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

[Jeff N]

The Bolt battery is most likely capable of >5C discharge even though they only operate at 2.5C.

The power charge/discharge rating for lithium-ion cells can vary enormously based on cell construction details and on chemistry. Cells designed and rated for higher power typically result in trade offs that result in lower energy density.

For example, the cells in the Chevy Malibu hybrid at one extreme can do 30-40C (~1.5 kWh pack can peak discharge ~55 kW, regen up to ~60 kW).

The Volt cells strike a middle balance and are relatively higher power but have much greater energy density and can do about 6.5-7.25C (~16.5-18.4 kWh pack can peak discharge ~120 kW, regen up to 60 kW, cells rated for up to 10C continuous). The 2016 Caddy ELR likely uses the same cells in the same basic pack design but with some inverter and hybrid transmission upgrades and discharges up to 160 kW which is ~8.75C.

The Bolt EV cells are focused entirely on energy density and can do up to ~2.5C (~60 kWh pack can peak discharge 160 kW, regen up to 70 kW, best evidence is that cells are rated up to ~3.5C peak 10 second discharge).

 

[ℬête Noire]

The Bolt has no frame, it's a unibody like most cars today.

Semantics, the frame is still there even though it's melded into the rest of the body. The "unibody" is implied exactly because so many vehicles are like this. That isn't relevant, whether you call the pieces they move around frame, body, or unibody. If you get in under there there isn't a lot of room for a motor/transaxle. ((You'll see that on the M3 they built it right from the start for it, leaving a huge cavity on the RWD models ready to fill in.))

Further, X is just a LOT bigger. Want a vaguely X-like vehicle? It's a [uni]body redo.

P.S. I already addressed that "current draw" angle (a couple days ago?) in the post above you. The problem isn't in the moment, the problem is range because of increased drag from increased size/mass. Need a lot more battery pack to step up to X. Which isn't that much of a thing if you're having a total unibody scaling up redo, but it is another reason for requiring that.

 

[mtndrew1]

First: I have had lots of cars with spare tire wells with no spares or US variants with spares. All US Volts are this way as well. Which ICE Daewoo is a Volt? Heck, which ICE Daewoo is Bolt?
Second: How do you make a chassis taller without 100% new tooling while cutting the hood in 1/2, wildly increasing FWD axle torque, and supporting an additional 900lb between the axles? It has no frame and the battery assy is a stressed member.

Do they put a dummy battery in ICE Daewoos to stiffen the chassis?

It think you meant to say a Bolt is made by Honda from a Fit EV.

Jeez you sure are easy to set off. Mary Barra wore ugly shoes last week. GO!

Whenever my Volts were up on the lift (which was frequently) there were plenty of Daewoo stickers and stampings all over the place. Shocks. Subframes. Etc. It’s based on the GMDAT platform that underpins the Daewoo Lacetti (aka Chevy Cruze). You’ll remember that when GM’s top brass went hat in hand to Congress they drove Lacettis (sorry, Cruzes) with Volt components fitted for testing.

It’s okay, we all know how very, very, very much you love anything and everything General Motors does and produces.

 

[scottf200]

The power charge/discharge rating for lithium-ion cells can vary enormously based on cell construction details and on chemistry. Cells designed and rated for higher power typically result in trade offs that result in lower energy density.

For example, the cells in the Chevy Malibu hybrid at one extreme can do 30-40C (~1.5 kWh pack can peak discharge ~55 kW, regen up to ~60 kW).

The Volt cells strike a middle balance and are relatively higher power but have much greater energy density and can do about 6.5-7.25C (~16.5-18.4 kWh pack can peak discharge ~120 kW, regen up to 60 kW, cells rated for up to 10C continuous). The 2016 Caddy ELR likely uses the same cells in the same basic pack design but with some inverter and hybrid transmission upgrades and discharges up to 160 kW which is ~8.75C.

The Bolt EV cells are focused entirely on energy density and can do up to ~2.5C (~60 kWh pack can peak discharge 160 kW, regen up to 70 kW, best evidence is that cells are rated up to ~3.5C peak 10 second discharge).

With the Bolt EV cells focused on energy density (and getting long range) ... that probably explains the charging speeds.

orange Charge Rate(kW) line and yellow State Of Charge (SOC) line below
after a 40 minute charge (5:27-6:07) ):
bro1999's blog: Fast charging experiences with the Bolt

 

[McRat]

Jeez you sure are easy to set off. Mary Barra wore ugly shoes last week. GO!

Whenever my Volts were up on the lift (which was frequently) there were plenty of Daewoo stickers and stampings all over the place. Shocks. Subframes. Etc. It’s based on the GMDAT platform that underpins the Daewoo Lacetti (aka Chevy Cruze). You’ll remember that when GM’s top brass went hat in hand to Congress they drove Lacettis (sorry, Cruzes) with Volt components fitted for testing.

It’s okay, we all know how very, very, very much you love anything and everything General Motors does and produces.

View attachment 281190 View attachment 281189

You are aware that the "Volt" picture you posted with the word Volt on it isn't a Volt. You know there are pictures of Volts on the web, but you use a false surrogate. Why?

This is the real Volt Concept as opposed to a powertrain validation test mule (which you deceptively imply is a production car):


You know they put powertrains in the 'wrong' car when testing. But you hide that. Why?


You are aware Lancettis were sold as Suzukis in the US, not Chevolets. No US Chevrolets are based on Lancetti 'underpinings'. You know this, but post otherwise claiming it's true. Why?

You are also aware there is no "GMDAT platform" any more than there is a Chevrolet Platform, but base your essay on it's existence. Why?

You also know the Cruise and Sonic are not Lacetti's anymore than than a 2018 Corvette runs on the same frame as the 1953. Sure, they both have front engines, body on frame, glass bodies, so they are the same car according your form of logic. You know otherwise, but claim they are identical. Why?

You claim to be 'pro-EV' but you post anti-EV comments. Why?

You claim that not only do I "Love" every car all the General Motors divisions have ever made, you know I could not possibly have owned or driven all of them. Why?

This is not a new comment from me, but does indicate your strange bias: The EV1 was a dumb idea. It's what happens when only engineering is given consideration to the exclusion of all other factors. It was born to fail due to California's corrupt government, the expense of the technology, and market research that swayed the test subjects to an unrealistic position. It was one of Time Magazine's "50 Worst Cars Of All Time". It was the most expensive car GM ever produced to date. But it got so much better with age, that movies were made about it being the equal to the pyramids, yet destroyed at it's peak by evil subterfuge planned by Big Oil and Big Auto. The fact that less than 10% of the estimated demand existed and GM was struggling to even give them away at fire sale lease rates was just Big Media's lies.

 

[McRat]

The power charge/discharge rating for lithium-ion cells can vary enormously based on cell construction details and on chemistry. Cells designed and rated for higher power typically result in trade offs that result in lower energy density.

For example, the cells in the Chevy Malibu hybrid at one extreme can do 30-40C (~1.5 kWh pack can peak discharge ~55 kW, regen up to ~60 kW).

The Volt cells strike a middle balance and are relatively higher power but have much greater energy density and can do about 6.5-7.25C (~16.5-18.4 kWh pack can peak discharge ~120 kW, regen up to 60 kW, cells rated for up to 10C continuous). The 2016 Caddy ELR likely uses the same cells in the same basic pack design but with some inverter and hybrid transmission upgrades and discharges up to 160 kW which is ~8.75C.

The Bolt EV cells are focused entirely on energy density and can do up to ~2.5C (~60 kWh pack can peak discharge 160 kW, regen up to 70 kW, best evidence is that cells are rated up to ~3.5C peak 10 second discharge).

Do you know for a fact it's the Bolt's cell chemistry and not the engineered size of the cooling system? You do not put more cooling system in a vehicle than it absolutely needs today. The aero drag from the heat-exchanger is brutal, it adds weight, it adds cost, it can often delay warm-up time and cool down time assuming a water based system.
I suppose when folk start to build hotrods using Bolt arrays or GM comes out with a more powerful variant using those cells we will know for sure.

If in fact the peak power a Bolt array can put out is 2.5C all season, you will start to see serious problems in the western deserts. And reduced perform in cold climates once the cooling system is overrun. To get 2.5C on a beautiful day means it needs a far higher rating to allow for climate. So if it's a higher rating, you juice up the cooling so it can run at the higher value 24/7/365 at the expense of efficiency.

 

[mtndrew1]

You are aware that the "Volt" picture you posted with the word Volt on it isn't a Volt. You know there are pictures of Volts on the web, but you use a false surrogate. Why?

This is the real Volt Concept as opposed to a powertrain validation test mule (which you deceptively imply is a production car):
View attachment 281259

You know they put powertrains in the 'wrong' car when testing. But you hide that. Why?


You are aware Lancettis were sold as Suzukis in the US, not Chevolets. No US Chevrolets are based on Lancetti 'underpinings'. You know this, but post otherwise claiming it's true. Why?

You are also aware there is no "GMDAT platform" any more than there is a Chevrolet Platform, but base your essay on it's existence. Why?

You also know the Cruise and Sonic are not Lacetti's anymore than than a 2018 Corvette runs on the same frame as the 1953. Sure, they both have front engines, body on frame, glass bodies, so they are the same car according your form of logic. You know otherwise, but claim they are identical. Why?

You claim to be 'pro-EV' but you post anti-EV comments. Why?

You claim that not only do I "Love" every car all the General Motors divisions have ever made, you know I could not possibly have owned or driven all of them. Why?

This is not a new comment from me, but does indicate your strange bias: The EV1 was a dumb idea. It's what happens when only engineering is given consideration to the exclusion of all other factors. It was born to fail due to California's corrupt government, the expense of the technology, and market research that swayed the test subjects to an unrealistic position. It was one of Time Magazine's "50 Worst Cars Of All Time". It was the most expensive car GM ever produced to date. But it got so much better with age, that movies were made about it being the equal to the pyramids, yet destroyed at it's peak by evil subterfuge planned by Big Oil and Big Auto. The fact that less than 10% of the estimated demand existed and GM was struggling to even give them away at fire sale lease rates was just Big Media's lies.

Goodness. The Volt in the pic is a Cruze fitted with Volt running gear because GM started with a Cruze (which started as a Lacetti) to make the Volt. Much like the Bolt (and variations of cars from all automakers) GM started with something to chop up to make the Volt; they didn’t drop a billion dollars on a fresh platform to sell 15,000 units a year.

As for the Suzuki you’re probably thinking of the Forenza which was the earlier generation of the Lacetti before the car became the Cruze.

There’s a handy Wikipedia to cover the history for you. Daewoo Lacetti - Wikipedia

“In November 2008, the second-generation Lacetti was launched under the name Daewoo Lacetti Premiere, being a badge-engineered version of the Chevrolet Cruze—though co-developed by GM Daewoo and Chevrolet.”

The GMDAT platform I’m referring to is of course the Delta II or D2XX.

In any event, back to the actual topic at hand, it’s unlikely GM started with a fresh sheet of paper to drop a billion on a platform to sell 23,000 Bolts a year. They probably started with something else, and as the Bolt comes down the same line as the Sonic it’s probably a family member there. So the point stands that it would probably require substantial rework of the Bolt to add AWD; it’s likely not a trivial matter of just throwing in an extra propulsion source into a car and platform for which that was never intended. Of course the Sonic is another Daewoo, the T300 platform (née Aveo), for which Wikipedia has to say:

“GM Korea has taken responsibility for future development of GM's GSV (Global Small Vehicle) architecture.[1][2] This architecture will eventually be used for all small vehicles from GM, as a true global small car platform.[3] While the original Gamma was developed by Opel, the Gamma II platform is under the leadership of GM Korea (formally GM Daewoo)”

Hope that doesn’t attack anyone’s delicate constitutions.

As for EVs I’ve been driving them on and off since the late ‘90s. I don’t think I’ve ever posted an anti-EV sentiment, though I do feel the Bolt (and ELR in the past) are grossly overpriced.

 

[McRat]

...
“In November 2008, the second-generation Lacetti was launched under the name Daewoo Lacetti Premiere, being a badge-engineered version of the Chevrolet Cruze—though co-developed by GM Daewoo and Chevrolet.”

...

Yes. The 1953 Corvette was modelled on the 2018 Corvette. Time is not relevant. The fact the G2 Lacetti in underpinned with a Cruise chassis, means the Cruise is a G2 Lancetti derivative much like the iPhone 3 is a derivative the iPhone X.

But in order to do that they discarded all the future Chevy engineering so it looks like this in Lancetti Mode:

 

[McRat]

...
... Of course the Sonic is another Daewoo, the T300 platform (née Aveo), for which Wikipedia has to say:

“GM Korea has taken responsibility for future development of GM's GSV (Global Small Vehicle) architecture.[1][2] This architecture will eventually be used for all small vehicles from GM, as a true global small car platform.[3] While the original Gamma was developed by Opel, the Gamma II platform is under the leadership of GM Korea (formally GM Daewoo)”

...

Here's what Wikipedia says. Wiki content is often submitted by paid marketing writers, not actual experts, so I don't know how accurate this is: "The Sonic is the only Subcompact car sold in North America that is built in the United States.[37]"

I find it fascinating that the Bolt and Volt are now Opels based on the infinite-development-string school of engineering. Interesting. So now they are French creations?

Trivia:
The 2017 Volt is 18% Korean content.
The 2017 BMW i3 is 20% Korean content.

 

[Jeff N]

Do you know for a fact it's the Bolt's cell chemistry and not the engineered size of the cooling system?

Based upon the little that we know, my guess is that the Bolt’s power limitations are primarily based on the cell design. My guess is that the pack’s thermal management is a good match with the cells and not a significantly limiting factor. However, these are all guesses since we don’t have all of the cell specifications or details of the pack thermal performance.

We do know that the guy who raced his Bolt EV at Laguna Seca last summer never saw any power reduction due to thermal limiting during the race unlike some Tesla Model S drivers although the Bolt did hit a thermal limit and reduced power during earlier practice laps. The Tesla limits were generally assumed to be motor temperature since it isn’t liquid cooled. The Bolt motor is indirectly water cooled via a heat exchanger with the motor’s oil. It’s unclear which component in the Bolt trigger the thermal limit during the practice laps.

I’m also guessing that GM originally planned to allow for somewhat higher charging power and then backed off a bit for whatever reason. They originally claimed it would charge to 80% in 60 minutes when they announced the concept car in 2016 and an early EPA filing contains the same statement. But, they dropped this claim in the final production car and now claim to add 160 miles (74% of highway EPA or 67% of combined EPA) in an hour. That implies the original goal might have been a peak charge rate of 1C but they fell back to around 0.9C (~55 kW of a ~62 kWh pack).

Maybe. It’s all a bit uncertain.

 

[McRat]

Based upon the little that we know, my guess is that the Bolt’s power limitations are primarily based on the cell design. My guess is that the pack’s thermal management is a good match with the cells and not a significantly limiting factor. However, these are all guesses since we don’t have all of the cell specifications or details of the pack thermal performance.

We do know that the guy who raced his Bolt EV at Laguna Seca last summer never saw any power reduction due to thermal limiting during the race unlike some Tesla Model S drivers although the Bolt did hit a thermal limit and reduced power during earlier practice laps. The Tesla limits were generally assumed to be motor temperature since it isn’t liquid cooled. The Bolt motor is indirectly water cooled via a heat exchanger with the motor’s oil. It’s unclear which component in the Bolt trigger the thermal limit during the practice laps.

I’m also guessing that GM originally planned to allow for somewhat higher charging power and then backed off a bit for whatever reason. They originally claimed it would charge to 80% in 60 minutes when they announced the concept car in 2016 and an early EPA filing contains the same statement. But, they dropped this claim in the final production car and now claim to add 160 miles (74% of highway EPA or 67% of combined EPA) in an hour. That implies the original goal might have been a peak charge rate of 1C but they fell back to around 0.9C (~55 kW of a ~62 kWh pack).

Maybe. It’s all a bit uncertain.

Just a guessimate:

Track use generates far more heat than aggressive street driving, especially if you can't turn off regen. It's the % of time you can spend per minute at WOT and max Regen vs what street use can do before you run into objects, or have somebody flatten your rear plate for you. If the true cell chem limit was 2.5C, when you reached 50% charge your power would be noticeably reduced, not just from the drop in voltage, but the heat decaying the peak output. We know the Volt is much higher than 6.5C because at 2 miles indicated, it will still hit 120kW.

GM went way conservative with the Bolt and Volt, but the last thing they need is to replace a lot of batteries in Arizona and North Dakota 7 years from now.

 

[wdolson]

More press reviews. From 6' long legged woman:

Chevrolet Bolt EV Amazes in Las Vegas - NNPA Members Take the Chevrolet Bolt EV for a Test Drive - Houston Forward Times

For micro-compact true-believers: "“We have more interior volume space for the occupants in a Bolt EV than you’ll find in a Tesla Model S,”

So it's not just me that noticed the Bolt is roomy in the rear seats than the Model 3, and a HELLAVA lot easier to ingress and egress. The Tesla S is a Large Sedan, (bigger than a 110 cu ft CT6) according to true-believers, but a Bolt is bigger than a Tesla S. I can tell you the CT6 is indeed larger than the Bolt. So somebody is fibbing.

The Bolt is a more upright car than the Model S. It's styled like a very small SUV. The roofline is straight and doesn't taper like the Model S. So there is more backseat headroom in the Bolt, but the Bolt is a narrower car and I believe the passenger compartment from the firewall to the back of the backseats may be smaller too. It seems roomier because people often feel more headroom is overall roomier. It's why a lot of upper middle class houses are built now with 9 ft ceilings instead of 8 ft. It makes the house seem bigger than it is.

 

[RobStark]

Very detailed Bolt battery pack tear down.

 

[scaesare]

The Tesla limits were generally assumed to be motor temperature since it isn’t liquid cooled.

I had thought this for some time too, but in a video teardown ( think it was one of Damien's ) you can see the rotor cooling assembly.

I suspect the overall cooling system simply isn't designed for sustained track-style use.

 

[bro1999]

Very detailed Bolt battery pack tear down.

So the Bolt's battery is officially labeled as 57 kWh according to the sticker, though GM says it is 60 kWh. I've personally observed pulling almost 58 kWh from my Bolt on a single charge, and other owners have reported exceeding 60 kWh on a single charge. My Torquepro app's raw SOC% readings suggest the overall battery size could be as large as 63-64 kWh (60 kWh usable, 3-4% buffer on each end).

I think all we really know for certain is that the usable capacity is at least 57 kWh.

 

[techmaven]

What's with the dead Bolt's lately?

======
DEAD - Propulsion reduced, then Conditions not right for shift
DEAD - Propulsion reduced, then Conditions not right for shift - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

10 days in the shop so far and the dealer didn't disclose they don't have an EV certified technician.

======
BOLT DEAD - REPLACING BATTERY...They should REPLACE THE CAR!
BOLT DEAD - REPLACING BATTERY...They should REPLACE THE CAR! - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

7 days in, they decide it needs a new battery and that'll take another 2 weeks.

======
Chevy Bolt stopped on a busy road with a"Service Transmission" error
Chevy Bolt stopped on a busy road with a"Service Transmission" error - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Two weeks ago my Chevy Bolt made a scary grinding noise while I was applying the brakesand stopped in the middle of a busy road. The console indicated a "Service Transmission" error and couldn't be moved; car was pretty much bricked and couldn't be changed into neutral.

Apparently a broken chassis control module after 1059 miles on the odometer.

======
My 3 month new Bolt stalled and very poor customer care
My 3 month new Bolt stalled and very poor customer care - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Apparently the Bolt is also having a rash of 12 volt battery failures, including like this one:
My bolt is completely dead - Chevrolet Bolt EV Forum

======
Towed To Dealer after 2 weeks 351 miles
Towed To Dealer after 2 weeks 351 miles - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

After 2 weeks and 351 miles, this Bolt wouldn't shift, claiming "condition not correct for shift." And then it worked the next day at the dealership. Apparently the HPCM2 module didn't sleep properly and caused a high 12v power drain which left this driver stranded.

======
Battery Failure after 2 Months
Battery Failure after 2 Months - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Apparently the main traction battery failed after 2 months.

======
2 day old Bolt - Cannot shift gears - "Conditions not right"
2 day old Bolt - Cannot shift gears - "Conditions not right" - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Two days old and it won't shift to drive or reverse. Seems that quite a few are experiencing this issue and the dealership replaced the shift module. Apparently people are experiencing this intermittently for different reasons, including a faulty power inverter.

======
Bolt stuck in service department going on 3 weeks
Bolt stuck in service department going on 3 weeks - Chevrolet Bolt EV Forum

Traction battery problem, but 19 days and no replacement battery part.

======


It seems there are far more problems with the Bolt than the Volt rollout. And there are more, I stopped and am only posting the really serious issues. The bigger theme seems to be that there are plenty of Chevy dealerships that are not ready to support Bolt owners and a shortage of repair parts. It might be that this level of problems is statistically low, but if the Model 3 had this level of issues, the Internet would be ablaze with how Tesla doesn't know how to make cars.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It seems there are far more problems with the Bolt than the Volt rollout. And there are more, I stopped and am only posting the really serious issues. The bigger theme seems to be that there are plenty of Chevy dealerships that are not ready to support Bolt owners and a shortage of repair parts. It might be that this level of problems is statistically low, but if the if the Model 3 had this level of issues, the Internet would be ablaze with how Tesla doesn't know how to make cars.

To be fair, there have been a couple of reports about similar issues with the Model 3 inverter. And also a recent one about a software bug causing 12V battery to die (since fixed with update).

But I agree that these problems on the Bolt aren't being picked up by the media. I think the media probably already had forgotten about the car. They are busy writing hit pieces on the Model 3 (like the recent LA times article).

 

[bro1999]

What's with the dead Bolt's lately?

======
DEAD - Propulsion reduced, then Conditions not right for shift
DEAD - Propulsion reduced, then Conditions not right for shift - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

10 days in the shop so far and the dealer didn't disclose they don't have an EV certified technician.

======
BOLT DEAD - REPLACING BATTERY...They should REPLACE THE CAR!
BOLT DEAD - REPLACING BATTERY...They should REPLACE THE CAR! - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

7 days in, they decide it needs a new battery and that'll take another 2 weeks.

======
Chevy Bolt stopped on a busy road with a"Service Transmission" error
Chevy Bolt stopped on a busy road with a"Service Transmission" error - Chevy Bolt EV Forum



Apparently a broken chassis control module after 1059 miles on the odometer.

======
My 3 month new Bolt stalled and very poor customer care
My 3 month new Bolt stalled and very poor customer care - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Apparently the Bolt is also having a rash of 12 volt battery failures, including like this one:
My bolt is completely dead - Chevrolet Bolt EV Forum

======
Towed To Dealer after 2 weeks 351 miles
Towed To Dealer after 2 weeks 351 miles - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

After 2 weeks and 351 miles, this Bolt wouldn't shift, claiming "condition not correct for shift." And then it worked the next day at the dealership. Apparently the HPCM2 module didn't sleep properly and caused a high 12v power drain which left this driver stranded.

======
Battery Failure after 2 Months
Battery Failure after 2 Months - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Apparently the main traction battery failed after 2 months.

======
2 day old Bolt - Cannot shift gears - "Conditions not right"
2 day old Bolt - Cannot shift gears - "Conditions not right" - Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Two days old and it won't shift to drive or reverse. Seems that quite a few are experiencing this issue and the dealership replaced the shift module. Apparently people are experiencing this intermittently for different reasons, including a faulty power inverter.

======
Bolt stuck in service department going on 3 weeks
Bolt stuck in service department going on 3 weeks - Chevrolet Bolt EV Forum

Traction battery problem, but 19 days and no replacement battery part.

======


It seems there are far more problems with the Bolt than the Volt rollout. And there are more, I stopped and am only posting the really serious issues. The bigger theme seems to be that there are plenty of Chevy dealerships that are not ready to support Bolt owners and a shortage of repair parts. It might be that this level of problems is statistically low, but if the Model 3 had this level of issues, the Internet would be ablaze with how Tesla doesn't know how to make cars.

My early build Bolt has been bulletproof. Wooo!

 

[bro1999]

So in the Bolt battery disassembly video, the guy finds that the Bolt's pack is made up of eight 5.94 kWh (according to the label) smaller packs and two 4.75 kWh ones, for a total capacity of 57.02 kWh.

So where'd the other 3 kWh go? I've exceeded 57 kWh used on a single charge several times in my Bolt, so it doesn't seem possible for the battery to be only 57 kWh. Perhaps the sticker ratings are a minimum guaranteed capacity or something?

 

[diamond.g]

So in the Bolt battery disassembly video, the guy finds that the Bolt's pack is made up of eight 5.94 kWh (according to the label) smaller packs and two 4.75 kWh ones, for a total capacity of 57.02 kWh.

So where'd the other 3 kWh go? I've exceeded 57 kWh used on a single charge several times in my Bolt, so it doesn't seem possible for the battery to be only 57 kWh. Perhaps the sticker ratings are a minimum guaranteed capacity or something?

How does the vehicle display energy gained by regeneration? Does it subtract from the energy used?