The 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV will be spacious inside, but don’t expect to be slipping through the wind. Automotive News reports designers made a serious trade-off between interior spaciousness and its aerodynamics.
The 2017 Bolt EV’s design team leader called the car a “disaster for aero”, stating its cargo space and roominess was a top priority. The 2017 Bolt EV features a drag coefficient of 0.32; in comparison, Elon Musk stated the inbound Tesla Model 3 will arrive with a slick 0.21 drag coefficient.
To help, designers added on a spoiler as well as underbody paneling. Grille shutters also open at certain speeds to help the Bolt EV not be a block of wood against the wind. Aluminum was utilized for the doors and A-pillars, too, to keep the overall weight down.
Despite this, the 2017 Bolt EV has received positive marks for its drivability in very early pre-production drives. However, its real world effects won’t be known until it reaches consumers later this year.
Comments
My 200S has a best-in-class drag coefficient (.23 if I recall).
Honestly, I hate it. I can’t set anything down on the car. I can’t put a coffee cup on the trunk. I can’t set anything on the roof. I can barely put things on the hood. Barely.
I liked the article as a whole, but I think this quote about aerodynamics is being taken out of context by those who don’t bother to read the whole article or can’t say anything good about the Bolt EV because it’s not made by Tesla. When that one sentence quote is taken out of context, it sounds like “it” refers to the whole car being a disaster because it’s not very aerodynamic. After reading the article and the quote in context, the lead designer is simply suggesting that the shape of the car made it very challenging for aerodynamics, but the overall focus was on practicality, not creating an aerodynamic shape that would prove to be cramped and inefficient for day-to-day use.
I think the real takeaway here should have been that, even though the desired utility of the car made it a challenge, GM was still able to create a groundbreaking, affordable electric car with more than 200 miles of electric range. That was poorly conveyed by the designer (I’m sure he misspoke and never intended to call anything “a disaster”), which is too bad. Rather than a negative comparison to EV1, Tesla, and other highly aerodynamic vehicles like I’ve seen reported elsewhere, I would have liked a comparison to vehicles of similar shape, in similar price range, with similar interior volume. That’s something GM should have provided to the reporter.
The grille shutters CLOSE at a certain speed (not open as the article states) … therefore the block of wood reference is a little confusing because it is reducing aerodynamic drag by reducing the air entering the engine bay (or I guess motor bay in this case!)
You don’t compare this EV to the Model 3. The Tesla is a sedan. That’s like saying ChikFilA sacrificed a lot of beef for their chicken sandwich.
When you purchase a car this shape you’re (of course) swapping space for drag. I’m sure the Volt rides far smoother. And that backseat is a fiasco to get in and out of.
The choice for me is easy.
They’re comparable because they’re the first to EV cars with ~300 miles of range for under $30,000.
They differ wildly in terms of vision. One is the Lyft car of the future. The other is the sport sedan of the future.
And the Volt is not a fiasco to get in and out of the backseat. Heck, Consumer Reports called my 200S a “fiasco” – but it’s only compared to sedans of today, it’s far better than my Pontiac G6’s backdoor… I lost count of the times people hit their head on that back door frame.
Well this car was conceived and built as a Urban commuter car. Most of the time it will never see highways for long periods of time. It is a point A to B kind of car.
With that being said the interior and utility will be more important than the aero effect.
But Aero is very important as it does effect the range on these vehicles significantly.
GM will have larger cars with larger batteries like the S and will see longer ranges and not target the commuter market like this car does.
The 3 and the Bolt are two different cars for two different segment. You will also find they will service two different price segments too with the 3 rising much in price as you add real need options.
Right
the Bolt i suspect will be used primarily as an urban runabout, a commuter car that won’t see too many interstates, or even as a second car. So having a low aero cd doesnt seem to be a very important real world practical matter. An all -electric car is just not going to substitute for an internal combustion engine. Not yet, anyway. As such, wind cheating shapes just aren’t necessary on a utilitarian people mover.Cheating the wind requires real-world tradeoffs like lower rooflines, sacrificing headroom and interior space. In this segment, large interior volume is more important than a low cd. Yes, its nice to have a high mpg or mpg-e. But for a tiny city electric commuter that will rarely see an on-ramp, a low drag coefficient makes little difference in real world urban driving. Even a rolling brick will do fine. Good choice , GM.
i see trucks rolling over 65 MPH on highways and they have more drag than my Chevy Equinox! Anyway, the efficiency is only relative if you are driving a race. Other than that it can be a pure square box since I drive in cities at low speeds (below 40 MPH), where drag is too low to actually affect my range.
can they make cars aerodynamic without making then look like jellybeans and giving them tight head space ??