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

[miimura]

That Norwegian user also reported that the charging was slowed by the car's battery cooling capacity. After letting the car rest, the charge rate increased again because it was not SOC based tapering. This is interesting because it could explain the unusual staircasing people have seen in the Bolt EV's charge tapering curve.

 

[Jeff N]

That Norwegian user also reported that the charging was slowed by the car's battery cooling capacity. After letting the car rest, the charge rate increased again because it was not SOC based tapering. This is interesting because it could explain the unusual staircasing people have seen in the Bolt EV's charge tapering curve.

My interpretation of Google's translation is that even with the A/C compressor and fan helping to cool the battery it was still charging at 50 kW or greater since the A/C compressor cooling took 3-4 kW when it was running (less for just the circulation pump).

The reported "premature" drop to 37 kW that was restored by resting the battery seemed to have happened above 50% SOC, as I read the report. At a 125A charger this drop to 37 kW (~100A) normally takes place at around 54% anyway so this premature rampdown would seem to have only a slight effect.

The "staircasing" rampdown of the Bolt EV is independent of apparent active battery cooling in my experience doing a couple of dozen CCS charging sessions on my Bolt over a range of different climate conditions from 60F to 105F.

 

[miimura]

I can't think of a nice way to say this, so I'll just say it the way it came to my mind - the staircased rampdown in Bolt EV charging is lame and likely not rooted in solid engineering principles. The VW e-Golf has a similarly artificial shape to its taper curve, but it does maintain full rate to 80% unless it's thermally limited by accumulated heat in the pack. The lack of active cooling in the e-Golf is another poor decision in the implementation of that vehicle.

 

[schonelucht]

Someone finally says they plugged an Opel Ampera-e into the 100 kW (200A max) CCS charger in Vestby, Norway.

..

Google Translate

Based on the above and on Bjorn's video of a Model S 60 supercharging (

) I made the following table to compare both. From the translation it seemed the poster indicated actual charge going into the battery, so I took the same for the S instead of using the kilowatt power consumed (which includes cooling losses).

kWh added	Ampera-e power	[Ampera-e minutes	S power	S minutes
+5	53	6	68	4
+10	53.7	11	66.5	9
+15	53.8	17	61.5	14
+20	54.6	22	56	19
+25	55.2	28	54	25
+30	55.5	33	51.1	31
+35	50	39	48	37
+40	37	47	43,3	44
+45	30	57	36,5	52

There is surprising little difference here. Especially when taking into account that an Ampera-e can actually driver longer with the same amount of kWh. Or maybe it isn't a surprise. In the end it is an engineering question. Assuming competent engineeering from both Tesla and LG Chem we'd expect similar results since their technological choices aren't that far apart. And that is exactly what we get.

To go from zero to half (+30kWh) takes 31 minutes on the S and 33 on the Ampera. But you get 14 miles more with that range on the Ampera-e. In reality that comes out as a wash. Beyond that, the Ampera-e tapers more aggresively making the difference at 45kWh added slightly over 5 minutes. (317 seconds according to my excel sheet). There the Tesla edges out slightly.

Obviously we don't know how the Model 3 (base model) supercharging compares with the Model S 60, but I can't imagine it being drastically different. The Model3 is a slightly smaller battery, which would put it at a disadvantage, but it's battery pack has seen 3 more years of development.

All in all, for European riders, when the Model 3 arrives, 100kWh chargers CCS should be out there. It may very well turn out that the suitability to (Northwestern) European road tripping will not primarily be a function of what the car can do, but how convenient your charging opportunities are. If you need to get off the highway and navigate a few red lights to get to your charging location, you may already have lost to the car that charged right at the exit. Same for if you have a charging opportunity every 50kms instead of every 100kms (making it more likely you can charge at optimal SOC).

Obviously the LR model 3 should blow both out of the water but it comes at a significant additional cost.

 

[bro1999]

Based on the above and on Bjorn's video of a Model S 60 supercharging (

) I made the following table to compare both. From the translation it seemed the poster indicated actual charge going into the battery, so I took the same for the S instead of using the kilowatt power consumed (which includes cooling losses).

kWh added	Ampera-e power	[Ampera-e minutes	S power	S minutes
+5	53	6	68	4
+10	53.7	11	66.5	9
+15	53.8	17	61.5	14
+20	54.6	22	56	19
+25	55.2	28	54	25
+30	55.5	33	51.1	31
+35	50	39	48	37
+40	37	47	43,3	44
+45	30	57	36,5	52

There is surprising little difference here. Especially when taking into account that an Ampera-e can actually driver longer with the same amount of kWh. Or maybe it isn't a surprise. In the end it is an engineering question. Assuming competent engineeering from both Tesla and LG Chem we'd expect similar results since their technological choices aren't that far apart. And that is exactly what we get.

To go from zero to half (+30kWh) takes 31 minutes on the S and 33 on the Ampera. But you get 14 miles more with that range on the Ampera-e. In reality that comes out as a wash. Beyond that, the Ampera-e tapers more aggresively making the difference at 45kWh added slightly over 5 minutes. (317 seconds according to my excel sheet). There the Tesla edges out slightly.

Obviously we don't know how the Model 3 (base model) supercharging compares with the Model S 60, but I can't imagine it being drastically different. The Model3 is a slightly smaller battery, which would put it at a disadvantage, but it's battery pack has seen 3 more years of development.

All in all, for European riders, when the Model 3 arrives, 100kWh chargers CCS should be out there. It may very well turn out that the suitability to (Northwestern) European road tripping will not primarily be a function of what the car can do, but how convenient your charging opportunities are. If you need to get off the highway and navigate a few red lights to get to your charging location, you may already have lost to the car that charged right at the exit. Same for if you have a charging opportunity every 50kms instead of every 100kms (making it more likely you can charge at optimal SOC).

Obviously the LR model 3 should blow both out of the water but it comes at a significant additional cost.

Very interesting that according to your chart, the Bolt/Ampera-e actually charges at a higher rate than an S60 between 25-30 kWh added.

 

[Jeff N]

There is surprising little difference here. Especially when taking into account that an Ampera-e can actually driver longer with the same amount of kWh. Or maybe it isn't a surprise. In the end it is an engineering question. Assuming competent engineeering from both Tesla and LG Chem we'd expect similar results since their technological choices aren't that far apart. And that is exactly what we get.

We don't know exactly how fast the standard Model 3 will Supercharge but based on what we know today it's probably at least 20% faster than the Bolt here. The classic S60 (with a real 60 kWh battery rather than a software limited 75 kWh pack) charging power rates in the video might be from an older software version that was later updated to improve charging rates.

To go from zero to half (+30kWh) takes 31 minutes on the S and 33 on the Ampera. But you get 14 miles more with that range on the Ampera-e. In reality that comes out as a wash.

Of course, that no longer applies with the Model 3 which is now somewhat more efficient than the Bolt, especially at highway speeds.

The Bolt here charges notably slower than a Hyundai Ioniq Electric which seems to charge at 65-70 kW all the way up to around 80% state of charge. The Ioniq has a battery a bit less than half the capacity of the Bolt but it is somewhat more efficient to drive.

I own a Bolt and think the long driving range and the documented charge rates can make it a pleasant occasional road trip car when it has good access to 125A or better CCS charging. However, it does seem likely to be a laggard at DC charging among next-generation BEVs coming out over the next several years.

 

[McRat]

I can't think of a nice way to say this, so I'll just say it the way it came to my mind - the staircased rampdown in Bolt EV charging is lame and likely not rooted in solid engineering principles. The VW e-Golf has a similarly artificial shape to its taper curve, but it does maintain full rate to 80% unless it's thermally limited by accumulated heat in the pack. The lack of active cooling in the e-Golf is another poor decision in the implementation of that vehicle.

Think about from a software design standpoint for closed loop control.

Cooling systems have large hysteresis which reacts slowly at first, then rapidly as internal resistance climbs with temperature but only well after the fact. A climbing sensor reading that says it's slightly below the danger zone is actually telling you it's too late, you are already damaging the weaker cells. When you observe a sensor that says current temperature climb rate will end up exceeding design limits, what do you do? You have 3 choices:

Flatten curve: Too late, by the time your sensor reported a climb, your charging rate is far higher than the system can support, and you will see it slow after several minutes, hit the design limit, safety opens circuit, but temp continues to climb from hysteresis then damage occurs.

Slope curve downward: Since the rate of acceleration of thermal ramp up is variable based on core temps of cells and battery age, you need to know what the actual true core temp is on the hottest cell furthest from the thermal sensor and the true chemical condition of the weakest cell. Or make a blind guess. There is a possibility you could end up just like the flatten curve, 'too little too late' scenario.

Drop curve significantly, immediately, observe, then ramp up slower or step down again: By stepping down the current based a 'worst case battery condition' model, you play it safe. Say thermal ramp up starts a climb that could enter the danger zone at 50kW. Left unchecked, you know it will be a bad outcome. This means it the excessive charging started well before the sensor reported it. Tapering could still allow excess climb due to hysteresis and the non-linear nature of temperature climb. If that is the case, and you see the temp still climbing too fast after you ramp slowly, you could shut the charger off completely and watch the temp climb into damage levels.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is an absolute safe way to taper down slowly to correct overcharging when you do not know the temp of the worst cell and the chemical condition of the battery. For CCS, you don't even know the chemistry, much less the condition.

The logical and safest method is just to charge no higher than a worst case scenario charging rate. Fiat, MB, and some others took that path. No fast charging provisions at all. But that's not an answer either, it's just the easy way out.

 

[techmaven]

Based on the above and on Bjorn's video of a Model S 60 supercharging (

) I made the following table to compare both. From the translation it seemed the poster indicated actual charge going into the battery, so I took the same for the S instead of using the kilowatt power consumed (which includes cooling losses).

Please note that Bjorn’s video there seems to show a very slow 60 kWh charge session. Here is a much faster one by Kmanauto:

There seemed to be an issue in Norway... I thought it was since resolved. U.S. 60’s charged much faster... for example, note how far into the charge session Kmanauto’s 60 was still above 90 kW. At 16 kWh added, 10 minutes into the charge session, and 25% SOC it is still doing 90 kW.

Note this is a real 60, not the later software limited 75's that can charge faster than this.

 

[McRat]

We don't know exactly how fast the standard Model 3 will Supercharge but based on what we know today it's probably at least 20% faster than the Bolt here. The classic S60 (with a real 60 kWh battery rather than a software limited 75 kWh pack) charging power rates in the video might be from an older software version that was later updated to improve charging rates.


Of course, that no longer applies with the Model 3 which is now somewhat more efficient than the Bolt, especially at highway speeds.

The Bolt here charges notably slower than a Hyundai Ioniq Electric which seems to charge at 65-70 kW all the way up to around 80% state of charge. The Ioniq has a battery a bit less than half the capacity of the Bolt but it is somewhat more efficient to drive.

I own a Bolt and think the long driving range and the documented charge rates can make it a pleasant occasional road trip car when it has good access to 125A or better CCS charging. However, it does seem likely to be a laggard at DC charging among next-generation BEVs coming out over the next several years.

I think I'll reserve judgement on any claim Hyundai makes about efficiency for at least a year or more. They have been caught exaggerating data and simply paid a fine. And I always doubt magic at first. I always assume it's misdirection or illusion initially. Did Hyundai discover the perfect DCFC battery system where others have failed? I'll wait.

 

[KarenRei]

Obviously we don't know how the Model 3 (base model) supercharging compares with the Model S 60, but I can't imagine it being drastically different. The Model3 is a slightly smaller battery, which would put it at a disadvantage, but it's battery pack has seen 3 more years of development.

First off, thanks for linking Björn's video, I actually hadn't seen that before. It's a shame he didn't take both cars to 100%, though. Also quite notable how slow his S60 is, as noted above.

Concerning M3, according to the press kit the SR charges 130mi (209km) (49%) in 30 minutes and the LR does 170mi (274km) (55%) in 30 minutes. Ostensibly this is slower than MS's ostensible "30 minutes to 80%" - but perhaps this is simply a case of Tesla being more realistic about actual charge rates. The MS 85 hits the M3 LR's reported 30 minute range at 25:41 and hits the M3 SR's at 39:22. The slow MS 60 hits the M3 LR's reported 30 minute range at 48:29. Kmanauto's MS60 hits the M3 SR's 30 minute range at around 32:00, and the M3 LR's at around 51:00.

If the reported charge times for M3 are actually real-world charge rate figures rather than Tesla perfect-scenario figures, then that's not bad at all.

 

[Jeff N]

By stepping down the current based a 'worst case battery condition' model, you play it safe. Say thermal ramp up starts a climb that could enter the danger zone at 50kW. Left unchecked, you know it will be a bad outcome. This means it the excessive charging started well before the sensor reported it.

Except there is no evidence that the Bolt's rampdown behavior is driven by actually measured thermal issues. It just seems to be hardwired to behave that way for no obvious reason other than it might have been simpler and less error prone to program it that way for now.

For CCS, you don't even know the chemistry, much less the condition.

The car is in control of the charging behavior including these rampdown points and it obviously knows the battery chemistry. This has nothing to do with CCS itself.

 

[techmaven]

Of course, that no longer applies with the Model 3 which is now somewhat more efficient than the Bolt, especially at highway speeds.

Yeah, until we have more detailed information on efficiency in a variety of conditions and charging in a variety of conditions, we don't really know anything other than the manufacturer's stated information that is presumably based on EPA (or estimated EPA) ratings.

The Bolt here charges notably slower than a Hyundai Ioniq Electric which seems to charge at 65-70 kW all the way up to around 80% state of charge. The Ioniq has a battery a bit less than half the capacity of the Bolt but it is somewhat more efficient to drive.

The issue with the Ioniq's fast charging is the effect on cycle life. Likely GM is very conservative when it comes to cycle life. Other manufacturers, especially Nissan and Kia have been reckless. Unfortunately, we probably won't know for 2 years.

 

[McRat]

...
The car is in control of the charging behavior including these rampdown points and it obviously knows the battery chemistry. This has nothing to do with CCS itself.

DOH!! Should have had my coffee before posting that. You're right. But when you have parallel construction with a single BMS wire for 3 cells, you never really do know the true 'worst cell'. IIRC, at least on the Volts, thermal sensors were on the ends of each 'block' of cells. A design trade off of cost vs accuracy which greatly increases hysteresis.

 

[schonelucht]

There seemed to be an issue in Norway... I thought it was since resolved. U.S. 60’s charged much faster...

I never realised there is such a difference in charging capabilities between Europe and US! Obviously your video is a lot faster, hitting +10kWh in a little over 7 minutes! I suspect the extreme cold in that video helps. He has other videos that show his supercharging to be slower (

) but still faster than Bjorn. If the EU Model 3 can duplicate this we have a clear winner.

for example, note how far into the charge session Kmanauto’s 60 was still above 90 kW. At 16 kWh added, 10 minutes into the charge session, and 25% SOC it is still doing 90 kW.

Be careful with the kW indication. That includes overhead for conditioning the battery pack. Kman mentions ice melting under the car due to radiant heat, that's all lost energy. What you want to watch is the indicator +X kWh and the time since start.

 

[schonelucht]

Concerning M3, according to the press kit the SR charges 130mi (209km) (49%) in 30 minutes and the LR does 170mi (274km) (55%) in 30 minutes. Ostensibly this is slower than MS's ostensible "30 minutes to 80%" - but perhaps this is simply a case of Tesla being more realistic about actual charge rates. The MS 85 hits the M3 LR's reported 30 minute range at 25:41 and hits the M3 SR's at 39:22. The MS 60 hits the M3 LR's reported 30 minute range at 48:29.

If the reported charge times for M3 are actually real-world charge rate figures rather than Tesla perfect-scenario figures, then that's not bad at all.

Unfortunately until we know which mile measurement Tesla used for their spec statement of the M3, it's a bit hard to draw conclusions. Take 130mi in 30 minutes. If those are EPA miles then that would take the Bolt 55% of it's pack or roughly 33kWh. According to the table above that's 37 minutes. Would be pretty good for the M3 at 30 minutes in comparison.

 

[Don TLR]

I originally thought about getting a used Volt as a commuter to save miles on my jeep and then figured I'd get a new one and also considered a Bolt. Then I sat in a Bolt and no way was I spending that kind of money on a car that was Butt ugly that felt so cheap without a charging network. I wound up with a CPO P85 being delivered this week and so happy I saw the light..
I don't go to the Bolt forum and tell them their car is bad, why are the bolt owners here raving and putting down Tesla's?

 

[KarenRei]

Unfortunately until we know which mile measurement Tesla used for their spec statement of the M3, it's a bit hard to draw conclusions. Take 130mi in 30 minutes. If those are EPA miles then that would take the Bolt 55% of it's pack or roughly 33kWh. According to the table above that's 37 minutes. Would be pretty good for the M3 at 30 minutes in comparison.

We can pretty much guarantee that they're EPA miles. The caveats IMHO would be what sort of conditions the car has to be in - whether that's "typical conditions" (temperature, etc) or "perfect conditions". They've long been optimistic on MS/MX charge rates... the question is, is the M3 actually slower to charge than MS/MX, or are they getting more realistic about what sort of rates will normally be achieved.

 

[McRat]

I originally thought about getting a used Volt as a commuter to save miles on my jeep and then figured I'd get a new one and also considered a Bolt. Then I sat in a Bolt and no way was I spending that kind of money on a car that was Butt ugly that felt so cheap without a charging network. I wound up with a CPO P85 being delivered this week and so happy I saw the light..
I don't go to the Bolt forum and tell them their car is bad, why are the bolt owners here raving and putting down Tesla's?

I think you answered your own question.

Bolt is butt ugly and feels cheap, posted without a road test, in a Bolt thread. I've driven too many cars to come up with that conclusion. To me, it looks like one of the most popular design shapes and styles on the market today. Nearly everybody makes this form factor today. And feels cheap? I didn't go there, and I have one of the more luxurious cars for sale today. If anything, it is utilitarian. Wanna know what cheap car interior is like? Drive a Prius. Judge NVH, ergo, controls, features.

I don't think most folk are hating on Tesla in this thread. In fact many in this thread own Teslas or waiting for their Teslas. The idea that pointing out good aspects of the thread subject EV is somehow a slam on Teslas is inaccurate.

 

[bro1999]

I originally thought about getting a used Volt as a commuter to save miles on my jeep and then figured I'd get a new one and also considered a Bolt. Then I sat in a Bolt and no way was I spending that kind of money on a car that was Butt ugly that felt so cheap without a charging network. I wound up with a CPO P85 being delivered this week and so happy I saw the light..
I don't go to the Bolt forum and tell them their car is bad, why are the bolt owners here raving and putting down Tesla's?

Where is anyone putting Tesla down in this thread? All I see is you calling the Bolt "butt ugly".

btw, you reminded me that Fred Lambert (author of so many oh-so-neutral GM articles on Electrek) recently joined the Bolt Owners Facebook group. I wonder what motivated him to join?

 

[McRat]

What's puzzling me right now, is that the 2018 Bolt EV is now one of the last 2018 GMs as far as I can tell, that is releasing specs.

Rumor is, the 2018 will be virtually identical to the 2017 until February/March, then a 2018.5 will have changes. But that is rumor. It not unprecedented. That is what happened to the 2016 Volt, the 2006 Duramax, the CT6, the 2004.5 Duramax, and several others. 1/2 year changes.