Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)

[scaesare]

From somebody who developed interfaces between systems, I can tell you there is no way to force Hewlett Packard to communicate according to their own published specification. Or any other company. You program according to the Standard, and hope for the best. You can't put code in trying to figure out what model charger you're attached to and have separate communications for each model.

It's up to the company who failed to actually support the Standard correctly to change. Or you'll spend your days trying to kludge your code every time a new brand comes out.

There was a magazine test at California Speedway at 75 mph until the car went to 0 miles. It was 190. Sounds about right.

Are you implying you think the current charge rate are because of a communication difficulty between car and charger?

 

[McRat]

Are you implying you think the current charge rate are because of a communication difficulty between car and charger?

The Idaho lab found that out as have some EV owners. Some brands of chargers communicate different than others. While EVSE devices have more documented quirks, DCFC is not immune. Even Superchargers seem to have varying results depending on which location and stall you use, and Tesla is in full control on both sides.

I would not rely on a single data point when it comes to charger communications.

I firmly believe that if GM published 90 miles in 30 minutes, they found that it would charge at that rate. The graph shows it came up short significantly. Either the charger was underpowered, or they did not communicate perfectly.

 

[Jeff N]

I firmly believe that if GM published 90 miles in 30 minutes, they found that it would charge at that rate. The graph shows it came up short significantly. Either the charger was underpowered, or they did not communicate perfectly.

The Bolt owner manual implies that the long-quoted 90 miles in 30 minutes and 160 miles in an hour may be predicated on using a charger capable of more than 125A (the fastest CCS chargers in the field today). It mentions using an 80 kW CCS charger (whatever that means... it's ambiguous) and they essentially only exist in the test lab right now although they will begin being installed next year. The initial charging numbers in the graph that peak at 45 kW are pretty obviously limited by the peak current supported in the EVgo charger.

 

[McRat]

The hyperbole undermines your credibility to talk actual merits of the product. Just as does the other direction.

Techmaven brought some actual data and facts, and from that it's possible to begin discussion of what the situation is.

Techmaven has posted many times in the past in multiple threads that Chevrolet is exaggerating the Bolt EV's specifications.

It's sort of like a documentary I watched the other day. It was presented in logical fashion, and none of their "facts" were actually wrong, but the conclusion was not correct. In particular, they did not wait for all the data, and some of the data was missing.

To determine how fast a Bolt EV will charge will take more data.

 

[scaesare]

Techmaven has posted many times in the past in multiple threads that Chevrolet is exaggerating the Bolt EV's specifications.

It's sort of like a documentary I watched the other day. It was presented in logical fashion, and none of their "facts" were actually wrong, but the conclusion was not correct. In particular, they did not wait for all the data, and some of the data was missing.

To determine how fast a Bolt EV will charge will take more data.

Sure, but the discussion has to start somewhere, and the first data point is better than zero data points.

None of which suggests, of course, that we can't incorporate more data as it's obtained.

 

[techmaven]

Techmaven has posted many times in the past in multiple threads that Chevrolet is exaggerating the Bolt EV's specifications.

Please provide a reference.

 

[McRat]

The Bolt owner manual implies that the long-quoted 90 miles in 30 minutes and 160 miles in an hour may be predicated on using a charger capable of more than 125A (the fastest CCS chargers in the field today). It mentions using an 80 kW CCS charger and they essentially only exist in the test lab right now although they will begin being installed next year.

Jeff, what do you think the low voltage limit is on the Bolt EV cells?

Actually, it's quite hard... not magic, but hard. The Bolt as shown isn't slippery. GM says it's based on the Gamma G2SC platform, so it's not light. It doesn't have a skateboard platform, so where are they getting both the flat interior and places to stuff 60 kWh of battery? Therefore, this isn't even close to production ready and especially in terms of overall layout.

...the Bolt didn't get less vaporish with this "reveal" and instead, we were shown something that just isn't credible. ...

What is not credible? That it "might" get 200 miles under certain conditions? Or that it's ~1000lb lighter than Model S 60? Or that the floor isn't flat?

It does get over 200 miles on a charge in mixed driving at legal speeds. It has the same curb weight as the convertible Corvette, and the floor is flat.

3580 lb might be heavy for a compact car, but it is not heavy for a 200+ mile EV regardless of size so far.

 

[techmaven]

What is not credible? That it "might" get 200 miles under certain conditions? Or that it's ~1000lb lighter than Model S 60? Or that the floor isn't flat?

It does get over 200 miles on a charge in mixed driving at legal speeds. It has the same curb weight as the convertible Corvette, and the floor is flat.

3580 lb might be heavy for a compact car, but it is not heavy for a 200+ mile EV regardless of size so far.

Ah, that conversation was about the credibility of Tesla for the Model 3 versus Chevy with the Bolt. At the time, a year ago, we didn't have any specs of that kind. GM showed the Bolt concept in January 2015 with actually very little specs, as opposed to many other concept vehicles slated for quick development for production. It's similar in circumstance to the Porsche Mission-E. They haven't shown any credible chemistry advance going into production, as of today, that will make their specs and their timetable work out. So their claims are not yet credible. That doesn't mean it can't happen, just that their claims aren't credible yet given the information we have today. Again, the issue of that conversation was the credibility of Tesla versus GM. Tesla already has a long range BEV and working on new cell chemistry, battery packs, power electronics, and so forth.

And I said it was hard, and it is. So congrats on GM for achieving that. It still isn't slippery in the air and there are many other parts and pieces of making a real, viable for the masses long range BEV. Unfortunately, something we thought would be relatively easy, which is better DC charging, didn't pan out.

Again, where did I say GM exaggerated their specs? I said they didn't give us enough specs to evaluate their credibility. It's possible to any number of the 30kWh BEVs and get 200 miles... I wanted them to give us enough specs to understand their claims.

 

[3Victoria]

Any design is based considered compromises over a large number of interacting variables to achieve the goals set out. The Bolt and all Tesla cars are successes in that they achieved their goals.

The Bolts goals appear to be: compact but relatively roomy with hatchback, adequate range, and comparibly inexpensive. If thise are your goals its a winner.

Tesla's goals are to be compelling in range, performance, style, tech, and value, with compelling infrastructure (SCs). The 3 adds comparibly inexpensive. If those are your goals then they are winners.

The pond is very big ... room for all the new EV fish. Meanwhile most of the sharks have stopped moving, and you know what they say about that.

 

[McRat]

Ah, that conversation was ...

One of your earliest posts in the thread.

I think it is more vaporware than a Model 3. The Model 3 could launch with the Model S cell with just price reductions, as it already has a sufficient energy density level. The Bolt cannot ship with the current LG Chem NCM cells in the 2016 Volt as shown. Tesla's battery pricing is already 25-40% cheaper than the GM's current batteries. To hit the mid $30k price point, Tesla needs to drop the price another 30%. LG Chem/GM has not shown that they can hit even Tesla's current price point. GM has not shown a 200 mile EPA range BEV product ever. That's all fine and dandy so far. But the what really gets me is what they did show. The Bolt concept as shown is *not* a 200 mile EPA range BEV. There is no way with that body shape and size, based on a Gamma G2SC platform. No claimed aerodynamics breakthrough in order to take that vehicle shape to a low enough Cd to make the kind of range given the rest of what we know. Take a look at the lengths that BMW went through with the i3 in lowering the chassis weight. No such evidence, especially basing it on the Gamma G2SC that it will have that kind of weight reduction. Further, it isn't a skateboard platform like the Model S. So where did they stick 55-60 kWh of batteries? They certainly didn't tell us.

GM did not show any of the relevant technologies necessary to build a 200 mile EPA range BEV for $37k in 2017. Literally zero of technologies required were shown.

Correct. They showed the tech in 2016.

And? Perhaps the Bolt's CdA isn't as tragic as folk think. It's probably more slippery than an i3 or Leaf or Focus EV. Look at highway MPGe:

Compare Side-by-Side

 

[scaesare]

What is not credible?

Surely you agree that questioning the likelihood a manufacturer can execute in the future based on current evidence is a vastly different thing than charging a manufacturer with exaggerating specifications.

 

[TonyWilliams]

The Bolt isn't any more slippery than a LEAF (probably even less so), but I might be slightly smaller which gives it an overall lower amount of energy required to push it through the air.

My personal belief is that any increase in energy efficiency is strictly due to fine-tuning of the motor and inverter assembly. General Motors did this quite well for a 65 mph speed in the Spark EV. You could probably do a Google search and find that data.

 

[techmaven]

One of your earliest posts in the thread.

And? Perhaps the Bolt's CdA isn't as tragic as folk think. It's probably more slippery than an i3 or Leaf or Focus EV. Look at highway MPGe:

Compare Side-by-Side

And again, at NAIAS 2015, GM did not show us. Clearly, CdA on the Bolt is one of its weaknesses... as it turns out, its DCFC capability is a greater weakness. And we don't yet know the actual battery capacity in a Bolt... it appears that it might have more than originally claimed in order to make those range numbers. The 5 cycle EPA testing favors lighter city cars and doesn't really give us clarity on long distance highway cruising. The highest speed portion of that test has an average speed of ~48 mph. So citing highway EPA MPGe doesn't impress me, since I know what it means to drive long distances in a BEV.

Jack's efficiency numbers at speed are not impressive for such a smaller car. We'll see as more people receive their Bolts. The #1 problem is still that GM decided to gimp the car and it will turn out to be a poor ambassador for BEV ownership due to both the realistic highway range and the charging capability and infrastructure. The actual ownership experience for long distance driving and full-on ICE replacement is poor with the Bolt. Much like the Leaf has been a terrible ambassador thus far with its rapidly degrading battery, terrible CHAdeMO charging, and rapidly declining value. That doesn't mean that the Leaf doesn't have good traits, but it was a terrible leader for the electrification effort. The Volt, as a PHEV, has been a good example on the other hand. The Bolt was probably baked 1 year too early... hopefully next year's Bolt fixes some of the critical issues. Furthermore, we have yet to see the battery degradation and won't find out for some time... the SKI supplied Kia Soul EV's battery is terrible thus far in early returns and hopefully the Bolt doesn't follow that example.

 

[Jeff N]

Jeff, what do you think the low voltage limit is on the Bolt EV cells?

I think I saw one of the early owners say they started a CCS charging session at about 10% state of charge and the charger reported the voltage as being around 320. That's from memory but it matched my rough expectations given that the published nominal (half-charged) voltage of the Bolt EV pack is 350V.

Since there are 96 cell groups that works out to 3.33V at 10% and 3.65V at the nominal pack voltage (a typical value for this kind of cell chemistry).

I very much doubt that they let the cell voltage fall below 3.0V which would be 288V. I doubt that they let the pack voltage fall below 300V at rest.

 

[Zoomit]

I think I saw one of the early owners say they started a CCS charging session at about 10% state of charge and the charger reported the voltage as being around 320. That's from memory but it matched my rough expectations given that the published nominal (half-charged) voltage of the Bolt EV pack is 350V.

Jack started a DC charge on a 125A station at 1% SoC. He recorded a charging power of ~41kW, for a low battery voltage of ~330V [41000/125].
Bolt EV Blog: DC Fast Charge data

He also demonstrated GM's advertised max charging rate of "up to 90 miles of range in about 30 minutes." This was done in a charging session that went from 15% to 65% SoC in 39 minutes. This was also on a 125A charger. This gain of 50% SoC is 119 EPA miles in 39 minutes or equivalently a rate of 91 miles in 30 minutes.
Bolt EV Blog: SF to LA: ECO Mode!

 

[WannabeOwner]

Looking at the graph, I see a drop from ~45kW to about 38kW (16% drop) at 50% SoC, and then another drop from 38kW to about 23kW (41%) at 70% SoC.

Sure, but despite that the SOC seems to me to increase straight-line up to 70%

 

[WannabeOwner]

It does get over 200 miles on a charge in mixed driving at legal speeds. It has the same curb weight as the convertible Corvette

I know it is early days and few data points, but one thing I find interesting is how "narrow" the efficiency range is for BEVs

28 kWh/100 mi, 128/110 MPGe Bolt
33 kWh/100 mi, 101/107 MPGe Tesla S90D

50-60 MPG Hybrid (e.g. Hyundai Ioniq Blue = 58 MPG, Toyota Prius c = 46 MPG)
30 MPG e.g VW Golf
18 MPG Ferrari 488 GTB

Much bigger range for gas.

Fuel saving / cost much the same for BEV, so capital cost apart no incentive for high mileage drivers to have a smaller / non-sporty car

 

[stopcrazypp]

Well, Jack at Bolt EV Blog delivered with some charts of DC charging on a Bolt:

Bolt EV Blog: DC Fast Charge data

Yeah, never hits 50 kW. Dropping below peak already at 50% SoC. Another big drop at 70% SoC. GM is probably being quite conservative. With this data, it means even with going to higher amperage, the Bolt likely sees less than 60 kW charging with 160 amp chargers... At the lowest SOC's, the voltage is quite low, so even at 160 amps at ~330 volts, that's 53 kW. A peak at ~350 volts x 160 amps = 56 kW. Taper off before 50% SOC, so unclear with higher amperage when exactly the taper would hit. It is possible that a 160 amp EVSE, if the internal wiring of the Bolt can handle it, would provide the benefit of charging at 50-55 kW at the lower parts of the battery SOC.

With such a taper at 50% SOC... the Bolt is dropping below 40 kW while the older Model S 60 with older firmware is still above 50 kW. This means at no time does the Bolt charge faster than the Bjorn's older Model S 60... they almost touch right at 70% SOC, but then the Bolt drops to under 25 kW while the Model S is still at just under 40 kW (over 100 amps). Looking at KmanAuto's videos, his older Model S 60 doesn't drop to 45 kW until about 60% SoC. Again, at 70%, they almost touch. Mind you, at 11% SOC, his Model S is charging above 100 kW.

This is quite puzzling for a NMC chemistry. But maybe they don't want the repeat of the Kia Soul EV's battery degradation... another data point came in on the Idaho National Lab AVT testing and it looks downright terrible. This will be interesting to watch as NMC chemistries attempt to get near Tesla/Panasonic's NCA's specific energy. The BMW i3's degradation levels look "normal" but that's with much older, less dense NMC.

Interesting that it never hits 50kW and the taper also comes much earlier than expected (happening near 50% SOC). If you look at a 30kWh Leaf (half the battery), there is absolutely not taper until 80+% SOC:

How fast charging works | OliNo

We'll need more data, but this does not bode well for performance with even 160A or 200A chargers. As you note, it's a bit surprising for NMC chemistry given the older packs with LMO chemistries performed better even with half or less the battery capacity (so much higher c-rates).

 

[Yggdrasill]

The Bolt can clearly charge 90 miles in 30 minutes. 90 / 238 = 37.8% charged in 30 minutes. That works out to 45.4 kW.

I wouldn't expect it to charge much faster than this. GM hasn't promised it, and here in Norway it's official the max charge rate is 50 kW: Google Oversetter

Dr. Ralf Hannappel, chief of Opel electrification said: "The thing is that there are fast chargers in the US that can deliver a max of 80 kW. And more of these stations will be built. The reason why this (80 kW charging) is mentioned in the user manual is to reassure the American Bolt customers that they can also use these chargers. But that doesn't mean the car is capable of accepting more than 50 kW."

 

[bro1999]

GM’s Chevy Bolt EV becomes the first all-electric car to win North American Car of the Year award

Probably just another biased article from Electrek....

I squinted real hard, but I could not detect the usual anti-GM slant they add to their articles...especially about the Bolt.

I mean, the article was written in such a muted tone that it would make Ben Stein's voice sound exciting, but no backhanded GM slam like usual.

So Electrek has published at least 1 neutral GM article. Congrats. *slow clap*