Bolt EV (about 220 miles) out of a full charge when driving 70-75 mph.

https://youtu.be/9G6R4lELXjk

 

[Sean Nelson]

It takes some mindset adjustment, as fifty years of ICE experience was pretty much the opposite. A typical ICE averaging 20 MPG around town might go up to 25 MPG on a highway run.

ICE vehicles waste such an incredible amount of energy in the city (by throwing away momentum at every stop and then wasting even more idling) that freeway driving actually seems efficient. But the reality is that the faster you go, the more energy it takes. If you could drive an ICE vehicle at 30mph on the freeway without the constant start/stop and idling of city traffic you'd get even better fuel economy.

 

[redpoint5]

I get better stop and go traffic MPG than steady cruise MPG in my TSX. The reasons are twofold. I drive the average speed of traffic, not bumper to bumper, while anticipating what traffic will do, and my TSX has short gearing, so it revs too high at freeway speeds.

It's possible to get better city fuel economy in an ICE vehicle, but few people want to give their driving that level of attention.

 

[Raymondjram]

It is a matter of mindset; the actual physics might surprise you. The energy consumption of EVs and ICE vehicles at freeway speeds is very similar. The difference is that in city driving, ICE efficiency drops even more while EV efficiency improves.

Actual physics aside, you will NEVER get similar energy consumption between EV and ICE vehicles, no matter how fast you travel. EVs always use less energy to do the same work as an ICEV because the ICEV wastes much more energy as useless heat per each cylinder firing, and that is why it always needs extreme cooling. If not, that excess heat will damage the engine. A turbo-charger can recover and reuse some of that excess energy from the exhaust, but not as much as one may guess. Even if you were coasting or rolling downhill, that gas engine is still burning fuel and just dumping that energy out to the atmosphere.

Consider how much energy the Bolt EV battery has when fully charged (average of 57 kWh). Then convert that to the equal energy level of gasoline. You will be surprised that the Bolt EV carries less the the equivalent energy of three gallons of gasoline!

 

[Dyefrog]

Actual physics aside, you will NEVER get similar energy consumption between EV and ICE vehicles, no matter how fast you travel. EVs always use less energy to do the same work as an ICEV because the ICEV wastes much more energy as useless heat per each cylinder firing, and that is why it always needs extreme cooling. If not, that excess heat will damage the engine. A turbo-charger can recover and reuse some of that excess energy from the exhaust, but not as much as one may guess. Even if you were coasting or rolling downhill, that gas engine is still burning fuel and just dumping that energy out to the atmosphere.

Consider how much energy the Bolt EV battery has when fully charged (average of 57 kWh). Then convert that to the equal energy level of gasoline. You will be surprised that the Bolt EV carries less the the equivalent energy of three gallons of gasoline!

Very well put. Some will still spin this to show that even with the biggest batteries that are practical for a car, you can only get the equivalent of 3 gallons of gas, as if that's a negative. You've pointed out the fallacy of that position with the increase in efficiency that trumps any counterpoint.
To the OP, even if you take the range issue away, the driving experience is so much better with the EV that it's hard to describe to someone that's not experience it.
I'll give a few examples that recently happened to me. Took my first road trip this past weekend of about 750 miles in a long range EV. My main squeeze was skeptical of the entire EV experience even though I've been driving a Leaf for 3 years and she's always liked it for what it was. She just doesn't handle adversity well and any deviation from the "plan" can be traumatic for her. Needless to say, the smooth acceleration, quiet ride, handling, zero compromises, has her at least thinking that maybe an EV is in her future.
When we got back home, she got back in her Suburu and called 30 minutes later to say just how antiquated and terrible it felt compared to the EV. Unless you've had a chance to really spend some time in one, it's hard to convince the other side how much better they really are.


The other example is her brothers. She has 4 of which all are involved in mechanics of some sort to varying degrees. 2 are engineers and the other 2 are mechanics, one has his own repair shop and the other is a seasoned pilot that does heavy equipment repair. 3 took the car for a ride and all were blown away at how much better in every way the EV is to a comparable ICEV. The brother that is the car mechanic was very enthusiastic about their future and lamented about how much money is spent currently just dealing with all the emission crap.


I've found that generally, anyone that has a negative POV about anything related to any EV, has not actually experience it. They have a preconceived notion based on here say and rumors and are convinced it's not going to work for them. Again, this is excluding the range issue which valid for every EV except one.

 

[E Drivetrain Future]

I just drove our Bolt EV from Norcal to LA. We were not really inconvenienced in any way as planned enroute recharging was spent concurrently eating. Total EV recharging for the 3 day trip was less then $40. In an ICE car, it would have been $100. No, EV are better and more fun.

 

[redpoint5]

Some will still spin this to show that even with the biggest batteries that are practical for a car, you can only get the equivalent of 3 gallons of gas, as if that's a negative. You've pointed out the fallacy of that position with the increase in efficiency that trumps any counterpoint...

I've found that generally, anyone that has a negative POV about anything related to any EV, has not actually experience it. They have a preconceived notion based on here say and rumors and are convinced it's not going to work for them. Again, this is excluding the range issue which valid for every EV except one.

Raymond's point is very well stated, but it doesn't trump all counterpoints. For instance, even though EVs are 3x more efficient with energy expenditure, that means vehicles with greater than a 10 gallon fuel tank still have more usable energy, despite their inefficient use of that energy. It doesn't address the problem of the expense of the battery, which is essentially a fuel tank, nor does it address the problem of slow refill rate, or lack of charging infrastructure.

I've spoken to TOMS shoes-wearing ultra-liberals who have driven EVs who flat out refuse to consider one. Their negative experiences, which are valid, informed their decision not to own one.

All EVs suffer a range disadvantage compared to ICE for the reasons mentioned above. There are no exceptions as of yet.

 

[LooseBolt]

I'm all in on EVs, but I think the point of the OP is that range really suffers at interstate speeds. This is my experience also. It really has nothing to do with the driving experience, which I agree is much better in an EV.

 

[Joule]

I think the OP is making an excellent point in terms of where we are today in normalizing personal transportation use with EV's. The point is that we seem to still be a little way from where we were with our ICE in terms of use especially when considering weather, and it highlights the need for bigger, better, badder batteries with concurrent improvements in charging infrastructure. Thankfully this scenario is changing slowly for the better with several 200+ mile range EV's now on the very near horizon and reports of improvements in infrastructure on almost a daily basis. While the current offering is not perfect, the steady increase in capabilities make driving an EV viable for a much larger audience today. We gave ours its first real challenge just to see if it was up to the task. The task: visit the wife's family for Sunday lunch. Round trip mileage(300), starting temp(86 Fahrenheit) cooling to 70 at destination, average speed 72 mph, cabin A/C set at 62 with fan setting between low and high, continuous music streaming on, elevation loss about 200 feet on outbound leg. Planning was minimal and basically consisted of finding a hotel that offered level II charging while we ate. Started with 80% SOC, arrived with 33%, Hookup to free level II charge point added 37 miles/Hr, charge time approx 2:25, arrived on the return leg with 7% SOC. In this case, using an EV had absolutely no impact on our trip in terms of travel time, and cost us a fraction of what it would have cost using an ICE in terms of fuel/energy.

 

[Packard V8]

I think the OP is making an excellent point in terms of where we are today in normalizing personal transportation use with EV's.

Thanks to those of you who actually read the first post.

Yes, I'm all in on EVs. Just this morning I spent a half-hour on the phone answering questions with a friend who's considering an EV.

No, the GOM using urban use as a baseline doesn't provide anything like an accurate projection of range for a intermountain west highway trip with 70-80 MPH speeds up mountains. (Your driving speeds and style may vary. Mine is what it is.) Since the steep drop in EV range on the highway is the opposite of fifty years of ICE experience, as I said, takes some mental remapping.

Raymond made some valid points, even if he didn't really respond to what was actually said in the original post. However, the following is NOT correct/valid.

Even if you were coasting or rolling downhill, that gas engine is still burning fuel and just dumping that energy out to the atmosphere.

Most engines in the computer EFI era have long had fuel cutoff under coast/decel. Many today have stop/start functions for in-traffic waiting.

jack vines, who's been building ICE's for fifty years, but loves driving the Bolt.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

Actual physics aside, you will NEVER get similar energy consumption between EV and ICE vehicles, no matter how fast you travel.

Be careful not to confuse energy consumption with energy conversion efficiency. An EV's power train suffers far fewer losses than an ICE vehicle's; however, at highway speeds, those differences are barely background noise. EVs and ICE vehicles consume similar amounts of energy to maintain highway speeds.

Sure, a gallon of gasoline is 33.7 kWh of energy, but it's not valid say that a 50 mpg ICE car requires 674 Wh to go a mile.

 

[redpoint5]

Be careful not to confuse energy consumption with energy conversion efficiency. An EV's power train suffers far fewer losses than an ICE vehicle's; however, at highway speeds, those differences are barely background noise. EVs and ICE vehicles consume similar amounts of energy to maintain highway speeds.

Sure, a gallon of gasoline is 33.7 kWh of energy, but it's not valid say that a 50 mpg ICE car requires 674 Wh to go a mile.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

ICE vehicles in particular are very inefficient at steady cruising speeds where the power requirement is relatively low, and EVs are quite efficient throughout the power range. That means an ICE vehicle will expend a lot of energy just to produce the 20 horsepower or so needed to maintain speed, with perhaps 75% of that energy just wasted as heat. The EV on the other hand will convert around 90% of the energy to useful kinetic horsepower, and waste perhaps only 10% as heat.

ICE is most fuel efficient at around 1/2 of maximum power and 3/4 of maximum torque, but even at peak efficiency is abysmal at about 40%.

 

[NewsCoulomb]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

ICE vehicles in particular are very inefficient at steady cruising speeds where the power requirement is relatively low, and EVs are quite efficient throughout the power range. That means an ICE vehicle will expend a lot of energy just to produce the 20 horsepower or so needed to maintain speed, with perhaps 75% of that energy just wasted as heat. The EV on the other hand will convert around 90% of the energy to useful kinetic horsepower, and waste perhaps only 10% as heat.

ICE is most fuel efficient at around 1/2 of maximum power and 3/4 of maximum torque, but even at peak efficiency is abysmal at about 40%.

When speaking of energy conversion, ICE vehicles are always inefficient, it's true. Even Mazda's claimed, but unproven, hyper efficient engine can only harvest about 19-20 kWh of usable energy out of a 33.7 kWh gallon of gasoline.

However, when you are speaking of the actual energy required to propel a vehicle forward at freeway speeds, there is very little difference between an EV and an ICE vehicle.

ICE vehicles are typically at their most efficient between 35 and 45 mph (whatever the point is where the energy to overcome aerodynamic drag equals all other losses and energy consumption). For EVs, that speed is in the low 20 mph range because EVs have far fewer losses.

Essentially, at freeway speeds, ICE vehicles aren't at their most efficient, but they are near their most efficient operating state. For EVs, freeway speeds represent on of their most inefficient states. Just look at an EPA range/mileage estimate. The Highway rating for ICE vehicles is always higher than the City rating (unless the ICE is a hybrid), and the Highway rating for EVs is always lower than the City rating for that EV.

 

[GlenandhisBolt1!]

The Bolt is a small car: it doesn't have the easy handling at highway speeds that a minivan cruiser enjoys, with a wheelbase that is several feet longer. It's not an issue of it being an EV: it's simply a matter of size.

The climate controls don't make much of a difference in the amount of energy the Bolt consumes: the heater or A/C need just a couple of kilowatts. That's more than a toaster oven (about 1kW), but still far less than is used by the drive motor.

 

[hatchy]

Thanks to those of you who actually read the first post.

Yes, I'm all in on EVs. Just this morning I spent a half-hour on the phone answering questions with a friend who's considering an EV..

Yea my eyes glaze over when the talk turns to actual caloric capacity inside a gallon of gas..

The Bolt does poorly in efficiency at 70-85mph highway speeds. This is a fact. An unfortunate fact. (Probably other EVs are the same, not sure since I don't have any) I've brought this fact up multiple times in my ownership thread. It does AMAZING in traffic. If you are in 35-45mph traffic that is somewhat steady you can probably drive 4 or 5 hundred miles on a tank. Or even in very slow bumper to bumper traffic with the AC blasting, it still does amazing. BTW you might not think so but bumper to bumper traffic is a huge concern for people unfamiliar with EVs. They seem to think running out of juice from the AC or heater in bumper to bumper traffic is a huge risk. Like seriously they have nightmares of being stuck in traffic lanes blocking the freeway. Which as you folks know, is rubbish.

On to another unfortunate fact. A lot of people drive at 80mph everywhere they go. Maybe not you or me, but a lot of people. I see them every day. They *need* to be told what the real deal is with the Bolt and other EV's before they buy them and are disappointed. Only one shot at a first impression. Otherwise they will end up out there bad mouthing EVs. That is why I repeatedly post about how poor the efficiency is at 70-85mph speeds on this forum... Now, if you are someone who can kick back and drive 55 to 60? The car does great for you then... But people need to know the real deal before they buy in. I think that is what folks should take away from this thread.

 

[redpoint5]

Just look at an EPA range/mileage estimate. The Highway rating for ICE vehicles is always higher than the City rating (unless the ICE is a hybrid), and the Highway rating for EVs is always lower than the City rating for that EV.

Traveling at highway speeds is inefficient regardless of the powertrain, and given the same speed, shape, and weight of vehicle, the power requirements are exactly equal.

Hybrids get better city ratings because they recapture much of the braking energy, turn off the engine when stopped, and the lower average speeds are more efficient. EV's are essentially like hybrids in this regard.

As I've said, I get worse highway fuel economy than bumper to bumper traffic in my Acura gasser because I don't drive like a herded sheep. It is usually less fuel efficient to travel at faster speeds because the power requirement to overcome drag is the square of speed, meaning it always takes more power to go a little faster.

EPA ratings take into account that the average driver over-utilizes the brakes, which is why most people don't get better fuel economy in bumper to bumper traffic.

None of this has anything to do with drivetrain efficiency.

A lot of people drive at 80mph everywhere they go... They *need* to be told what the real deal is with the Bolt and other EV's before they buy them and are disappointed.

I suppose that's true, but ICE vehicles get way under EPA rated fuel economy at those speeds too. It should be no surprise to people that if they drive faster than what the EPA test cycle specifies, they will not achieve the same results. That said, many people think it's the job of the vehicle to achieve economy standards, regardless of how it's operated. After all, how are we responsible for our own actions and behavior?

 

[Packard V8]

I suppose that's true, but ICE vehicles get way under EPA rated fuel economy at those speeds too.

Can't agree with that statement. Out here in the west where it's possible to run 80 MPH on cruise control for hours on end, I find every car and truck I've driven will at least equal the EPA highway estimate even at that speed.

jack vines

 

[redpoint5]

Can't agree with that statement. Out here in the west where it's possible to run 80 MPH on cruise control for hours on end, I find every car and truck I've driven will at least equal the EPA highway estimate even at that speed.

jack vines

You might not agree with it, but there is plenty of data-driven people who have tested it and recorded their results:

Anyone giving any thought at all to driving efficiently can get better than EPA fuel economy. Without even slowing your average speed, you can get 10% better than EPA just by anticipating traffic with the thought to reduce brake use, and not driving bumper to bumper. Basically the EPA estimate assumes people drive like hooligans, or in perpetually cold climates.

Here's the thread concerning the topic:

https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/speed-vs-mpg-charts-post-em-if-you-15182.html

 

[Packard V8]

You might not agree with it, but there is plenty of data-driven people who have tested it and recorded their results:

“I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself”― Winston S. Churchill

Well, here's a mildly data driven guy whose SUV has a 22 MPG EPA estimated highway. We just completed a 1500 mile highway round trip, averaging better than 70 MPH door to door and cruising 80 MPH for more than half that distance. The net average was 22.8 MPG. According to all those charts above, it should have been 20-30% less than the EPA estimate. Me, Winston and the EPA believe our own results.

It might be instructive to understand how the EPA highway estimate is derived. Here's a quote from a Car and Driver article on a visit to the EPA lab dyno test.

While piloting a Honda Insight at the lab, we found the high-speed US06 cycle impressively aggressive. The cycle still averages only 48 mph but has bursts of acceleration (similar to a 7.0-second 0-to-60-mph time) that are more than twice as demanding as the original highway cycle and a top speed of 80 mph. To keep pace, the Insight required at least three-quarters throttle, which made us appreciate the realism of the new tests and wonder if some underpowered cars may have a tough time keeping up with their acceleration demands.

Now, maybe we can posit how a steady state high speed cruise can actually produce the same or better MPG than the EPA highway average. Our cruise speed may be constant for several hundred miles.

The EPA says "Your Mileage Will Vary"
EPA fuel economy estimates are based on standardized tests designed to reflect "typical" driving conditions and driver behavior, but several factors can affect MPG significantly:

How & where you drive
Vehicle condition & maintenance
Fuel variations
Vehicle variations
Engine break-in
Therefore, the EPA ratings are a useful tool for comparing the fuel economies of different vehicles but may not accurately predict the average MPG you will get.

jack vines