One Week Bolt Review and Comparison with Prior Electric Cars

Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Help Support Chevy Bolt EV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

adamsocb

Active member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
29
I got my Bolt Premier will all options (MSRP $43,905) one week ago, I have driven it about 500 miles so far and it’s time for the first review.

Some background.
I live in Southern California and the Bolt is my third electric car after a 2011 Volt and a 2014 Spark EV. My daily commutes varies from 30 to 70 miles round-trip. The 15 mile commute to my home office consists of a 1,000 foot total elevation drop, and a 600 foot drop in the first 4 miles. This condition has an impact on range which varied for each of the cars and has an interesting effect on the Bolt.
I am large at 6’1” with a 52 coat size so take into account on my comfort reviews. The temperature conditions this last week have been unusually cold for So Cal, with lows each morning in the low 30s and highs in the high 50s. Also it was raining for most of the time.
While not a professional, I have been setting up and driving race cars and high performance street cars for over 45 years so I have an understanding of vehicle dynamics and what makes things work (or not). I have also worked in physical, electrical, and computer/software design and testing fields so I have an understanding of those areas as well.

Range efficiency and battery:
The Volt and Spark both used the battery conservatively to be sure there would be enough charge cycles to maintain initial range for the warranted life of the battery. The system only allowed the battery to be charged to something less than 90%. This meant the when I left my house with a full charge there was room in the battery for additional energy from regeneration. I believe that first four miles of downhill allowed me capture that regen energy and charge the battery to a higher level than the software would allow from the charger. The effect of this was that I could get routinely more range than was advertised for each car. Several times I was able to get 50 miles electric only in the Volt and my lifetime average efficiency for the Spark at 35,000 miles is 4.6 miles per kWh (or 21.7 kWh per 100 miles).
Interestingly the Bolt seems to charge the battery to 100% and there is no room for regen energy with a full charge. I noticed this upon leaving my house on a full charge and both the L shifter setting and the paddle regen had no deceleration affect. I then changed the Hill Top Reserve setting to On – Home Only. The next full charge was only about 90% on the meter and the regen worked as expected. I will keep this setting as I like the strong regen and I will get better efficiency by using that gravity instead of wasting it through friction braking.
As for range, my initial results are not that good, but I spent a lot of time siting in the car with it on and the HVAC running in the colder temps so I will reserve judgement for better conditions. The last day of this one-week period the sun was out and the temps a bit warmer so I did see better efficiency with the heater off. Average for the first 500 miles is 3.6 miles per kWh

Driving impressions:
Driving and performance dynamics are quite good. Acceleration from a stop is impressive as the traction control system keeps the tires from spinning. The pull levels off as you approach freeway speeds, but is still ample for passing up to about 80 MPH. Handling is crisp, but due to the bad weather I have not been able to push anywhere near the limit. When the weather warms up and dries out I will set up my performance monitoring equipment and get some acceleration, braking, and lateral G cornering numbers. On first impression the friction brakes are adequate, but not as aggressive as I like and require a bit too much pedal pressure for a hard stop. This could just be due to new brake pads that are not bedded in yet.
Ride and Noise-Vibration-Harshness are also quite good, however keep in mind my references are a Corvette, Fiat Abarth, and Trailblazer, so I don’t have a luxury car to compare it to. The regen to friction braking integration is amazing. With a little practice using the L shifter setting, accelerator pedal and Regen on Demand paddle, it is possible to almost never touch the brake pedal. This feature must be experienced to appreciate.

Comfort:
HVAC
Although the heater drains the battery at about 6-7 kW, it is much better than either the Volt or Spark, in fact it rivals that of ICE cars. The steering wheel heater gets too warm to leave on after about 2-3 minutes and the seat heaters need to be turned down from high after just a few minutes, so they are all working very well. Rating on the air conditioning will have to wait for some hot weather.
Driving position is good and it is easy to adjust to the correct seat and steering wheel position with the tilt/telescope wheel. However the lack of power seat adjustment is a problem. If the buyer wants power seats they should be available. I don’t accept the explanation that power seats are not available as a weight saving measure. The variability in driver/passenger weight and cargo carried is far greater than the extra 10-15 pounds per seat the power adjusters weigh. If I am willing to give up a couple of miles of range to have power seats, that should be my choice.
Seats
The lack of power adjustment and the seat design are probably the only disappointments on the car overall. They seats should be fine for anyone with a 36” or smaller waist but the hard plastic frame is simply too narrow for anyone larger than that. The hard plastic frame is only 15” wide at the hips and sits up higher than the seat cushion. This design defect causes the seat frame to press uncomfortably into my hips on both sides. I wouldn’t quite call it painful, but is does detract from the otherwise wonderful experience of driving this car. The worst thing is that this defect was completely unnecessary. There is over three inches of clearance between the outside edges of the seats and center console/door/frame pillar. This is an epic design/engineering failure that could easily have been avoided. It is almost as if whoever was designing the seat had the wrong interior dimensions of the car. This is something GM needs to fix or they will lose sales to larger frame folks. I am willing to put up with it until I lose some weight or find a modification to the seat, but many won’t.

Tech and Infotainment:
I am still learning all of the features and capabilities of the tech this car offers so I may have missed something here. The tech and infotainment is mostly very good with a few quirks.
Cameras
The 360 camera feature is great for parking. The camera based inside rear view mirror works great in daylight and sees a much wider angle than the reflective mirror. Understandably it does not work as well in rain or darkness, so it is a good thing the automatic dimming reflective mirror is available with the flip of a lever.
Collision avoidance and lane departure
These features are interesting, but not yet reliable enough for me to completely depend on them. I keep both features ON. The collision avoidance sets off a beep and a bright flashing heads-up red light on the windshield. There is also a graphic of the rear of a car that changes from yellow to red as you get closer to the car in front of you. In enhanced display mode there is a setting that shows the following distance in seconds. I have not, and will not, test the automatic braking to see if it would stop the car before a collision. Perhaps with a cone/paper/Styrofoam mock-up, but not with a real car or obstacle.
The lane departure feature seems to need some work. When it was safe on a multi-lane road with no cars around me, I tried letting go of the wheel. As the car drifted toward the line the indicator changed from green to amber and the text “Take the Steering Wheel” appeared. As the tires got on the line the computer turned the wheel to avoid crossing over it, however it then overcorrected and took the car to the opposite side of the lane only to repeat the over correction. I did not allow the system to keep doing this as I was on a public road and did not want to alarm other drivers. As stated in the manual this is not a self-driving system.
The rear cross-traffic warning seemed to work well a couple of times I have the car in reverse and there was a car crossing behind me.
The Side Blind Zone Alert works, but has both false alarmed and failed to light. Most likely due to the heavy rain. The manual has several warnings that since these systems use a combination of cameras and sonar/radar sensors, they may not work in some conditions.
Infotainment
Overall these system are getting better over the years. Everything not related to a smartphone is intuitive fast and functional. For instance, the radio XM, AM, and FM has a virtual keypad to direct enter the station number or frequency. Audio and speaker sound quality are on-par for a car at this price point. I have not yet tried media on a USB drive works as well as any other.
As for smartphone integration, I have both an iPhone and a Motorola Z Force Droid. There is more functionality with Apple Car Play and Android Auto than in prior implementations, but there is still much room for improvement. Since this is the only system with these features I do not know if shortfalls are a GM/LG issue or more related to Apple iOS and Android. The biggest issue is the limited number of apps available. It seems Apple will only allow a subset of native iOS apps to work. Android Auto has a few third party apps available, but certainly not everything on Play Store. If the reason is a code issue that requires additional programming for a given app’s screens to work on the car display they need to work on making that a pass through. If it is some misguided form of control, that makes no sense since you can just put your phone or tablet on an in-car mount and run any app anyway. The changeover between Apple and Android is a bit cumbersome. You have to manually change the Bolt settings to turn off one and turn on the other before you plug in the device. It would seem there could be an automatic prompt when you switch devices asking if you want to change. The programmers must have thought users would only have Apple or Android and not require switching back and forth. Lastly I can’t believe both of these implementations require plugging the phone in with a wire! The car and the phones all have WiFi after all.

Overall, I am very pleased with the Bolt and glad I got one. I would recommend it to anyone. This is a brand new model with many new concepts just coming out of development. The critical items I mentioned are in the interest of fostering improvement, not to complain. More to come as I get to know the car better and log more miles in different conditions.

Enjoy!
 
Good review, thanks. I agree with most of your observations, especially the marginal quality of the brakes and the opportunity for much improvement in Android Auto.
 
Yes, thanks. We need more user reviews where the car isn't available for test drives. How is the highway road noise? Do you have snow tires mounted?
 
Don't you just love reviews written by engineers? I do, but then again, I'm an engineer...

One thought came to mind when he mentioned the seats were 15" wide. You know how 99% of us love to complain about narrow economy-class airline seats? Those are typically 16" to 18".

Another interesting thing - he mentioned no wheel spin on takeoff, as traction control kicked in. That was interesting, because other reviews have commented on how easy it is to screech the tires on fast starts. Odd contradiction.

s
 
Very well written and informative piece, thanks for taking the time to write it!

adamsocb said:
The lane departure feature seems to need some work. ... As the tires got on the line the computer turned the wheel to avoid crossing over it, however it then overcorrected and took the car to the opposite side of the lane only to repeat the over correction. ... As stated in the manual this is not a self-driving system.
I suspect that this behaviour is intentional by GM, who probably don't want people to treat it as some sort of "poor man's autopilot".
 
adamsocb said:
I got my Bolt Premier will all options (MSRP $43,905) one week ago, I have driven it about 500 miles so far and it’s time for the first review.

.....

Enjoy!

I have a 2014 Spark EV as well and regen would not work if the battery was full I coasting downhill.

Also, what do you think is quicker? The Bolt or the Spark EV? That thing is quick I must say but I've not really pushed a Bolt to know the comparison.
 
adamsocb said:
Seats
The lack of power adjustment and the seat design are probably the only disappointments on the car overall. They seats should be fine for anyone with a 36” or smaller waist but the hard plastic frame is simply too narrow for anyone larger than that. The hard plastic frame is only 15” wide at the hips and sits up higher than the seat cushion. This design defect causes the seat frame to press uncomfortably into my hips on both sides. I wouldn’t quite call it painful, but is does detract from the otherwise wonderful experience of driving this car. The worst thing is that this defect was completely unnecessary. There is over three inches of clearance between the outside edges of the seats and center console/door/frame pillar. This is an epic design/engineering failure that could easily have been avoided. It is almost as if whoever was designing the seat had the wrong interior dimensions of the car. This is something GM needs to fix or they will lose sales to larger frame folks. I am willing to put up with it until I lose some weight or find a modification to the seat, but many won’t.

Enjoy!

Please call GM and let them know about this issue. I also am quite disappointed about my Bolt's front seats and contacted GM to open an official ticket.
 
ScooterCT said:
Don't you just love reviews written by engineers? I do, but then again, I'm an engineer...

One thought came to mind when he mentioned the seats were 15" wide. You know how 99% of us love to complain about narrow economy-class airline seats? Those are typically 16" to 18".

Another interesting thing - he mentioned no wheel spin on takeoff, as traction control kicked in. That was interesting, because other reviews have commented on how easy it is to screech the tires on fast starts. Odd contradiction.

s

Thanks for the reply, a couple of "engineering clarifications"

The front of the seat cushion is about 18" wide, it is the hard plastic frame frame in the back that is so narrow.

I do experience limited wheelspin on takeoff. It is quickly suppressed by the TC. Did not try it yet with TC off.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Yes, thanks. We need more user reviews where the car isn't available for test drives. How is the highway road noise? Do you have snow tires mounted?

I think the highway speed road noise is low. On par with a solid sport sedan. No snow tires, but we have some of the roughest highways in the country here in So Cal.
 
JupiterMoon said:
I have a 2014 Spark EV as well and regen would not work if the battery was full I coasting downhill.

Also, what do you think is quicker? The Bolt or the Spark EV? That thing is quick I must say but I've not really pushed a Bolt to know the comparison.

Interesting, on my Spark I get full regen with a full charge. I have heard there are multiple firmware versions for the spark that have different torque maps etc. Perhaps we have different code in our drive system controllers.

I don't have any acceleration measurements yet, just seat of the pants. I agree the Spark is very quick from a roll up to about 50 MPH and the instant torque of the electric motor make the acceleration easy to use. I would say the Bolt is even quicker at low speeds and they are about the same, or the Spark takes the edge above 60 MPH.

I still have the Spark for another 3 weeks so if the weather is good this weekend I will rig up the data logger and see what kind of numbers both cars make.
 
adamsocb said:
JupiterMoon said:
I have a 2014 Spark EV as well and regen would not work if the battery was full I coasting downhill.

Also, what do you think is quicker? The Bolt or the Spark EV? That thing is quick I must say but I've not really pushed a Bolt to know the comparison.

Interesting, on my Spark I get full regen with a full charge. I have heard there are multiple firmware versions for the spark that have different torque maps etc. Perhaps we have different code in our drive system controllers.

I don't have any acceleration measurements yet, just seat of the pants. I agree the Spark is very quick from a roll up to about 50 MPH and the instant torque of the electric motor make the acceleration easy to use. I would say the Bolt is even quicker at low speeds and they are about the same, or the Spark takes the edge above 60 MPH.

I still have the Spark for another 3 weeks so if the weather is good this weekend I will rig up the data logger and see what kind of numbers both cars make.

Sweet it'll be interesting to see what you come up with.
 
drdiesel1 said:
This car is very efficient, IMO :mrgreen:

Your reported 4.7 miles per kWh for 31.0 kWh over 145 miles (158 MPGe) is a very good number and I am sure achievable. If-fact I have seen my 50 mile average close to 6 miles per kWh (202 MPGe) a couple of times. Driving the car in real world conditions for 795 miles, I am at 3.6 miles per kWh (121 MPGe), which is very close to the EPA estimated 119 combined MPGe. [Note the OnStar Lifetime MPGe of 86 is still skewed by all the time the car spent on but not moving at the dealer.]

For comparison my lifetime (35,000 miles) average for the Spark EV is 4.6 miles per kWh (155 MPGe). The Spark has the same EPA combined MPGe of 119. [Note the OnStar Lifetime MPGe is 124 which is 0.8 time the 155]

For reference the "Lifetime MPGe" from OnStar is something different. It is much lower than the number calculated from the average miles per kWh on both cars. I reset the trip odometer to zero when I picked up each car and have never reset it since. I use the " Average Miles per kWh" for my calculations. An explanation may be the energy lost in the on-board power converter and charging process. This loss is 15-20%, for example it takes 70-75 kWh of energy to fully charge a 60 kWh battery. It is possible that OnStar is using the charger kWh input or applying a loss factor for the lifetime MPGe, but I have not been able to confirm that by either documentation or reverse engineering calcs. I wish my original ChargePoint EVSE charger that came with the 2011 Volt still worked. It had built-in metering and logged the actual energy sent to the car which as I recall was about 20% more than the car reported it was using.

Both the battery charger input energy and battery output energy are important, but they mean different things. If you want to compare cost to other fuels the charger input energy is the thing to use since that is what your electric usage and bill are based on. It you are looking at the efficiency of the drive system and your driving style, the battery output energy is the one to use.

It would be great if OnStar would simply report kWh input from the charging plug, power output kWh from the battery, and miles driven, for both lifetime and since last full charge. The manipulated MPGe is not very useful for me.
 
The EPA Fuel Economy rating for the Bolt EV and Spark EV are both 119 MPGe, but that includes charging losses. As you said, that's useful when considering the amount of energy needed to recharge; for example, to determine electricity costs.

The EPA Range data does not include charging losses. The "EPA" energy efficiency of both cars can be calculated by dividing the EPA range by the usable battery capacity.

The Bolt EV gets 4.0 mi/kWh [238/60].
The Spark EV get 4.5 mi/kWh [82/18.4].

So if you're getting the energy efficiency data from each car's binnacle display, then you're 0.1 mi/kWh ahead with your Spark EV and 0.4 mi/kWh behind with your Bolt EV.

My Spark EV's Lifetime efficiency is 3.4 mi/kWh per the myChevrolet app. Like you, I haven't reset my trip odometer and after ~18,000 mi it indicates 4.2 mi/kWh. The app's "Lifetime Efficiency" data is consistent with the vehicle's display data if the app's calculation subtracts 20% for charging losses.

My "Electric Economy" data on the myChevrolet website shows 29 kWh/100mi, which is the same as 3.448 mi/kWh and so matches the number in the app. The context of website data is about total energy used and would need to have an assumption for charging losses.
 
Back
Top