="GRA"... the FFE's ATM let's the pack get and stay much too hot (and the Soul's maybe also). That's a matter of a poorly designed ATM, not the failure of ATM in general. GM and Tesla did it right...
I don't know how you formed that belief, but I suggest you base your opinions on facts, instead
For some reason Tesla doesn't seem to want outside testing of its cars' battery packs.
But the AVTA
is testing the Tesla pack and drivetrain used in the B-class.
With the largest packs of any of the BEVs being tested by the AVTA (34.25 kWh average baseline) I think you should expect a lower percentage of capacity loss over the same miles driven than on BEVs equipped with smaller packs, which need to cycle their pack more times to cover the same miles.
With data for only ~three months and ~3,600 miles since baseline, the B-class ~3.1% average capacity loss doesn't tell us very much, but eventually we should see the first reliable data on Tesla pack degradation.
https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-button/2015-mercedes-b-class
The Spark EVs, also after only ~3,600 miles over more than four months since baseline (on average) are losing capacity by %/miles driven slightly faster than the B-class', and show ~3.8% loss so far, but with packs just over half as large, I think this is to be expected.
https://avt.inl.gov/vehicle-button/2015-chevrolet-spark
In fact, so far all the BEVs being tested in Phoenix, as of these very preliminary results, seem to be losing something close to 1% of baseline capacity
per month and thousand miles driven, though I expect we'll see significant divergence in performance between the different BEVs as longer-term data is posted.
More significant variations are showing up in energy efficiency, and as you would expect, there is a strong association between more
active thermal management systems, and lower efficiency in m/kWh (as adjusted for other vehicle efficiency factors such as aero efficiency and vehicle weight).
And if you live in Phoenix and want an "
electric vehicle"
that actually uses more gas than an ICEV, AVTA testing shows a 2013 Volt could be just what you're looking for, as I posted a few days ago:
="mtndrew1
...As far as liquid TMS goes, the Volt sure looks like it holds up very well in Phoenix with a 9% measured loss over nearly 130,000 miles of driving. https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/phev/batteryVolt4313.pdf
This has been discussed on the Volt thread. Yes, if you don't use a PHEV's batteries much, and are willing to run the ICE generator to provide energy for battery cooling, even after the pack is discharged, batteries will last a lot longer than they will in a BEV, especially in Phoenix.
Those Volts were driven mostly on gas, and averaged an unimpressive 39.3 mpg.
Meaning hybrid ICEVs driven over the same routes probably could have used about the same amount of gas,
without ever plugging them in.
Just a waste of both the battery pack and all the kWh used in charging, for a PHEV used in this application.
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/phev/ar2013ChevroletVoltEREV.pdf
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=13531&start=1000
="GRA"... Most (or at least a plurality - 40+ %) of American BEV owners live in California, predominantly coastal regions, and we've seen degradation well above what Nissan claimed in both SoCal and the Bay Area. While both of those regions have areas which are much hotter than the average across the region, they also have areas where the temps are very moderate, and we've still seen excessive degradation. Add owners in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, plus pretty much anywhere south of the 36th parallel in summer, and its clear that LMO batteries without ATM just can't hack summer temps over the majority of the U.S. Unless you consider 3 years average to 70% to be acceptable in a vehicle that has a $30k+ MSRP.
Do you really believe 30% LBC indicated capacity loss over three years is average for California LEAFs?
I live and drive my LEAF in California, in a region with
warmer-than-average-for-California-LEAF-owners Summer temperatures, and it looks like at ~five years and ~45k miles I'll have LBC-indicated Capacity loss of ~28%, which I think is also probably slightly greater than average for California LEAFs, over that amount of time and miles driven.
However, as I've mentioned before, the actual capacity loss I have experienced after five years, as measured by kWh accepted when charging, will likely indicate it retains about 18% less capacity than the 24 kWh Nissan
claimed it had at delivery, and about a 15% to 16% loss from my LEAF pack's actual (lower) capacity at delivery.
So, If I keep driving my LEAF, it might well take close to
five more years before my LEAFs pack lost 30% of actual available capacity from delivery.
I have no idea what My LEAFs LBC capacity report and capacity bar display would look like by then.