Chevrolet Bolt & Bolt EUV

I must live in a bizarro universe. Mind you I DC charge to be cheap as its free juice and only have had a handful of trips beyond 230 miles in a go, but have nearly a perfect experience with evgo stations and Nissan stops. I have really only had issue with the Electrify America stations.

With all of the new greenlots and chargepoint stops in the midwest, Chademo is truly still getting better, in spite of its reported already completed demise.

Any word of the Xpeng G3 making it to US shores?

For the two years that it was free for me (which happened to correspond with the two years I was seeing a woman who lived very near to the only EVGo station near me) I too had almost zero bad experiences with DCFC.

DougWantsALeaf said:

I saw that...where did the 6 inches go?? Supposedly a few extra inches in rear seat. Were are the other 3...an extended hood?

Click to expand...

Occasionally getting a chance to read and post now. I too was disappointed with the seemingly unchanged cargo volume (16.9 cu. ft. vs. 17.0 in Bolt) seats up, but a photo I saw somewhere of the EUV with seats down seems to show that the load floor in the cargo area is flat and essentially flush with the bottom of the rear hatch, unlike the Bolt where most of the cargo volume is vertical because of the well. So, that would explain where the extra length went, and if correct, would make the cargo area a lot more flexible for most people - although I didn't have to do it when I rented one, fully loading the Bolt's cargo area behind the seats would be an exercise in stacking.

As to the rest, like the better switchology and the the single-pedal default switch, have to see on the gear buttons instead of a stick, and am disappointed by the unchanged max. QC rate, which is far too slow and rules either vehicle out for me. 48A L2 and the L1/L2 portable EVSE will be useful for some, and including the wiring work for L2 in the new, lower price for the car(s) is a great idea.

Personally, until we get to SAE L4 I'm extremely unlikely to trust my life to any DAS, and given the known limitations of ACC/AEB I'm perfectly happy to do without ACC - with standard CC I KNOW what will happen every time, if I let my attention wander and overtake someone. That being said, SuperCruise is by far the most conservative Level 2 ADAS design extant, and if I were to use _any_ current ADAS I'd only use such a system on rural interstates. I'd be more willing to use S/C than A/P, with the latter's far less inherently-safe design.

GRA said:

Occasionally getting a chance to read and post now. I too was disappointed with the seemingly unchanged cargo volume (16.9 cu. ft. vs. 17.0 in Bolt) seats up, but a photo I saw somewhere of the EUV with seats down seems to show that the load floor in the cargo area is flat and essentially flush with the bottom of the rear hatch, unlike the Bolt where most of the cargo volume is vertical because of the well. So, that would explain where the extra length went, and if correct, would make the cargo area a lot more flexible for most people - although I didn't have to do it when I rented one, fully loading the Bolt's cargo area behind the seats would be an exercise in stacking.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that.

On Bolt EV, there's always been (for at least '17 to '21 AFAIK) an optional false floor (standard on Premier, I think as I have a Premier) which makes the cargo area flat w/the seats folded down as long as the floor is up.

Skip to 4:44 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lsVDdgLXho. Skip to 0:21 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqTe0Gzx8c.

I think he means that there is no liftover "lip" with the seats folded and the hatch open, like the Gen III Prius boasted. If true, that would be great.

The '17-'21 Bolt only has a "flat" cargo space with the false floor. If you want the full 16.9 cu ft, you need to remove the floor. GRA's "exercise in stacking" comment hits home with me. At least once a month I have to stack the trunk so full that I have to hold bags in place while I quickly close the hatch. That or park facing downhill. The struggle is real. And that's just for a weekend's worth of stuff for five people and a small dog.

I was really hoping the EUV would provide more cargo volume and quicker DCFC rates. Even upping the rate to 1C (66kW) would be a 20% improvement which I would gladly take. That would have been enough for me to upgrade my '17 Bolt. As it is, I am leaning much more towards the Ariya and ID.4 now.

Just so you know: the Ariya also seems to have very little cargo space with the rear seats up...

https://my.chevrolet.com/how-to-support/safety/boltevrecall as reported in EV press has been quietly updated with the notable addition of:

A team of GM engineers has made substantial progress in identifying the root cause and potential remedies for this issue. They are in the process of validating state-of-the-art software that can diagnose potential issues early and restore 100% charge capability. A final remedy for this recall is anticipated for April 2021. Until that time, if you have not already done so, we recommend scheduling a service appointment with your dealership to update the vehicle’s battery software to automatically limit the maximum state of charge to 90 percent.

Click to expand...

GetOffYourGas said:

The '17-'21 Bolt only has a "flat" cargo space with the false floor. If you want the full 16.9 cu ft, you need to remove the floor. GRA's "exercise in stacking" comment hits home with me. At least once a month I have to stack the trunk so full that I have to hold bags in place while I quickly close the hatch. That or park facing downhill. The struggle is real. And that's just for a weekend's worth of stuff for five people and a small dog.

Click to expand...

^^^ Right, you understood me correctly. The Bolt LT I rented lacked the false floor cover; with one, the cargo space with the seats up would have been ludicrously small. As it was, I had a single internal frame pack loaded crossways in the well, the upper side of which was just about level with the rear hatch sill.

I found the pics I was referring to. You have to scroll down aways for both the Bolt and Bolt EUV cargo area pics: https://jalopnik-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/jalopnik.com/the-2022-chevy-bolt-might-just-have-a-chance-1846279372/amp?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16137150487590&amp_ct=1613715052608&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fthe-2022-chevy-bolt-might-just-have-a-chance-1846279372

iDK if there's a false floor cover in the EUV's cargo area (like my Forester, which has a spare tire well under it) or it's solid, but it looks to me as if the area behind the seats is longer in the EUV, although it's hard to be sure from the photo. It's also hard to tell if the floor is closer to flush with the sill of the hatch, as Leftie was referring to, and which would be welcome.

Personally, while the price is better, neither the EUV or the Niro offer AWD, but the Niro offers 18.5 cu.ft. of cargo area seats up (plus an under-floor well that holds the EVSE and has room for more) and somewhat faster charging, albeit 11 miles less EPA range. In heating and maybe cooling weather I'd expect the Niro's heat pump and/or driver-only CC option to more than make up the difference. The latter is really valuable for range for people like me who usually take trips solo, so the Niro would still be my choice between the two. Hopefully Kia will drop the price a bit. Owners seem to like it as well: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131021_tesla-model-s-and-kia-niro-ev-top-electric-vehicle-ownership-study

Hopefully they've fixed that one problem (with a bearing?) they'd been having

The euv cargo area does look bigger. I do wonder if it's a factor of the false floor in the EUV, but out of the Bolt when measured.

Looking at the EUV cargo area pic again, I'm willing to bet it does have a false floor, as there is what I can only assume is a finger hole or maybe a holder for a cord and hook to grab, lift and/or hold it up, near the hatch sill.

GRA said:

Looking at the EUV cargo area pic again, I'm willing to bet it does have a false floor, as there is what I can only assume is a finger hole or maybe a holder for a cord and hook to grab, lift and/or hold it up, near the hatch sill.

Click to expand...

Yes, and given the quality of typical EV false floors, you will need to build a plywood version to be able to carry heavy loads on it.

LeftieBiker said:

GRA said:

Looking at the EUV cargo area pic again, I'm willing to bet it does have a false floor, as there is what I can only assume is a finger hole or maybe a holder for a cord and hook to grab, lift and/or hold it up, near the hatch sill.

Click to expand...

Yes, and given the quality of typical EV false floors, you will need to build a plywood version to be able to carry heavy loads on it.

Click to expand...

Given the apparent size of the panel, I'd expect there would be a foam insert in any well, to take the weight. Otherwise, as you say it would be useless to take any weighty cargo. We'll have to check it out and report once they're available.

Not to knock Tesla, but the EV->EUV seems to follow their 3->Y and S->X formulae.

Make it a little taller, a little wider, change the styling a bit: more people will buy it.

We're going to see a lot more of this from every car brand as EVs go mainstream. Every 200HP car from one manufacturer will have the same drivetrain and battery, but everything else will be engineered for a specific target market.

Every flagship smartphone from Apple has the same A12 or A12X, every Android flagship has the same Snapdragon 875, every top-end laptop has the same Intel i7-10500M, yada yada yada. The days of each car being a (almost unique) musical instrument to be churned out and periodically tuned by hand are over.

Given the apparent size of the panel, I'd expect there would be a foam insert in any well, to take the weight. Otherwise, as you say it would be useless to take any weighty cargo. We'll have to check it out and report once they're available.

Click to expand...

Just so you know: I've looked at several EVs with available false floors, and we drive two of them. None of them have strong foam inserts. All of them seem to be made of cheap fiberboard. The false floor I improvised for my Gen II SL, using a Weathertech cargo liner and dense packing foam, is stronger than any of the ones I've seen from a manufacturer. It still wouldn't support a heavy load.

LeftieBiker said:

Given the apparent size of the panel, I'd expect there would be a foam insert in any well, to take the weight. Otherwise, as you say it would be useless to take any weighty cargo. We'll have to check it out and report once they're available.

Click to expand...

Just so you know: I've looked at several EVs with available false floors, and we drive two of them. None of them have strong foam inserts. All of them seem to be made of cheap fiberboard. The false floor I improvised for my Gen II SL, using a Weathertech cargo liner and dense packing foam, is stronger than any of the ones I've seen from a manufacturer. It still wouldn't support a heavy load.

Click to expand...

Just so we're clear, I'm talking about a hard foam shape in the well under the false floor which the floor tests on and which supports it, not foam in the floor panel. Are we talking about the same thing?

We mean essentially the same thing. There is usually foam that serves to form compartments for the EVSE and other odds & ends, but it isn't very tough. It's a choice between more cargo volume with strong floors, and less volume with a weak floor in the back that hides the EVSE. Someone must offer something better, but I don't know who.

coleafrado2 said:

We're going to see a lot more of this

Click to expand...

What has ICE done in past 50 years ?
Dropped a tail-fin ? Polluted a little less ?

The pace of innovation in EVs is a log faster.
And if you think Tesla cars today compared to 5 years ago are about the same, you have not been paying attention.

SageBrush said:

What has ICE done in past 50 years ?
Dropped a tail-fin ? Polluted a little less ?

Click to expand...

Depends on what you count as pollutants. The SULEV standard (which does NOT look at CO2 emissions but rather pollutants like CO, nitrous oxides (which cause smog), particulate matter, etc.) was defined to be 90% cleaner than the average vehicle. I believe they were comparing to the average model year 2003 vehicle.

If you look at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends like https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report, you'll see that since 1975, fuel economy has gone way up (and thus CO2 emissions down) and horsepower has gone considerably up since 1980.

I remember the days of my dad's 1980 Chevy Chevette that had maybe 60ish hp. We had an '86 Olds Cutlass Ciera w/2.5 liter 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Duke_engine that only produced about 92 hp. V6 engines on the GM A-cars of the time IIRC didn't even top out at 150 hp. We had a 93 Dodge Caravan w/Mitsubishi 3.0L V6 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_6G7_engine#6G72) that was ~140ish hp.

Since around 2002, even Nissan had 175 hp 4-cylinder naturally aspirated engines (starting w/the 02 Altima w/2.5L 4). That was pretty high output for NA 4-cylinder engine on a non-luxury car. I had an 02 Maxima w/255 hp 3.5 L V6 and an 04 350Z w/287 hp w/the same engine.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/a15151089/csaba-csere-minicars-i-dont-see-no-stinking-minicars-column/ from 2006 talks about the horsepower and car bloat, over time.

The latest Civic, for example, is 176.7 inches long, about the length of an Accord 20 years ago. It also has more passenger space (91 cubic feet versus 88 of interior volume) and power (the base 2006 Civic has a 140-hp engine, 30 more than the most powerful Accord of 1986).
...
A truly tiny car by modern standards was the Volkswagen Scirocco that came to market in 1974. It was a sporty three-door hatchback that preceded the workaday Rabbit, which appeared a year later on the same platform. At 155.7 inches long, the Scirocco was 1.7 inches shorter than the new Honda Fit. More important, it was 2.2 inches narrower and 8.5 inches lower. And although the Fit is a contemporary lightweight, tipping the scales at less than 2500 pounds, the Scirocco was about 600 pounds lighter.

Weighing no more than a modern Lotus Elise, you'd think that old Scirocco would have been a rocket, but its 1.5-liter engine put out just 70 horsepower. Such meager power reminds us of those dark days when emissions-control regulations had gotten ahead of engine technology. So despite its feathery weight, the Scirocco couldn't break 10 seconds to 60, about two and a half seconds slower than the new Fit. It couldn't match the Fit's fuel economy, either.

Click to expand...

Some of the HP race may be attributable to the Dark Days of the Seventies, when auto manufacturers just de-tuned engines and slapped air injection pumps on them to meet emissions standards. Then they just raised the final gearing to meet fuel economy standards. The result was 140HP 300+ CI V-8s, and gearing that discouraged any kind of spirited acceleration. Of course, expectations were lower, and foreign cars lighter: The 1970 Volvo P1800E I briefly drove was to me a rocketship, with a whopping 130HP. My '86 Civic Si had all of 90HP, but it was light and still fun to drive. The problem with "races" like the HP race is that there is no end result other than disappointment in what used to be considered "fast."