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

[McRat]

Don't shoot the messenger! I tell you what the article says, and have not done any math or testing myself.



No, the magazine asked GM and got an answer. I have no idea - and neither has the magazine - if GM lied or not.

You need the entire conversation. I've been interviewed in magazines and you'd be surprised what ends up in ink. You read it and the best path to take is to shake your head and smile. Unless it's a grievous error, leave it alone.

We will see what does shortly.

 

[Jeff N]

What should be happening is that journalists should grilling GM for more details on the shape of charging and on hardware and software limits.

I've tried on multiple occasions in person and through email exchanges. GM's press reps just don't want to disclose anything more at the moment. They won't even clarify what they mean by "80 kW" charger power.

GM has a history of being cryptic and of making misleading statements. For example, the "series hybrid" vs power-split parallel PR fiasco when the 2011 Volt came out. Or, the denial that they were going to make non-plugin full hybrids right up until the moment they announced the 2016 Malibu hybrid.

For whatever reason, they are being cagey about DC charging. I don't know if it's because the Bolt really is limited to 50-60 kW peak charging and they are rightly a bit embarrassed about that. Or, maybe it's because they are holding back its real DC charging ability until a later date to gain another round of PR attention in conjunction with the announcement of the final 350A CCS specification approval or some public CCS next generation charger installations.

In some ways GM releases much more engineering information than other car companies and in other cases they hold back seemingly important but rather ordinary details. They have already published details of the Bolt EV motor design at SAE yet were seemingly reluctant to discuss rather mundane aspects of the brake pedal's regenerative behavior in a clear and straightforward way.

 

[Model 3]

You need the entire conversation. I've been interviewed in magazines and you'd be surprised what ends up in ink. You read it and the best path to take is to shake your head and smile. Unless it's a grievous error, leave it alone.

We will see what does shortly.

I do agree fully with what you say about media here. As a general rule I usual say that the more knowledgeable you are about something covered by the press, the more chocked you are about what the journalist is able to present to his/her readers/viewers.

But this is not "general media", this is a reputable car magazine, and car magazines in Norway tend to be somewhat knowledgeable about BEV's and charging. So I think this journalist does know about what he is covering. And the explanation is so clear and precise so in this case my judgment is that it has to be one of the following that has happened:
1. The journalist is deliberatively telling us something he just guessing at, and presenting it as something GM has told him. Eg. a direct lie. Low probability.
2. The representative for GM do not know what he is talking about, and tells this journalist from "no-where" a lie to shout him up.
3. GM is lying.
4. What the journalist is writing is the true. High probability.


If it is #4, and you cant get the math to match, then maybe the clam about being able add 90 miles in 30 minutes is a bit imprecise?

 

[McRat]

I do agree fully with what you say about media here. As a general rule I usual say that the more knowledgeable you are about something covered by the press, the more chocked you are about what the journalist is able to present to his/her readers/viewers.

But this is not "general media", this is a reputable car magazine, and car magazines in Norway tend to be somewhat knowledgeable about BEV's and charging. So I think this journalist does know about what he is covering. And the explanation is so clear and precise so in this case my judgment is that it has to be one of the following that has happened:
1. The journalist is deliberatively telling us something he just guessing at, and presenting it as something GM has told him. Eg. a direct lie. Low probability.
2. The representative for GM do not know what he is talking about, and tells this journalist from "no-where" a lie to shout him up.
3. GM is lying.
4. What the journalist is writing is the true. High probability.


If it is #4, and you cant get the math to match, then maybe the clam about being able add 90 miles in 30 minutes is a bit imprecise?

Lying is probably not a the correct way to think about. Is Chevrolet lying when they say the Volt/Ampera has a top speed of 158kmh when it really goes 162? They say the EV power is 111kW but it's really 120kW. Lying? Well it does go 158 and does put out 111 kW of EV thrust.

In 1998 they sold the Camaro with a new engine. They claimed 305 hp @ 5600 rpm. The actual output was roughly 345 hp @ 6200 rpm.

Lying? Not really. It did make new SAE spec 305HP @ 5600 rpm. It also made 345 at 6200 as well.

The problem lies in the fact there are no CCS chargers in North American that are rated higher than 62.5kW. And there is at least 4% loss at the charger, and 4% loss into the battery, plus whatever losses the cooling system and BMS encounter.

So how are you going say your product will charge faster than it actually can when sold?

"Oh, our car will someday get 60 mpg as soon as the new synthetic diesel becomes available." doesn't cut it anymore than "our car will charge faster, but only in our engineering lab".

 

[diamond.g]

With any product, if something fails because it was not serviced per instructions, you are on the hook when under warranty. But only for that component.

They cannot "void your warranty" except in very rare instances, like using the vehicle for an application that is specifically denied in the warranty like taxi service or racing. Oddly enough, GM will cover some models for track use, most mfr's void your entire warranty.



Show me the page on any BEV mfr website, or a page in the OM that specifically graphs out all the various charging scenarios. Initial state, temp, altitude (cooling is significantly affected by high DA), type of charger, max charger ability.

Chevy has been saying the Bolt goes 200 miles, will go to 60 in under 7, will charge at 25mph at home, will handle at least 50kWh, and can add 90 miles in 30 minutes.

Which of those claims do you find to be in error based on your personal testing?



You do realize that a 50kW charger will not add 90 miles in 30 minutes, right? Do the math. Neither the battery system nor the charger is 100% efficient.

So the magazine tested the AmperaE and found it can't add 145 km in 30 minutes, right? Or is the magazine guessing?

Would this not imply that a Bolt cannot get 90 miles in 30 minutes since currently no DCFC units support 80kW?
Side question: the original Model S 60 supported a max DC charge rate of 90kW no?

 

[JRP3]

My Bolt is coming! $1k off MSRP and likely $500 farm bureau rebate and $500 lease loyalty rebate too.

Headline, (if this were a Tesla product): "Discounting of brand new models shows lack of demand!"

 

[chadever]

Bolt EV maintenance schedule:

Basically nothing that needs a visit to the dealer until 150k miles. Bolt's gonna be expensive to maintain!

Are they asking you to convert in every 7,500 miles/once a year? They could easily charge $300 for an anual inspection (high margin) and upsell on windshield wipers, brakes etc.

Electric cars could be the greatest thing to happen to dealerships.

 

[McRat]

Would this not imply that a Bolt cannot get 90 miles in 30 minutes since currently no DCFC units support 80kW?
Side question: the original Model S 60 supported a max DC charge rate of 90kW no?

There are 62.5kW installations by my house. After losses, if the car does accept 62.5, it should hit the number.

What really matters to owners is how many MPH the average charging speed will be to various points in the capacity window. Simply "how many miles will I get starting from a low capacity (never zero) after X number of minutes?" This is what people need to know, not voltage, amps, or kW peak rate.

IIRC, the original Model S 60 did not charge at an average 90 kW for 30 minutes IIRC. It starts at 90 kW, then declines. And even then, there are losses.

There might not be a peak cap lower than 125kW for the Bolt. We do not know until they install 125kW ChargePoint locations over the next year. I doubt it will be that high, but at least in theory the LG Spark EV cells could do it if they had a 60kWh array instead of 19kWh.

It's all conjecture, and all this discussion will change over time.

Hey, it COULD be 50kW capped by software. The cells themselves should certainly handle more, and there might be other reasons to cap it at 50. I just don't believe 50kW at the meter is going add 90 EPA miles in 30 minutes.

 

[diamond.g]

There are 62.5kW installations by my house. After losses, if the car does accept 62.5, it should hit the number.

What really matters to owners is how many MPH the average charging speed will be to various points in the capacity window. Simply "how many miles will I get starting from a low capacity (never zero) after X number of minutes?" This is what people need to know, not voltage, amps, or kW peak rate.

IIRC, the original Model S 60 did not charge at an average 90 kW for 30 minutes IIRC. It starts at 90 kW, then declines. And even then, there are losses.

There might not be a peak cap lower than 125kW for the Bolt. We do not know until they install 125kW ChargePoint locations over the next year. I doubt it will be that high, but at least in theory the LG Spark EV cells could do it if they had a 60kWh array instead of 19kWh.

It's all conjecture, and all this discussion will change over time.

Hey, it COULD be 50kW capped by software. The cells themselves should certainly handle more, and there might be other reasons to cap it at 50. I just don't believe 50kW at the meter is going add 90 EPA miles in 30 minutes.

The Spark EV and the Bolt share the same battery chemistry?

 

[JRP3]

The Spark EV and the Bolt share the same battery chemistry?

I guess it depends. The early ones used A123 LiFePO4, then GM switched to LG Chem NCM I think.

 

[samotlietuvis]

My Bolt is coming! $1k off MSRP and likely $500 farm bureau rebate and $500 lease loyalty rebate too.

Very nice. I see you blog on both sites . If you have Costco membership - throw it in and see what happens. Chevy's usually have a lot of wiggle room on price. Will be waiting for a good write up on how she's driving, and if you can find 80kw or larger DC charging station while at it - it would clear up a lot of things...

 

[Model 3]

Lying? Not really. It did make new SAE spec 305HP @ 5600 rpm. It also made 345 at 6200 as well.

Yes, and I would not call that a lie - as you present this.
If GM in your example said "this engine can not deliver more then 345HP under any circumstances", then it would have been a lie.

But in this case that we do discuss either they told or did not tell the journalist that story.
If they did not the journalist is lying.
If they did and it is not true, they have to be lying.
If they did and it is true, no one has lied about this. Then either your math or the clam about 90miles in 30 minutes is imprecise.

The clam the journalist is quoting from GM is:

Neither Bolt or Ampera E can charge faster than 50 kW.

If they said "Bolt and Ampera E can charge at 50 kW.", it would not be a lie, even if it also could charge at 80kW.

 

[McRat]

"Neither the Bolt or Ampera E will charge at an average rate of 50kW with the existing chargers" could be one interpretation.

 

[techmaven]

There are 62.5kW installations by my house. After losses, if the car does accept 62.5, it should hit the number.

No. The 62.5 kW is derived by taking 125 A x 500V = 62.5 kW. However, the Bolt can't take 500 volts. Its voltage range is similar to all the other production cars out there. So at 125A, if it could take all 125A up to 400v, that's 50kW. We'll see soon the actual charge taper and what voltage range corresponds with the amperage. That's why amperage matters.

What really matters to owners is how many MPH the average charging speed will be to various points in the capacity window. Simply "how many miles will I get starting from a low capacity (never zero) after X number of minutes?" This is what people need to know, not voltage, amps, or kW peak rate.

Simply because the actual results may vary... and the actual results are based on the details. Clearly, charging is at the minimum of several factors... the EVSE, the plug, the battery, and the environment all play a part. The MPH average charging speed changes depending on all of these.

IIRC, the original Model S 60 did not charge at an average 90 kW for 30 minutes IIRC. It starts at 90 kW, then declines. And even then, there are losses.

The Model S 60 original battery pack can take 102-105 kW peak which is around 330 amp peak. There was a software update that pushed the peak slightly, so some older videos show a lower peak. It doesn't drop to below 160 amps until after 52% SoC, which means anywhere from 0% to 52%, it will charge faster than a Bolt's peak charge rate when hooked up to Tesla Supercharger (assuming no limiting at the Supercharger). It takes 17-19 minutes for a Model S 60 original pack to gain 90 miles of range from 5 miles of range. It can charge ~125-130 EPA miles of range in 30 minutes, or ~40-50% faster than a Bolt.

Your typical charging performance on a Bolt is more likely around 40-50 kW. We will see soon.

Hey, it COULD be 50kW capped by software. The cells themselves should certainly handle more, and there might be other reasons to cap it at 50. I just don't believe 50kW at the meter is going add 90 EPA miles in 30 minutes.

Hopefully this is the case since it affects the design of charging networks. We still have to see what the Bolt's real world range in the winter will be on the highway, charging 45 minutes on each hop. At 90 miles in 30 minutes, that implies that stretching it... 45 minutes, to maybe 135 miles of range, remove 30% for winter, means charging station distances less than 100 miles. An 80% charge would take just over an hour... that's not a good cadence at 2 hours of winter driving, 1+ hours of charging. It also leads to higher congestion at CCS EVSE's, which have extremely limited plugs as it stands. At least the CCS stations ar usually the newer ones can tolerate 1+ hour of 125 amp charging... older CHAdeMO stations break or limp for that. Of course, some are programmed for auto-cut off after 30 minutes, which isn't helpful either. The original Model S 60 kWh pack was already pushing it in terms of tolerable cadence.

 

[Model 3]

"Neither the Bolt or Ampera E will charge at an average rate of 50kW with the existing chargers" could be one interpretation.

It could be, but my interpretation of the article is that the journalist asked GM about what is right - GM has stated both that max charging rate is 50kW, and that it could charge at/from 80kW, both can not be true. He state that he got a clear answer that 50kW IS max charing rate, and that the 80kW clam was just that it could use a 80kW charger, but still only charge at max 50kW. So no, that is not an interpretation that makes sense. But what is written in the article does make sense except that something is fishy about the "90 miles in 30 minutes" clam or your math.

But you are free to belive exactly what you like We will soon see someone testing it out in practice, then we all know for sure.

 

[techmaven]

It could be, but my interpretation of the article is that the journalist asked GM about what is right - GM has stated both that max charging rate is 50kW, and that it could charge at/from 80kW, both can not be true. He state that he got a clear answer that 50kW IS max charing rate, and that the 80kW clam was just that it could use a 80kW charger, but still only charge at max 50kW. So no, that is not an interpretation that makes sense. But what is written in the article does make sense except that something is fishy about the "90 miles in 30 minutes" clam or your math.

But you are free to belive exactly what you like We will soon see someone testing it out in practice, then we all know for sure.

It is quite possible that a 50/62.5 kW EVSE (ie. 125 A) is not enough to get the peak charging rate out of a Bolt. A Bolt is nominally 238 miles EPA, which corresponds to 3.96 miles per kWh assuming 60 kWh usable (which seems to be what some journalists got). We still don't know the usable kWh versus nominal kWh versus the 60 kWh marketing spec. Anyways, 90 miles of that range implies 22.7 kWh in half an hour, or 45.4 kW into the pack. Which means 50 kW average charging rate necessary to achieve that. However, existing 125 A EVSE's combined with the Bolt's battery pack might not actually achieve a 50 kW average charging rate for 30 minutes. To avoid the confusion with 62.5 kW labelled EVSE's which are actually still 125 A, GM just went ahead and said 80 kW which implies 160 A. That doesn't mean the Bolt can actually take 160 A, it is likely that the limit is still 90 EPA miles in 30 minutes, or 50 kW average charging rate. In reality, at that point, they might as well put in 200 A EVSE's. Not sure how many EVSE's you can actually buy that are between 125A and 200A, versus just 200A.

Note that since the NMC pack in the Bolt likely can tolerate pretty high charging c-rates, it is possible that the taper is really small and delayed. Maybe a 2018 Bolt can charge at a decent clip off a 150 kW EVSE. If I were a buyer of a Bolt today, I'd be asking Chevy about upgradability to 150 kW... again, not that the Bolt can charge at 150 kW, but that it can take something between 125 A to the new 350 A. At 350 A x 370 V, the peak would then be 130 kW, or right around where Model S's can tolerate today.

 

[McRat]

No. The 62.5 kW is derived by taking 125 A x 500V = 62.5 kW. However, the Bolt can't take 500 volts. Its voltage range is similar to all the other production cars out there. So at 125A, if it could take all 125A up to 400v, that's 50kW. We'll see soon the actual charge taper and what voltage range corresponds with the amperage. That's why amperage matters.

It's probably similar to the Volt where the peak charged voltage is 403vdc as I measure with a multimeter. You will spend your whole life charging a 400v battery with 400v.

Simply because the actual results may vary... and the actual results are based on the details. Clearly, charging is at the minimum of several factors... the EVSE, the plug, the battery, and the environment all play a part. The MPH average charging speed changes depending on all of these.

The Model S 60 original battery pack can take 102-105 kW peak which is around 330 amp peak. There was a software update that pushed the peak slightly, so some older videos show a lower peak. It doesn't drop to below 160 amps until after 52% SoC, which means anywhere from 0% to 52%, it will charge faster than a Bolt's peak charge rate when hooked up to Tesla Supercharger (assuming no limiting at the Supercharger). It takes 17-19 minutes for a Model S 60 original pack to gain 90 miles of range from 5 miles of range. It can charge ~125-130 EPA miles of range in 30 minutes, or ~40-50% faster than a Bolt.

from folks in 2015 who actually graphed the charging performance on the Model S 60: http://i.imgur.com/J1GoBSn.gif or 26 minutes to 90 miles.

Your typical charging performance on a Bolt is more likely around 40-50 kW. We will see soon.

Hopefully this is the case since it affects the design of charging networks. We still have to see what the Bolt's real world range in the winter will be on the highway, charging 45 minutes on each hop. At 90 miles in 30 minutes, that implies that stretching it... 45 minutes, to maybe 135 miles of range, remove 30% for winter, means charging station distances less than 100 miles. An 80% charge would take just over an hour... that's not a good cadence at 2 hours of winter driving, 1+ hours of charging. It also leads to higher congestion at CCS EVSE's, which have extremely limited plugs as it stands. At least the CCS stations ar usually the newer ones can tolerate 1+ hour of 125 amp charging... older CHAdeMO stations break or limp for that. Of course, some are programmed for auto-cut off after 30 minutes, which isn't helpful either. The original Model S 60 kWh pack was already pushing it in terms of tolerable cadence.

Yup, we will see.

 

[techmaven]

from folks in 2015 who actually graphed the charging performance on the Model S 60: http://i.imgur.com/J1GoBSn.gif or 26 minutes to 90 miles.

That has a particularly pessimistic view... I suspect it was built from Bjorn's tests with a 60 kWh in early 2015, which seemed particularly slow. Kman auto's videos show:

About 20 minutes. People have reported much faster times than Bjorn's, so something was up with that particular car or charging situation.

Of course, most people don't charge from 0 or 10 miles, but for long distance hopping, charging from under 20 miles of range is common.

 

[Jeff N]

He state that he got a clear answer that 50kW IS max charing rate, and that the 80kW clam was just that it could use a 80kW charger, but still only charge at max 50kW.

I don't know of any 80 kW CCS chargers sold today or planned in the future. It's an odd rate to quote generically so it seems reasonable to think that GM might be implying 500V x 160A = 80 kW. Since the Bolt EVs nominal pack voltage is 350V it probably swings from a low of near 320 to a high of near 390. To use that nominal voltage, 350V x 160 = 56 kW.

I don't necessarily read GM's statement as excluding faster charging ability on DC chargers that support greater than 160A. On the other hand, they sure aren't encouraging anyone to hope for better. We will just have to see what happens when plugging a Bolt EV into a higher-rate charger.

Even with a 50-60 kW peak charging rate, the Bolt EV's 200+ mile highway range makes it a reasonable car for occasional road trips that require 1-2 charging stops. In other words, it's still perfectly capable of going 350-400 miles from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

 

[stopcrazypp]

While he did post that in 2013, I find it interesting that even to this day all of the documentation says 12,500 miles or 12 months. They never updated any of it to a lesser schedule.

And if you buy the extended warranty, during its effective period, you ARE required to perform every service on time to maintain the extended warranty.

With any product, if something fails because it was not serviced per instructions, you are on the hook when under warranty. But only for that component.

They cannot "void your warranty" except in very rare instances, like using the vehicle for an application that is specifically denied in the warranty like taxi service or racing. Oddly enough, GM will cover some models for track use, most mfr's void your entire warranty.

Elon is not talking about the standard convention you are talking about (that only specific components can be voided for maintenance), it's that absolutely no maintenance is required at all to keep the warranty in effect for any component. This is a subtle but important distinction that I touched on in the following post:
Extended Service Agreements No Longer Transferable?

Tesla did not update their recommended maintenance schedules, but rather their warranty terms. The maintenance schedule is however required to be kept for the extended warranty (which is a value add, like the annual service).