As always, great summary Tony. Would you gaze into your crystal ball and estimate the probability of the Frankenplug standard gaining traction certain areas of the country (such as Detroit), hence the VHS-Betamax issue again? We're seeing regional differences in Leaf vs Volt sales and I would anticipate the similar differences for the Spark. It wouldn't surprise me that some people who discounted the Leaf (and favored the Volt) are now touting the benefits of the Spark. I've already read many glowing reviews of the Spark over the Leaf. I've got no dog in that race since I don't plan on buying another EV and the Leaf works just fine for my 10-20 mi daily use.TonyWilliams said:
Chevrolet Spark EV
- Thread starter evnow
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Good summary Tony. Since there is a CHAdeMO infrastructure already in place, what benefit do these other manufactures gain by going with something different? Are there any technical or cost advantages with the SAE approach over CHAdeMO?
On a slightly different note. I welcome the Spark EV simply because it is an EV. I don't think it is in the same class as the Leaf as its design is much more biased towards an inter-city commuter car. My daughter rented an ordinary Spark. It was small, under powered and tinny, but it did have a surprisingly nice infotainment system. An EV version would resolve the power issue, but the other problems remain, and at a significantly higher price point. I think it's market will be limited to big congested cities with limited parking.
On a slightly different note. I welcome the Spark EV simply because it is an EV. I don't think it is in the same class as the Leaf as its design is much more biased towards an inter-city commuter car. My daughter rented an ordinary Spark. It was small, under powered and tinny, but it did have a surprisingly nice infotainment system. An EV version would resolve the power issue, but the other problems remain, and at a significantly higher price point. I think it's market will be limited to big congested cities with limited parking.
GRA
Well-known member
I'm surprised that anyone who is a frequent reader here would be unaware of the current lack of availability of CCS, the limited roll-out, or for that matter Tony's opinion of CCS, but it is a good summary (ignoring the bias - perhaps we should start referring to CHAdeMo as the 'Godzilla' plug to show equal opportunity contempt. Edit: Since CCS is first and foremost a U.S. standard albeit adopted by Europe, maybe calling it the 'Bigfoot' plug would be more appropriate. Shorter than typing Frankenplug too, although not as short as CCS, but I digress).
Lots of LEAF/i owners had to wait 18 months to 2 years for CHAdeMo in their part of California, and I expect that the CCS rollout here will be somewhat faster, but we'll see. As to the rest of the country, if the Spark/i3 don't sell well here, it really doesn't matter whether or not they're available anywhere else in the U.S., because the cars will fail in the most favorable market to them.
As to 3.3kW charging, yeah, it's a problem for many who want to use the car for something other than commuting. I said as much several months back in a comment at GCR when the specs were first announced. I understand why GM made the decision for cost reasons, but it will handicap the car against the competition for non-commute trips unless CCS becomes ubiquitous, and that's not likely any time soon. It would be a non-starter for me for that reason alone (just as the lack of QC on the RAV4 puts that car out of contention). I anticipate that GM will have to offer 6.0-6.6kW charging at least as an option (like the Leaf S) no later than two model years from now, and preferably next model year. No QC + no faster L2 is going to be way too much of a headwind now.
Lots of LEAF/i owners had to wait 18 months to 2 years for CHAdeMo in their part of California, and I expect that the CCS rollout here will be somewhat faster, but we'll see. As to the rest of the country, if the Spark/i3 don't sell well here, it really doesn't matter whether or not they're available anywhere else in the U.S., because the cars will fail in the most favorable market to them.
As to 3.3kW charging, yeah, it's a problem for many who want to use the car for something other than commuting. I said as much several months back in a comment at GCR when the specs were first announced. I understand why GM made the decision for cost reasons, but it will handicap the car against the competition for non-commute trips unless CCS becomes ubiquitous, and that's not likely any time soon. It would be a non-starter for me for that reason alone (just as the lack of QC on the RAV4 puts that car out of contention). I anticipate that GM will have to offer 6.0-6.6kW charging at least as an option (like the Leaf S) no later than two model years from now, and preferably next model year. No QC + no faster L2 is going to be way too much of a headwind now.
evnow
Well-known member
I like BigFoot - after CCS is probably as rare as BigFoot.
GRA
Well-known member
From PluginCars.com:
"The Spark EV could be a big seller in Europe and Asia if the company makes the same price concessions there that it’s made in the U.S. It’s already a familiar model worldwide. The Spark in all its models has been a runaway success, with 275,228 sold globally in 2012, and 720,000 since 2009 (when it debuted in South Korea). Sales have exceeded expectations by as much as 35 percent. In the U.S., with sales only in California and Oregon so far, the success is more muted—the Spark sold 14,484 through May, where it’s been eclipsed by the Ford Fiesta (28,801) and Fiat 500 (17,562)."
http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-spark-ev-expands-europe-and-korea-127787.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I was unaware that the gas Spark is only being sold in California and Oregon for now (same as the EV version will be). I'm somewhat surprised by the sales total for the Fiesta, as I don't see that many of them compared to Foci, which are common here. I've never understood the current Fiesta's seeming dearth in the Bay Area, because it fits in well with the demographics, and is a good car (the ST is a screamer).
"The Spark EV could be a big seller in Europe and Asia if the company makes the same price concessions there that it’s made in the U.S. It’s already a familiar model worldwide. The Spark in all its models has been a runaway success, with 275,228 sold globally in 2012, and 720,000 since 2009 (when it debuted in South Korea). Sales have exceeded expectations by as much as 35 percent. In the U.S., with sales only in California and Oregon so far, the success is more muted—the Spark sold 14,484 through May, where it’s been eclipsed by the Ford Fiesta (28,801) and Fiat 500 (17,562)."
http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-spark-ev-expands-europe-and-korea-127787.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I was unaware that the gas Spark is only being sold in California and Oregon for now (same as the EV version will be). I'm somewhat surprised by the sales total for the Fiesta, as I don't see that many of them compared to Foci, which are common here. I've never understood the current Fiesta's seeming dearth in the Bay Area, because it fits in well with the demographics, and is a good car (the ST is a screamer).
Stoaty said:
LeftieBiker said:
Sorry guys, didn't have the time to do a good job on the numbers. I did use the wrong year for the Leaf. Sorry about that as well.drees said:
Doing it right the conclusion doesn't change at all: The Spark EV absolutely KILLS the Leaf on drive train efficiency. On the Highway Cycle a 40 count difference in Cd equals about a 15% increase in efficiency. Four hundred pounds accounts for 2.5%. Although the Leaf has a larger A than the Spark (4251 sq. inches vs. 4156 sq. iinches), we can find what the Cd of the Spark would need to be if its frontal area was increased by the 95 sq. inches needed to make the Spark's frontal area equal to the Leaf's. This turns out to be .318 rather than the listed .326. This means that the Spark has a Cd which is 38 counts more than the Leaf.
The weight is just simply 250 pounds, which is the difference in the curb weights, divided by 400 pounds times 2.5%.
On the Highway Cycle the Leaf should therefore get 14.25% better efficiency than the Spark because of its lower CdA and 1.56% worse efficiency because of its higher weight. Looking at only aero and mass, the Leaf should get 12.69% higher efficiency. Since the Spark is rated at 109 MPGe on the Highway Cycle, the Leaf should be rated at 123 MPGe.
In fact the Leaf is rated at 102 MPGe on the Highway Cycle. The only explanation for the 20% difference in the expected difference between projected and actual efficiency is that the Leaf's drive train is not very efficient. Leaf owners shouldn't find this surprising. Any time you start pushing 60 MPH you can hear the squirrels running their little feet off and you can see your range dropping.
Considering that the Spark has a much better 0-60 MPH time, it's the hands down winner. Not only does it go faster than the Leaf, it also goes more efficiently.
You can run your own numbers for the City Cycle using 10% for a 40 count and 5% 400 pounds. You'll see the same thing, just not as dramatic.
My only caveat on this is that the Nissan claim that the Leaf has a Cd of .28 may be BS.
cwerdna
Well-known member
Yes. Kudo's to Tony. Also see http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=279363#p279363" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; re: Frankenplug, if you haven't already.mkjayakumar said:
Or that your claim that the frontal area difference between the Spark EV and LEAF is only 2% which is rediculous considering that that while the vehicles are the same height (61") the Spark EV is nearly 6" narrower (not sure where you got your dimensions from, they don't match mine and the two cars are clearly very different in frontal area size). In addition to the assumption that the Cd of the LEAF and Spark EV are likely to be measured differently...SanDust said:
Or we could look at the fact that the LEAF is actually rated better on the city cycle than the Spark despite weighing 10%+ more - and wonder why the Spark EV can't beat the portly LEAF despite being a smaller, lighter, car with a brand new drivetrain. Which kind of KILLS your whole argument.
The Spark drive train has a lot of things going for it - but efficiency isn't really it.
More important:
1. 120 kW of power
2. A123 batteries w/water cooling (should last a LONG time)
3. Small size, light weight should boost efficiency (even though the EPA numbers don't necessarily relfect that)
But it has these drawbacks:
1. Small size (yeah, it's a pro and a con)
2. 3.3 kW charging maximum
3. Only available in select markets
GM should have dropped the same drivetrain into a Cruze sized chassis with 30 kWh+ of batteries, 6.6 kW OBC and CHAdeMO. But of course then it'd probably cost closer to $40k instead of $30k.
drees said:
Actually I think GM should have used the Sonic hatchback instead for their first post EV-1 pure electric. It's a lot better looking than the Spark IMHO, is roomier inside, and unlike the ICE Spark, the ICE Sonic is a decent drive.
A issue with basing an EV on the Cruze is weight. Turning the Honda Fit into an EV caused it to swell from 2500 to over 3200 lbs. Turning the Spark into an EV added over 600 lbs. So you can imagine how much portlier the 3000-3100 lb Cruze would be if it were made into an EV. It would be heavier than the 3300 lb Leaf S. The Sonic is 300-400 lbs lighter than the Cruze.
scottf200
Well-known member
Excellent point. Most are only thinking of a USA perspective instead of a global market. This is huge: "275,228 Sparks sold globally in 2012". Perhaps that is why Ford is building their EV in Germany now and GM ended up picking South Korea and a place to build the Spark-EV. Are these companies thinking of a global market and not just the USA which these forums focus on 99.9% of the time?!?GRA said:
I was in Paris recently. Europe's views of are dramatically different than ours (size, looks, shapes). Of course the gas there is a big difference too.
The GM/Chevrolet Cruze sold 32,871 in the SINGLE month of JUNE. They should not mess with that success. http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/chevrolet-cruze-sales-figures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What's actually ridiculous is not bothering to pay attention or do any homework before spouting off about something being ridiculous. As mentioned, the frontal areas numbers come directly from insideevs.com. You can find them here: http://insideevs.com/plug-in-compact-comparison-chevrolet-spark-vs-fiat-500e/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://insideevs.com/2013-nissan-leaf-overview-and-specifications/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I can't find any support for the claim that the height of the Spark is 61". Perhaps you've confused the Spark with the Fiat 500e.drees said:
Not recognizing the superiority of the Spark drive train is putting your head in the sand. It's the greatest thing since sliced white bread. If not that, then it's at least vastly more efficient than the drive train in the Leaf.
As for the Cd of the Leaf being intentionally understated by Nissan, I did mention that as a possibility/probability but there isn't any remedy for this. What would you do, just make one up? I do believe that the Cd of the Leaf is lower than that of the Spark. The Spark is an ICE vehicle so the aerodynamics wouldn't be that important.
It's more a polemic than an analysis. As an analysis it's incomplete and misleading though, within its limited parameters, accurate.Reddy said:
The great flaw is confusing the physical connector with the standard. J1772 sets the AC and DC charging standards in North America. Its derivative IEC61851, which adds another pin for 3 phase but is essentially identical in all respects to J1772, sets the standards for AC and DC charging in Europe and China. While J1772/61851 sets the protocols and hardware requirements for charging as well as the safety requirements, it does not prescribe the physical configuration of the connectors. A charging system could be J1772 compliant but not be plug compatible with another J1772 compliant charging system.
The SAE DC charging connector that Tony always focuses on is simply one implementation of the J1772 standard. This connector, which he derogatorily refers to as the Frakenplug, adds two pins to what is basically the standard J1772 connector we use today. In this implementation, the two AC pins are used for DC charging up to 40 kW. The two added larger pins are used for DC charging up to 100 kW. The car auto senses which pins should be used.
Tesla adheres to the J1772/61851 standard but uses a slightly different physical layout. In its implementation of the SAE standard, the pins are placed in slightly different locations and the pins used for AC charging are much larger than the AC charging pins used in the SAE J1772 AC connector. The advantage of the larger pins is that they allow DC Level I and Level II charging over the same pins as used for AC charging. This is a more elegant implementation but has the disadvantage of not being plug compatible with the original SAE AC chargers which are in use today.
The important point here is that a simple adapter would allow vehicles using the SAE DC plug to use the Tesla superchargers with draws up to 40 kW and the Model S could use likewise use a DC charger designed for the SAE connector for up to 40 kW charging. This would work the same way as the current adapter which allows a Tesla to use SAE AC chargers. Conceivably a Model S could have an adapter that also allowed it access to the full capability of such a charger but that would be tricky since you'd have to reroute the pin connections. However, neither Tesla nor any car capable of J1772 DC charging would be able to use a Chademo charger since that is an entirely different standard.
The point here is that by treating the physical connector as if it were a standard, and ignoring the ease with which cars sharing the same standard can use different plugs, Tony's analysis underestimates the number of cars on the road that can use SAE compliant DC chargers and hence the potential market for those chargers.
If you're looking at the big picture it's clear that Chademo is very likely to be a dead end. A car manufacturer has to have a plug, hardware, and protocols that supports AC Levels I and II. Now the choice is whether to use the same plug and protocols to add DC charging for a trivial amount of money or to add a separate Chademo DC charging system that will add significant expense and impose design restrictions. That's not a difficult choice. The manufacturers of the DC chargers will just follow the path of least resistance, which is to manufacture a single charging unit that can support DC charging in NA, Europe, and China. This is why Nissan has been lobbying hard to dual standard chargers.
http://autos.aol.com/cars-Chevrolet-Spark-2013/specs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Height: 61" Width: 62.9"SanDust said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Spark#Third_generation_.282010.E2.80.93present.29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Height: 61.1" Width: 62.9"
I am not sure why GM lists the Spark EV width at 64.0" compared to 62.9" of the regular Spark - the body is identical between the two...
Again - if the Spark EV drivetrain were "vastly more efficient" than the LEAF, that would show up in the city EPA numbers where it does not.SanDust said:Not recognizing the superiority of the Spark drive train is putting your head in the sand. It's the greatest thing since sliced white bread. If not that, then it's at least vastly more efficient than the drive train in the Leaf.
The Spark EV drivetrain has lots of good stuff going for it compared to the LEAF as I've already pointed out - but "vastly more efficient" is not supported by the data.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
SanDust said:
If the consumer can't plug his/her car into it, it is defacto a different standard.
There will be a CHAdeMO adaptor soon for Tesla. If Frankenplug actually gets deployed in quantity (which I highly doubt for all the reasons stated), I'm confident there will be a Frankenplug to Tesla adaptor.
You'll note that cars sold in Japan will have CHAdeMO, either "native" or with an adaptor. VW has already said they would do that, which means that the same cars COULD be sold in the USA without any additional cost or engineering (since CHAdeMO is common worldwide).
The bad news for Frankenplug proponents like yourself is this, and it's growing EVERY day.
scottf200
Well-known member
Trouble is it is a disaster in Chicagoland. The map above is misleading for Chicagoland. We have very high gas prices so EVs are popular here. See this post: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=310030#p310030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;TonyWilliams said:
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
scottf200 said:
Those clowns would have screwed up a Frankenplug standard, too. Like Ecotality, it's nothing but a way to suck cash from tax payers.
nosuchthing
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 740
I drove Spark EV 2LT yesterday. It seems a small bit road noisier than Leaf, the interior is fine and gauges are cute and quite small. I did not have a chance to play with the screens too much. It was mostly about driving.
The front seats fit 6-foot adults with no problem. The rear seats are a joke. My wife is 5'4" and didn't like it a bit. The trunk looks like it can handle 2 grocery bags and that's it. The rear headrests must be lifted all the way up to do the job, obliterating most of the rear view. I think the seats might as well be folded forward out of the way. It's really a 2+2.
The steering is center-heavy, which is good, and responsive. Acceleration is as described everywhere. There was no pull that I could tell. The GOM displays the main number and smaller high and low numbers, displayed above and below, as in max and min ranges. Later I looked at the GOM and kWs missing and concluded that the range would have been 80 miles, which corresponds to the stated range of 82 miles. Since there is TMS I'm expecting this battery to do its thing for 3 years with no issues.
The gear shifter is just like in any automatic, and D is followed by 2. I had to explain to the dealer that is was a different 2, made for regular highway speed but with more aggresive regen. There is a continuous display of watts used while the car is on, it hovered around 10 (9-11) at freeway speed and shifting between D and 2 made no difference, which I expected. However, in 2 there was an aggressive slowing/regen which felt quite good, because I was making juice. It seems similar to what i3 is supposed to have, where you drive without brakes. I'd expect to use this "gear" on steep downslopes, or in town.
I am leasing this baby in Summit White as soon as it shows up at my local dealers, which is about 2 weeks. I'm taking 1LT though, b/c all that's missing from 2LT is the leatherette seats (give me leather of give me death), cloth has leatherette edges and headrests which is great. Other than that it's missing leather steering, heated seats and nav (don't need any of them).
Overall, fun to drive. Feels much better than Fit EV, a bit less noisy than FEV even though more expensive to lease. I don't think anyone can get their hands on FEV anyway. I let my chance to lease FEV slide so I could compare it with Spark. I'm glad I did, it feels like a better car with much better range. Fit range is very inconsistent as per MyFEV forum. Also, FEV has a key device to start the car. Spark is like Leaf - a power button. I never saw the fob.
I needed range more than anything else, and this mini beast had got it. I'm convinced.
The front seats fit 6-foot adults with no problem. The rear seats are a joke. My wife is 5'4" and didn't like it a bit. The trunk looks like it can handle 2 grocery bags and that's it. The rear headrests must be lifted all the way up to do the job, obliterating most of the rear view. I think the seats might as well be folded forward out of the way. It's really a 2+2.
The steering is center-heavy, which is good, and responsive. Acceleration is as described everywhere. There was no pull that I could tell. The GOM displays the main number and smaller high and low numbers, displayed above and below, as in max and min ranges. Later I looked at the GOM and kWs missing and concluded that the range would have been 80 miles, which corresponds to the stated range of 82 miles. Since there is TMS I'm expecting this battery to do its thing for 3 years with no issues.
The gear shifter is just like in any automatic, and D is followed by 2. I had to explain to the dealer that is was a different 2, made for regular highway speed but with more aggresive regen. There is a continuous display of watts used while the car is on, it hovered around 10 (9-11) at freeway speed and shifting between D and 2 made no difference, which I expected. However, in 2 there was an aggressive slowing/regen which felt quite good, because I was making juice. It seems similar to what i3 is supposed to have, where you drive without brakes. I'd expect to use this "gear" on steep downslopes, or in town.
I am leasing this baby in Summit White as soon as it shows up at my local dealers, which is about 2 weeks. I'm taking 1LT though, b/c all that's missing from 2LT is the leatherette seats (give me leather of give me death), cloth has leatherette edges and headrests which is great. Other than that it's missing leather steering, heated seats and nav (don't need any of them).
Overall, fun to drive. Feels much better than Fit EV, a bit less noisy than FEV even though more expensive to lease. I don't think anyone can get their hands on FEV anyway. I let my chance to lease FEV slide so I could compare it with Spark. I'm glad I did, it feels like a better car with much better range. Fit range is very inconsistent as per MyFEV forum. Also, FEV has a key device to start the car. Spark is like Leaf - a power button. I never saw the fob.
I needed range more than anything else, and this mini beast had got it. I'm convinced.
ILETRIC said:
To be fair, if someone sitting back there is tall enough to need to pull the headrests all the way up, their head is going to block out the view as well. But at least you have the option of pushing them all the way down and having a bigger rear view when no adults are sitting back there.
The Euro-Leafs have this already, so it's a shame that Nissan USA wanted ours to have gigantic rear headrests. But I suspect their lawyers had a say in choosing that style headrest over the one used in Europe.
Nice review. I bet the battery far outlasts the LEAF batteries. A123 batteries are bullet proof - combined with liquid cooling I bet you don't see any more than 5% capacity loss after 3 years in nearly all climates.ILETRIC said:
scottf200
Well-known member
Can you expand on this? Also did you try the SPORT button to see how worked differently?ILETRIC said: