2027 Chevy Bolt: Meet America's Cheapest New EV (and its dead again)

[Rick73]

Chevrolet has added 2027 Bolt to their site.  It shows 4 new colors but I’ve read a total of ~ 7 IIRC.  Other +/- 3 must be carryover from 2 years ago.

 

https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/bolt-ev

[Rick73]

Interesting comment from an established source concluding that new Bolt will be significantly slower in acceleration because new electric motor has much less torque, or “a lot less shove to get it off the line”.  They acknowledge power is up from 200 to 210 HP, but point out that torque is way down from 266 to 169 lb-ft.

 

This is great example of how good engineering may be influenced by marketing and the belief that motor torque means more than it actually does.  The new Bolt may accelerate slower because vehicle weighs more, or some other factor, but huge decrease in motor torque taken out of context isn’t a big deal.  I wonder how engineers today go about doing their jobs when they sometimes know that their work will be misunderstood and incorrectly criticized, and that it may even affect sales.  Just seems wrong.😑 

 

[twintornados]

1 hour ago, Rick73 said:

Interesting comment from an established source concluding that new Bolt will be significantly slower in acceleration because new electric motor has much less torque, or “a lot less shove to get it off the line”.  They acknowledge power is up from 200 to 210 HP, but point out that torque is way down from 266 to 169 lb-ft.

 

This is great example of how good engineering may be influenced by marketing and the belief that motor torque means more than it actually does.  The new Bolt may accelerate slower because vehicle weighs more, or some other factor, but huge decrease in motor torque taken out of context isn’t a big deal.  I wonder how engineers today go about doing their jobs when they sometimes know that their work will be misunderstood and incorrectly criticized, and that it may even affect sales.  Just seems wrong.😑 

 

Outright neck snapping torque is not a major factor in Bolt sales and it's target audience. 

[Rick73]

23 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

Outright neck snapping torque is not a major factor in Bolt sales and it's target audience. 

That wasn’t quite the point I was referring to, but on that subject most test data for previous-generation Bolt I’ve seen put it around 6.6 ~  6.7 seconds 0-60 MPH, which I think is plenty fast enough for a budget economy car.  At least it’s not super slow like an ICE Chevy Spark which took over 10 seconds.😀

 

My point about MT expecting the 2027 Bolt to accelerate significantly slower than the discontinued 2023 is that their conclusion is baffling because it’s based on lower torque rating but that’s effectively not the case.  The new car reportedly weighs about 100 pounds more, which represents roughly 3%.  Power is up 5% from 200 to 210 and geared torque at wheels up a little over 4%.  Unless GM specs are wrong there is no reason to expect much change in acceleration IMO.

 

For clarity, previous Bolt had 266 lb-ft X 7.05 ratio or 1,880 lb-ft at wheels (excluding gearbox inefficiency).

 

New Bolt has 169 lb-ft X 11.59 ratio or 1,960 lb-ft at wheels (excluding gearbox inefficiency).  That’s roughly 4% higher overall torque which should compensate for slightly higher 2027 Bolt weight.

 

Obviously new higher-efficiency drivetrain is designed to operate at much higher RPM.  That’s not that unusual any longer.  (Edit: Removed reference to a specific motor RPM that can not be verified from other credible sources).  Should be interesting to see how Bolt performs under testing.

Edited October 14, 2025 by Rick73
Rated RPM could not be verified.

[akirby]

Significantly less torque will make it slower at launch.  Torque is what you measure.  HP is a math calculation based on torque.  Should be fine once it gets going.   

[Rick73]

8 minutes ago, akirby said:

Significantly less torque will make it slower at launch.  Torque is what you measure.  HP is a math calculation based on torque.  Should be fine once it gets going.   

 

That’s not how it works.  Motor torque alone is meaningless.

Edited October 14, 2025 by Rick73

[akirby]

23 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

 

That’s not how it works.  Motor torque alone is meaningless.

That is exactly how it works when you’re going from a stop.  Gearing doesn’t create torque, it multiplies it and you need a lot of torque to get a heavy vehicle moving.   Once it gets moving then the gearing should compensate but at 0 rpm it’s going to be slower.

[Rick73]

13 minutes ago, akirby said:

That is exactly how it works when you’re going from a stop.  Gearing doesn’t create torque, it multiplies it and you need a lot of torque to get a heavy vehicle moving.   Once it gets moving then the gearing should compensate but at 0 rpm it’s going to be slower.

No.  The 11.59 to 1 versus 7.05 to 1 difference in gear ratio applies at 0 RPM also.  Think about it, if it didn’t and car was limited to motor torque only at 0 RPM and thus 0 speed the car would never be able to get moving up an incline, not even a minor road grade.

[Rick73]

For what it’s worth, I found information on previous Bolt stating that the 200 HP motor’s maximum rated speed was 8810 RPM (think of it as redline), which when geared at 7.05:1 and with fairly small diameter tires limited maximum vehicle speed to 93 MPH.  It should also be interesting to see if new 2027 Bolt has such a low maximum top speed.

[GearheadGrrrl]

I'd be tempted by an EV with the performance of a GTI, but looks like GM blew that opportunity with the Bolt (again).

[tarheels23]

On 10/9/2025 at 9:21 AM, twintornados said:

 

My hybrid Maverick will go 500-600 miles between fillups as a matter of routine....

2013 C-Max hybrid is getting over 50 MPG / tank so 650 - 700 with 128K miles

[akirby]

Pffft….. I get 700 miles per tank in my F150.

 

 

Ok, so it’s a 36 gallon tank……

[morgan20]

On 10/10/2025 at 12:06 PM, Biker16 said:

What was strange back then? Was it was the best-selling non-tesla EV in the United States before it was discontinued?. And was a reasonably good seller back then. The new one should pick up where the old one left off. 

 

Yea, them Chevy Bolt owners are also a loyal bunch. Maybe the GM big shot and Chevy VP Scott Bell wasn't full of BS when he said:

 

"After production ended, we heard our customer’s feedback and their love for this product."

 

The car had the highest owner loyalty among all small cars (electric or otherwise) most years it was eligible

 

[Rick73]

10 hours ago, morgan20 said:

Yea, them Chevy Bolt owners are also a loyal bunch. Maybe the GM big shot and Chevy VP Scott Bell wasn't full of BS when he said:

 

"After production ended, we heard our customer’s feedback and their love for this product."

 

The car had the highest owner loyalty among all small cars (electric or otherwise) most years it was eligible

There does seem to be a little bit of a cult following with Bolt that reminds me of calls to resurrect EV1 decades ago.  From my perspective the two cars don’t have much in common other than they represent extremes.  EV1 was first modern EV of its kind and Bolt later became lowest-cost mass-produced practical EV manufactured by American company.  Have wondered how much better Bolt would have sold if not for battery issues, and also slow charging.  Obviously as mentioned before we don’t know true profitability since GM could have been subsidizing costs.

 

In any case I doubt GM wanted to lose as much marketing capital with loyal customers with Bolt as they did with EV1.  Maybe Barra doesn’t want to be known for killing the Bolt. 😀

 

https://www.topspeed.com/why-gm-ev1-should-come-back/

[Captainp4]

On 10/14/2025 at 10:58 AM, akirby said:

That is exactly how it works when you’re going from a stop.  Gearing doesn’t create torque, it multiplies it and you need a lot of torque to get a heavy vehicle moving.   Once it gets moving then the gearing should compensate but at 0 rpm it’s going to be slower.

The cool thing about electric motors is they make peak tq right off 0 rpm until they stop spinning, so yes gearing makes all the difference in this scenario. I'm with on it being a crutch on ICE, but on electric motors if they can keep it efficient at higher rpm then it is effectively the same thing just with more or less rpm depending. 

[akirby]

58 minutes ago, Captainp4 said:

The cool thing about electric motors is they make peak tq right off 0 rpm until they stop spinning, so yes gearing makes all the difference in this scenario. I'm with on it being a crutch on ICE, but on electric motors if they can keep it efficient at higher rpm then it is effectively the same thing just with more or less rpm depending. 

I understand all that but you still have to get that heavy car moving from a dead stop and I could be wrong but I still think 100 lb/ft more torque gets it moving faster even with revised gearing.

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

I understand all that but you still have to get that heavy car moving from a dead stop and I could be wrong but I still think 100 lb/ft more torque gets it moving faster even with revised gearing.

Curious why you still think that is the case when new Bolt has more torque going to driven wheels?  GM engineers compensated for lower-torque and higher-RPM electric motor design by using proportionally lower gearing to end up with about the same torque at wheels as before.  Higher RPM motors are becoming more common for technical reasons, so they require different gearing.

 

 

On 10/13/2025 at 11:42 PM, Rick73 said:

For clarity, previous Bolt had 266 lb-ft X 7.05 ratio or 1,880 lb-ft at wheels (excluding gearbox inefficiency).

 

New Bolt has 169 lb-ft X 11.59 ratio or 1,960 lb-ft at wheels (excluding gearbox inefficiency).  That’s roughly 4% higher overall torque which should compensate for slightly higher 2027 Bolt weight.

 

The additional +/- 4% greater torque at wheels should make up for added +/- 3% higher mass, so acceleration should be about the same as before for all practical purposes that most drivers can detect; unless GM is misleading and I see no reason to think that.  Zero to sixty should remain in 6.5 ~6.6 second range as before.

[DeluxeStang]

On 10/14/2025 at 11:18 AM, GearheadGrrrl said:

I'd be tempted by an EV with the performance of a GTI, but looks like GM blew that opportunity with the Bolt (again).

I'd keep an eye on these upcoming skunkworks Ford EVs. It seems like Ford's trying to make them more performance oriented at a low price. 

[akirby]

Because….inertia.   And I admit I could be totally wrong.

[Captainp4]

On 10/19/2025 at 1:05 PM, akirby said:

I understand all that but you still have to get that heavy car moving from a dead stop and I could be wrong but I still think 100 lb/ft more torque gets it moving faster even with revised gearing.

The difference is tq at the wheels, Rick did the math for you but gearing and rpm make it effectively the same thing. With ICE you usually run out of RPM (or gears in the trans, which is why they keep adding more) on the top end when you increase gearing, but if GM's claims about more RPM out of the electric motor and efficient are true then you aren't giving anything up.

I don't know if you ever built a drag car or race car, but you usually increase gear ratio in the rear until you're trapping at or close the rev limiter in top gear, which makes you faster but you sacrifice top end and especially highway manners if it's not an OD trans.. but it gets you off the line quicker and makes the car faster in the 1/4 or whatever you're doing. If there's more RPM available then there isn't much of a trade off.

[akirby]

4 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

The difference is tq at the wheels, Rick did the math for you but gearing and rpm make it effectively the same thing. With ICE you usually run out of RPM (or gears in the trans, which is why they keep adding more) on the top end when you increase gearing, but if GM's claims about more RPM out of the electric motor and efficient are true then you aren't giving anything up.

I don't know if you ever built a drag car or race car, but you usually increase gear ratio in the rear until you're trapping at or close the rev limiter in top gear, which makes you faster but you sacrifice top end and especially highway manners if it's not an OD trans.. but it gets you off the line quicker and makes the car faster in the 1/4 or whatever you're doing. If there's more RPM available then there isn't much of a trade off.

I understand the math.  My brain just has a hard time believing gearing can make up for 100 lb/ft less torque from a dead stop.  

[Rick73]

14 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

The difference is tq at the wheels, Rick did the math for you but gearing and rpm make it effectively the same thing. With ICE you usually run out of RPM (or gears in the trans, which is why they keep adding more) on the top end when you increase gearing, but if GM's claims about more RPM out of the electric motor and efficient are true then you aren't giving anything up.

I don't know if you ever built a drag car or race car, but you usually increase gear ratio in the rear until you're trapping at or close the rev limiter in top gear, which makes you faster but you sacrifice top end and especially highway manners if it's not an OD trans.. but it gets you off the line quicker and makes the car faster in the 1/4 or whatever you're doing. If there's more RPM available then there isn't much of a trade off.

Yeah, it’s an entirely different game when comparing electric vehicles to those powered by internal combustion engines.  Most drivers today don’t like engines revving to higher RPMs, yet in a car like the new Bolt the electric motor will be spinning at over 10,000 RPM when cruising at normal interstate highway speeds.  Fortunately it won’t matter to them because the electric motor is extremely smooth and quiet even at those high RPMs.  There is also no tachometer to provide feedback on motor speed so it falls under the what you don’t know won’t hurt you umbrella.

 

An example of how different latest BEVs operate regarding gearing compared to ICE-powered cars is my old Mustang.  First gear is 2.99 to 1 and final is 3 to 1, for a total of 8.97 to 1 overall ratio at launch.  Essentially the new Bolt is geared considerably lower than my Mustang when in 1st, and the Bolt stays in its fixed ratio even when cruising at 75 MPH or faster.  There’s no real direct comparison because no one would drive an ICE Mustang at 75 MPH in first gear even if the car could.

 

I learned to drive on 3-speed manual-transmission vehicles and agree that more gears are beneficial, but think that going to 10 speeds is mostly overkill, and driven largely by marketing.  Depending on engine power and vehicles’ intended duty cycle, between 6 and 8 should be plenty for most applications.  I know greater numbers of gears are done to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency but there is a point of diminishing improvements relative to added costs and complexity.  This will soon become a moot point with transition to electrification so won’t matter anyway.

[Rick73]

10 hours ago, akirby said:

I understand the math.  My brain just has a hard time believing gearing can make up for 100 lb/ft less torque from a dead stop.  

IMO it’s easier to relate to the math when units are handled correctly.  Torque should be lb-ft which is abbreviation of pounds X feet.  Though it has been used too commonly on internet, especially as of late, lb/ft is incorrect and probably adds to confusion.  We don’t divide, we multiply.

 

An easy way to remember is to visualize a 200-pound man placing all his weight at end of a 4-foot-long horizontal lever, thus making 800 lb-ft  (200 lbs X 4 ft).  It’s then easy to visualize a 100-pound small woman placing her entire weight at end of an 8-foot-long horizontal lever making the same 800 lb-ft (100 lbs X 8 ft).  The fact that woman weighs half as much as large man doesn’t matter because longer lever compensates to create same torque (as if trying to tighten a very large lug nut).  Gearing works in a similar manner, particularly at zero speed, though gets a bit more complicated because speed affects power, and how much useful work can be accomplished in a given amount of time.  In simple example I described above the small woman may be able to create same 800 lb-ft of final torque by using a longer lever, but that doesn’t necessarily mean she can tighten the lug nuts in the same amount of time unless she can move the end of lever twice as fast.  The math is indeed very simple, but understanding the principles behind the numbers is what’s crucial, otherwise all kinds of wrong conclusions will come from it.

 

 

[Biker16]

On 10/15/2025 at 4:40 PM, akirby said:

Pffft….. I get 700 miles per tank in my F150.

 

 

Ok, so it’s a 36 gallon tank……

That seems a bit excessive. My tiny Focus has a 12-gallon tank, and the TC has a 15-gallon tank. 

The older I get, the less I understand the American obsession with large trucks. It seems like a wonderful way to support the profits of Legacy automakers, and make people feel better about themselves.

My favorite truck is this.

 

Edited October 24, 2025 by Biker16

[akirby]

The 36 gallon tank was an option that I wouldn’t have ordered but it is nice to have.  
 

I grew up driving full size trucks.  New ones are super comfortable, can seat 3 large guys easily in the rear seat.  I’ve carried 1K-2K lbs of mulch and stone and I regularly carry 10 foot lumber.  I towed my golf cart to the factory on a heavy trailer for repair like it wasn’t there.

 

I get 21 mpg city and 26 highway, it tows or hauls everything I would ever need, it’s super comfortable and it fits in my garage.  Cost is the only downside but I paid $37k before inflation hit.