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

[McRat]

A kudos to Rydell. They treated us really nice. Fast, professional, had the HOV stickers and put them on, great price, no haggling.

A kiss-my-arse to Mark Christopher. Slow, unprofessional, lied, no stickers, gunfight to get the quoted price.

 

[cdub]

I charged to 80% almost all the time and it still happened for me. I charge to 100% now... Otherwise I can't make it back home from work. 36 miles round trip! Can't wait until the new battery is ready for me. They're paying for 2/3s of the cost of the replacement.

But note this was one of the first Leaf's built... the battery could be better in the new cars.

 

[Breezy]

In DOE/INL testing, 2013 Volts lost 6.5% of rated capacity after 100000 miles. Results were very consistent between the 4 test vehicles.

2013 Chevrolet Volt | Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (see Battery Pack Laboratory Testing Results)

The Volt isn't a perfect analogue for the Bolt, but the same people at GM will be making the decisions about what level of degradation to cover under warranty.

 

[techmaven]

In DOE/INL testing, 2013 Volts lost 6.5% of rated capacity after 100000 miles. Results were very consistent between the 4 test vehicles.

2013 Chevrolet Volt | Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (see Battery Pack Laboratory Testing Results)

The Volt isn't a perfect analogue for the Bolt, but the same people at GM will be making the decisions about what level of degradation to cover under warranty.

However... the Kia Soul EV's NMC pack has terrible, just terrible results, albeit still early. That's worth watching. Unfortunately, the BMW i3's and the Mercedes B-class don't have enough results yet. Another 1-2 data points in all their testing would be very interesting. Of course, there's lots of outside data on Tesla pack performance over time, just not as detailed or controlled as bench testing.

The initial degradation is usually significant, so it is important to understand how tested initial capacity correlates to nominal pack capacity. And then how that degradation curve works over time.

Check like battery chemistries likely is more interesting than the maker of the car. However, we don't have a good analogue for the Bolt's LG NMC pack in the testing. The i3 has a Samsung SDI NMC pack and the Kia Soul as a SKI NMC pack which I think has the highest specific energy at the cell level of NMC in an automotive pack until the Bolt. Have to double check all the newer packs...

 

[stopcrazypp]

In DOE/INL testing, 2013 Volts lost 6.5% of rated capacity after 100000 miles. Results were very consistent between the 4 test vehicles.

2013 Chevrolet Volt | Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (see Battery Pack Laboratory Testing Results)

The Volt isn't a perfect analogue for the Bolt, but the same people at GM will be making the decisions about what level of degradation to cover under warranty.

Well it's still liquid cooled, so it's unlikely to be as bad as the Leaf, but as I put it, this change in the statement shows GM expects it to be worse than the Volt (probably a combination of larger SOC window and also the new NMC chemistry which on paper has worse degradation than the primarily LMO based packs of the Volt). Otherwise, I see no reason why they couldn't have just kept it at the same 30%.

Edit: I just read the reaction in the Electrek article. This is exactly why I consistently say to people that it makes zero sense for Tesla to offer a degradation warranty and that offering one is a lose-lose situation given battery degradation had never been a concern for Teslas up to this point. Most people just look at the worst number and expect that is the typical rate the battery will degrade at. You have a heck of a time trying to explain that the worst case number is just hedging for liability purposes (and it would not sound genuine coming from the manufacturer directly).
GM warns of potential battery degradation of up to 40% for Chevy Bolt EV during warranty period or 100,000 miles

 

[gregincal]

That's what I said. The Bolt is great for commuting but not for trips.
I have had to do a full charge occasionally at a SC so why wouldn't; a Bolt need to do the same occasionally at a Level 3 or 2 charger?
Your comment makes no sense.

How is going camping for the weekend not a trip? The Bolt may not be good for long road trips, but it is fine for many many trips. Not everybody takes long road trips, but that doesn't mean they don't do a lot of other things besides commuting.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

How is going camping for the weekend not a trip? The Bolt may not be good for long road trips, but it is fine for many many trips. Not everybody takes long road trips, but that doesn't mean they don't do a lot of other things besides commuting.

You'll have to quantify "long" road trips. Here in MN, I can't travel past the Bolt's 50% (~100 miles) range, because there are no charging stations to get me back home...or further down the road. There actually is a corridor to the NE, but that's it.

 

[bro1999]

Well it's still liquid cooled, so it's unlikely to be as bad as the Leaf, but as I put it, this change in the statement shows GM expects it to be worse than the Volt (probably a combination of larger SOC window and also the new NMC chemistry which on paper has worse degradation than the primarily LMO based packs of the Volt). Otherwise, I see no reason why they couldn't have just kept it at the same 30%.

Edit: I just read the reaction in the Electrek article. This is exactly why I consistently say to people that it makes zero sense for Tesla to offer a degradation warranty and that offering one is a lose-lose situation given battery degradation had never been a concern for Teslas up to this point. Most people just look at the worst number and expect that is the typical rate the battery will degrade at. You have a heck of a time trying to explain that the worst case number is just hedging for liability purposes (and it would not sound genuine coming from the manufacturer directly).
GM warns of potential battery degradation of up to 40% for Chevy Bolt EV during warranty period or 100,000 miles

I think the Ford C-Max Energi owners experiencing 40%+ degradation in less than 4 years would gladly take a specific capacity % number. Ford says that information is proprietary, so they aren't saying what the # needs to be. So then can deny warranty claims all day long!

 

[McRat]

Well it's still liquid cooled, so it's unlikely to be as bad as the Leaf, but as I put it, this change in the statement shows GM expects it to be worse than the Volt (probably a combination of larger SOC window and also the new NMC chemistry which on paper has worse degradation than the primarily LMO based packs of the Volt).

Not all EV's even warranty degradation at all.

IIRC, when the Leaf agreed to warranty the battery against capacity loss, it was allowed to drop to 2/3's in 5 years? Bueller?

Nobody knows the reason GM used a 60% number except GM. Perhaps they are concerned about abuse, or do not have enough DCFC data yet.

Note how many complaints you read in EV forums like this:

"I bought Widget Motors EV last summer, and my Range Indicator is 10 miles lower than the EPA rating!!!!???? What a POS!!! I was RIPPED OFF!! I want to Lemon Law this chunk of dung. I'm hiring an attorney, and I want a million dollars, and I want it NOW!!!"

"What does the kWh of the battery read when fully charged?"

"I don't know."

"Do you know that the battery stores power, not miles?"

"Why would that matter?"

...

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think the Ford C-Max Energi owners experiencing 40%+ degradation in less than 4 years would gladly take a specific capacity % number. Ford says that information is proprietary, so they aren't saying what the # needs to be. So then can deny warranty claims all day long!

That's my point. Such a warranty makes sense for plug-ins and battery designs with a history of horrible battery degradation (Leaf with its uncooled battery was the first example and Nissan was forced to offer that warranty). It does not make sense for plug-ins with no such history (esp. a guarantee as low as 60%, when 70%+ is typical), all it results in is bad PR as is happening with the Bolt.

 

[bro1999]

That's my point. Such a warranty makes sense for plug-ins and battery designs with a history of horrible battery degradation (Leaf with its uncooled battery was the first example and Nissan was forced to offer that warranty). It does not make sense for plug-ins with no such history (esp. a guarantee as low as 60%, when 70%+ is typical), all it results in is bad PR as is happening with the Bolt.

So you're saying providing no capacity warranty in writing is better than specifying the exact conditions an owner would qualify for a warranty replacement is.

Ummmm.....what.

 

[Jeff N]

and also the new NMC chemistry which on paper has worse degradation than the primarily LMO based packs of the Volt

On paper, meaning just the warranty language. In general, my impression is that pure LMO has a worse degradation reputation than NMC although the Volt packs are actually a blend of LMO and NMC.

Lots of different aspects of the cell design influence degradation patterns so knowing only the cathode chemistry doesn't tell you that much. For example, the Volt cell is somewhat unusual in that it uses a hard carbon anode instead of the more typical forms of graphite used in Lithium ion cells. The hard carbon has a better reputation for degradation. I believe I read somewhere that the Bolt cell anodes are also hard carbon but I can't remember where I saw that right now. I'm not sure how credible that information is.

 

[ggies07]

So when is this hitting Texas.............I'll probably get my Model 3 before I can test drive the Bolt at a dealer......

 

[Jeff N]

So when is this hitting Texas.............I'll probably get my Model 3 before I can test drive the Bolt at a dealer......

My guess is between March and June but they haven't made any specific state-level announcements. If I had to guess a specific month I would say later in April (not on the 1st).

 

[Carl]

The Volt battery is allowed to lose 30% of it's capacity. None have come close. It's not from guys who came in 2nd in WWII. It's the guys who put EVs on the moon.

I think U.S. rocket scientists dropped that EV on the moon (perhaps also with a little initial help from a certain Werner whose country had lost WWII...). Of course someone still had to build the EV buggies which could be driven up there (with a battery being able to cope with quite extreme temperatures, probably, so that's a real plus!) but at 10,000,000 USD a piece (in 1970's dollars) that must have been less of a challenge than for NASA and its rocket contractors sending the thing up there in the first place! (or, today, for GM, building a Bolt at the 30,000 USD price point). Anyway, I don't think Chevrolet would ever dare advertise that they were "the guys who put EVs on the moon" .

What I do very much like about the Bolt is the apparent prudence/conservatism of GM in stating its range and charging speed. No-one (very much) cares if an ICE has a real world consumption of 8l/100km rather than the theoretical 5,5l/100km or so, but everyone is criticising (most) EV's for being far from able to be true to their official range. So it makes a lot of sense, for EV's, to state a realistic everyday range (next to the official rating) - much more sense than for ICE cars for which range is rather irrelevant.

In the case of the Bolt, proof will be in the eating, of course! But imho it looks like the Bolt could be the best thing that ever happened up to now (outside of Tesla) for the "emancipation" of EV's. We shall see (Renault-Nissan/Kia/BMW seem to also be following with more 'real world usable range' batteries for 2017, so there is a momentum...).

 

[McRat]

So when is this hitting Texas.............I'll probably get my Model 3 before I can test drive the Bolt at a dealer......

It's a pretty safe bet that if you WANT to test drive a retail Bolt, you can unless you're poor or in prison within the next couple of weeks.

It's a pretty safe bet that if you WANT to test drive a retail Model 3 Tesla soon, it will take a bit more effort, and perhaps a firearm and ski mask.

I've hit Houston Race Park from Kalifornia hauling a racing trailer in 24hrs with 2 drivers, or under 5 hours with a credit card by taking off my shoes and belt in front of strangers and watching a couple movies that even Cable TV rejected. Food is great if you fancy prison cuisine.

 

[stopcrazypp]

So you're saying providing no capacity warranty in writing is better than specifying the exact conditions an owner would qualify for a warranty replacement is.

Ummmm.....what.

What I'm saying is that unless you can offer a very good warranty (say like 80-90% after 8 years, 100k miles), for a company like Tesla that has a reputation for low degradation (perhaps you would count GM as one too), it's better not to have a explicit degradation warranty.

For example, if Tesla offered a 60% warranty like the Bolt, it will be seen by the public as worse than currently (where it is not specified), not better. This is because rather than using survey results as currently done, people would shift to using the warranty to set degradation expectations.

 

[samotlietuvis]

I have two Chevy EVs in my stable - 2016 Volt (wife's) and 2015 Spark EV and bolt have been trouble free and I have not experienced any battery degradation. Chevy has been mass producing EVs since 2010 (not counting EV1) and Chevy has not needed to be mass-replacing drive trains or batteries on their vehicles. I expect Chevy Bolt mechanically and electrically to be a well built car that will last a long time.
The reason I am not getting one is because it is ugly, un-aerodynamic, and the seats are not comfortable (verified in person in LA auto show). I will wait out for my model 3 or 2015+ used Model S that is less likely to have drive train issue. Other than that it will be a fine vehicle and hopefully Chevy will pony up to expand fast-charging network, and will produce a better looking electric sedan.

 

[wycolo]

2014 Spark EV built Oct 1, 2013 with 48,500 miles still charges to "82 miles" using A123 batteries (that were discontinued for 2015 model year). So "no degradation" or else GM installed an unusually large buffer atop the A123.

Snow driving yesterday was excellent with no loss of traction or control compared to my usual in-town prudent driving.

As with Tesla it would seem that GM is just not going to deliver batteries that fail prematurely.
--

 

[Breezy]

The reason I am not getting one is because it is ugly, un-aerodynamic, and the seats are not comfortable (verified in person in LA auto show).

You considered it and decided it won't work for you. Bravo. You can't buy a vehicle if the seats aren't comfortable for you.