nevetsyad said:
Bolt EV + used SUV sounds like a good idea, until you're dropping the SUV off at the stealership every few months for maintenance and work to be done.
I think you meant SparkEV, not Bolt. The amount of driving you'd do with the SUV will be minimal, maybe only for 200+ or 300+ miles trips. Since SparkEV is working for you, those long drives would be rare, making gas car maintenance to be much less. Also, SUV would be much more room and home depot trips would be possible as well as towing stuff, like $250 Harbor freight trailer to pick up refrigerator, or even camping trailer.
nevetsyad said:
The Ford Fiesta tops out at a 1.6l engine with 120 horsepower and 112 lb.-ft. of torque, per the ford web site. All of the cars you listed require gas, ...
It seems you haven't read my blog post. I'm not talking about base Fiesta (~$15K), but Fiesta ST with 200 HP ($22K). But if your criteria is only EV and no gas car, Bolt is best bang for the buck for now (again, in my blog post). I'm waiting for Tesla, though. Bolt is not very good value IMO whereas SparkEV kicked butt of every gas car in its price range.
nevetsyad said:
Bolt will do it much quick at a 6.6kW charing station, even with it's inefficiencies. I'm guessing they're only claiming 25 miles of range per hour of charging to keep expectations low
If SparkEV L2 is working for you now, Bolt won't make it much better. If SparkEV is meeting 99% (or even 90%) of your needs, Bolt at $12K more seems much for the remainder. At 6.6kW, it'll be bit less than double SparkEV, so 25 MPH is probably about right. If you're getting 10 with SparkEV, you'll probably get 19 with Bolt. But again, L2 is only for home or work where you'd be away for hours and hours, not very practical for public charging.
nevetsyad said:
Quick charging a vehicle with a larger battery means more time in the bulk charging stage.
People generally charge to 80%, so only savings by Bolt would be fewer charge sessions. But consider that one has to be pretty crazy to drive more than 4 or 5 DCFC in a day, which means typical SparkEV drivers would make 200 miles trips as often as Bolt drivers make 600 miles trips. For longer trips, SparkEV drivers would simply drive gas cars, rent or second car they have, making Bolt no faster than SparkEV.
nevetsyad said:
I plan on driving my Bolt cross country at least once.
That'll require lots of L2, and that'll be just as slow as current Leaf or even Fiat 500e. This is one of my big complaint about Bolt. Chevy refuse to help charging. Even something as simple as making 150kW chargers available to buy/lease would help. But they say "unless it helps all our customers, we won't invest". No gas car benefit means no investment in EV charging.
nevetsyad said:
I hope the SparkEV keeps it's value later this year. I'm afraid it's going to be seen as a discontinued relic once it's big brother hits the scene.
If EV1 was sold and not crushed, I doubt the value would go down. While it's hard to say now, being the quickest car under $20K (even quicker than Elantra, Sentra, Corolla) AND as EV would make it pretty interesting car to have, especially if it's discontinued.
nevetsyad said:
In conclusion, yes, it costs more, yes it may be 5 or 10% less efficient, but it offers FAR more technology, range, battery and charging ability. It can be the only car I need, no need to maintain and park a spare ICE vehicle in the driveway anymore!
Again, you're focused on things outside of price. I'm concerned about bang for the buck with regard to any car. $12K saving with SparkEV buys lots of big macs, and $8K saving with Fiesta ST could buy used Nissan Leaf.
Of course, the combo I'd go for is SparkEV + $12K used SUV or mini van + trailer. That'll make it EV 99% of the time, ability to drive 500+ miles in one sitting (by wearing diaper), tow camping trailer, and ability to haul large items eliminating the need for a truck. That's lot to give up just for one Bolt that may not have much more EV driving.
