Chevrolet Bolt & Bolt EUV

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I agree that at this point we are getting to the point where personal design/comfort preference will trump +-5 minutes in a 620 mile test. No different than buying a car with a few less mpg in the past because you liked it more.
 
GRA said:
I believe Mark Kane's distinguishing between a 72.6 and 77.4 kWh battery is incorrect - the former value is the usable capacity, the latter total capacity. AFAIK Hyundai doesn't have three different capacity packs, just two.
I think they did say they had 3 battery sizes for the Ioniq 5. The US is getting the 77.4 kWh one. The one that Bjorn tested was the 72.6 kWh.
 
Triggerhappy007 said:
GRA said:
I believe Mark Kane's distinguishing between a 72.6 and 77.4 kWh battery is incorrect - the former value is the usable capacity, the latter total capacity. AFAIK Hyundai doesn't have three different capacity packs, just two.
I think they did say they had 3 battery sizes for the Ioniq 5. The US is getting the 77.4 kWh one. The one that Bjorn tested was the 72.6 kWh.

That's what I thought too, and it was due to a different battery supplier in the US. For whatever reason, that meant a slightly bigger pack.

The other question, was it RWD or AWD?
 
I notice that Bjorn has added

Time (min) to add 75% SoC
Charge rate in Km per range added per hour for a 75% SoC increase

to his data table. Good for him !
There is still lots of room for misinterpretation due to large differences in range between cars, gaming with battery capacity reserve, and people not taking into account that Bjorn travels a VERY well endowed DCFC route, but he is certainly on the right track.

E.g., the Ioniq5 has 135 miles range at 120 kph in good weather presuming a 75% SoC usage. That will not be enough range to jump from a DCFC to the next in large parts of the US so the extra data points are misleading. It also makes for an annoying drive to stop that often (if even possible), and the time spent going to the charger and getting back to the trip is not included.

I think this points out the weaknesses of still relying on SoC in these calculations. Much better would be using baselines of 100, 150, and 200 miles between charging stops.
 
One other thing to add, and I agree real world data is best, so take this with a grain of salt.

I have a round trip route I use in ABRP to virtually test ranges. 164 miles, a lot of terrain (2,000 ft, up to 10,000 ft, and back), starting at 90% SOC.

The VW ID4 scores a return SOC of: 26%
The Hyundai Ioniq 5 (US Ver) RWD SOC of: 23%
Ford MachE Extended RWD SOC: 32%
Chevy Bolt SOC: 20%
Model 3 SR+ SOC: 5%
Model 3 LR SOC: 33%

Interestingly, the VW scores slightly better than the Ioniq 5. But there isn't a lot of Ioniq 5 data put into ABRP yet, so YMMV.


For some more, but far more speculative results:
f150 Lightning Extended Range: 32%
Rivian R1T max Pack: 41%
Tesla CyberTruck Tri: 52%
 
danrjones said:
Triggerhappy007 said:
GRA said:
I believe Mark Kane's distinguishing between a 72.6 and 77.4 kWh battery is incorrect - the former value is the usable capacity, the latter total capacity. AFAIK Hyundai doesn't have three different capacity packs, just two.
I think they did say they had 3 battery sizes for the Ioniq 5. The US is getting the 77.4 kWh one. The one that Bjorn tested was the 72.6 kWh.

That's what I thought too, and it was due to a different battery supplier in the US. For whatever reason, that meant a slightly bigger pack.

The other question, was it RWD or AWD?

It was an AWD. I think he measured the capacity and it was 70.6 kWh.
 
SageBrush said:
I notice that Bjorn has added

Time (min) to add 75% SoC
Charge rate in Km per range added per hour for a 75% SoC increase

to his data table. Good for him !
There is still lots of room for misinterpretation due to large differences in range between cars, gaming with battery capacity reserve, and people not taking into account that Bjorn travels a VERY well endowed DCFC route, but he is certainly on the right track.

E.g., the Ioniq5 has 135 miles range at 120 kph in good weather presuming a 75% SoC usage. That will not be enough range to jump from a DCFC to the next in large parts of the US so the extra data points are misleading. It also makes for an annoying drive to stop that often (if even possible), and the time spent going to the charger and getting back to the trip is not included.

I think this points out the weaknesses of still relying on SoC in these calculations. Much better would be using baselines of 100, 150, and 200 miles between charging stops.


Personally, I don't consider any of the available or soon to appear BEVs, probably excepting the Lucid Air (the Model S LR can fake it), to have adequate range for extended road trips, especially in Western U.S. states with 75 or 80 mph speed limits. They can handle most weekend trips without too much compromise. In the case of the Ionic 5, 180 miles @ 75 mph (100-0%?) equates to just 126 miles practical for me, as I assume initial charging to 90% (to allow for degradation over a 3 year lease, gradually increasing the max. charge %, plus treating the battery better), and a 20% reserve, both because of the low density of charging stations and for battery care. Charging to 80% enroute drops the practical range between charging stops to just 108 miles. As I only need to stop to eat every 4 (more typically 5) to 6 hours on road trips, most of my charging would be to 80%.

Fortunately, most of my weekend trips are on routes where 75 mph is only occasionally possible, and definitely not legal as the max. rural interstate speed limit in California is only 70 mph, and I'm mostly off interstates. Not that the speed limit is widely adhered to; I've spent extended periods of time on I-5 in California cruising at 80 or 85 mph, either with or slightly above the flow of traffic speed, and similar cruising 10-15 mph above the speed limit is common on low traffic rural routes. It also helps that many of my trips are at higher altitude in less dense air, somewhat reducing the drag penalty paid by a big, blocky CUV, and a lot of the distance is at speeds at/below 55. Then there's the solar panel, hopefully taking care of most/all of the HVAC loads by day.

I expect the Ionic 5 to come in around 245 +-5 miles EPA Hwy, so (with the above charging and other conditions) weekend trips to the mountains with one enroute FC each way should be reasonably time efficient. Can't say the same for the Bolt (or EUV) - it took 47 minutes to charge a brand new 2020 Bolt from 45-80% coming back from Yosemite, and the same 47 minutes to charge from 80-100% on the way up (temps in the low to mid-80s both times), with FCs rated at 50 and 150 kW respectively, not that it got near the max. in either case. By contrast, the Ionic 5/EV 6 should be able to charge from 20-80% in 15 minutes at a 350kW charger.
 
danrjones said:
Triggerhappy007 said:
GRA said:
I believe Mark Kane's distinguishing between a 72.6 and 77.4 kWh battery is incorrect - the former value is the usable capacity, the latter total capacity. AFAIK Hyundai doesn't have three different capacity packs, just two.
I think they did say they had 3 battery sizes for the Ioniq 5. The US is getting the 77.4 kWh one. The one that Bjorn tested was the 72.6 kWh.

That's what I thought too, and it was due to a different battery supplier in the US. For whatever reason, that meant a slightly bigger pack.

[Snip]

If that's true I'll be pleasantly surprised, as even Mark Kane estimates the Ionic 5's total capacity is about 77kWh, and he's talking about the battery with 72.6 kWh usable: https://insideevs.com/news/512917/hyundai-ioniq5-charging-analysis-ionity/

I think the distinction between usable and total got lost in translation as the news articles crossed the pond.
 
GRA said:
danrjones said:
Triggerhappy007 said:
I think they did say they had 3 battery sizes for the Ioniq 5. The US is getting the 77.4 kWh one. The one that Bjorn tested was the 72.6 kWh.

That's what I thought too, and it was due to a different battery supplier in the US. For whatever reason, that meant a slightly bigger pack.

[Snip]

If that's true I'll be pleasantly surprised, as even Mark Kane estimates the Ionic 5's total capacity is about 77kWh, and he's talking about the battery with 72.6 kWh usable: https://insideevs.com/news/512917/hyundai-ioniq5-charging-analysis-ionity/

I think the distinction between usable and total got lost in translation as the news articles crossed the pond.
Yeah, it could have gotten lost in translation. And we won't really know until someone tests a North American Ioniq 5. I know wiki is not a good source to quote from, but it seems like they have different specs for the 72.6 kWh vs the 77 kWh. The power and 0-60 times are different.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Ioniq_5
 
Triggerhappy007 said:
It was an AWD. I think he measured the capacity and it was 70.6 kWh.
That was the energy discharged from the pack. It is always a few percent less than what goes in due to resistance losses.

I'm reasonably sure that Bjorn tested the "77-ish kWh" nominal pack.
Which means, by the way, that Hyundai has about 5 kWh in reserve. Whether any of that it usable below "0% SoC" is not answered by Bjorn.

Did Bjorn show the pack voltage at "full" SoC ? The 800v system implies a 192 Series architecture.
Addendum: Bjorn reported it in the 4 car charging comparo. At "100%" SoC pack voltage is 746v, so 3.885 volts per cell
More proof that the 800v marketing blitz and charging curves are just smoke & mirrors (and some reserve at the top) to fool the uninformed.

Be that a lesson to all of your who were fooled: Wait for the reporting of the cell voltage at "100% SoC" before jumping to any conclusions about superior pack architecture or chemistry.
 
SageBrush said:
The 800v system implies a 192 Series architecture.

No it doesn't. It could be any reasonable number of cells like 182, which would 4.1v per cell at 746v at 100% SOC.

800V is just a nice round marketing number, after all.
 
GRA said:
JeremyW said:
SageBrush said:
The 800v system implies a 192 Series architecture.

No it doesn't. It could be any reasonable number of cells like 182, which would 4.1v per cell at 746v at 100% SOC.

800V is just a nice round marketing number, after all
.


Yup, just like 400V.

The '400v' architectures are 96 serial, and nominal full charge is 4.16 volts
96*4.16 = 399.36v

Hooray for 'rithmetic. Truly, a lost art.
 
Which assumes that they all accept cell voltages that high. Many of the '400V' packs are 384, 392 or what have you. The Gen 2 LEAF's pack 2 parallel/96 in series pack has a nominal voltage of 350V with nominal cell voltage of 3.65V, although max. is undoubtedly higher, yet it's still considered a '400V' pack: https://www.marklines.com/en/report_all/rep1786_201811

Hooray for design considerations and marketing.
 
GRA said:
The Gen 2 LEAF's pack 2 parallel/96 in series pack has a nominal voltage of 350V with nominal cell voltage of 3.65V,
You are confused by the difference between average cell voltage across the discharge cycle with the industry accepted peak voltage of a fully charged Li cell.
 
I'm not confused at all, having sold lots of deep-cycle batteries and put together packs of varying voltages/amp-hrs. Resting voltage or voltage under discharge (at varying rates) is different from voltage of packs under charge, and max. voltage under charge varies with rate of charge as well as the BMS, as can resting time before measuring the voltage of the pack. The nominally 12 volt packs I used to work with might, depending on their chemistry and how they were being charged and used, have maximum voltages when new of 13.1, 13.5, 14.1,14.4 or 14.8 volts or anything in between under charge; resting voltage would typically be 12.6-12.8 volts, but that also depended on how long they were allowed to rest (after charging) before you measured it. But they were all '12V' packs. 24V-48V packs had similar variations x 2, 3 or 4.

Same for cars; calling something a 400 or 800V pack just gives you a general range of what the full charge voltage is going to be, which depends on numerous factors. The same battery configuration using the same cells may be rated at a different voltage owing to its intended use, safety or longevity concerns, etc. Kind of like when Tesla lowered the max. voltage on their packs to lessen the chance of thermal runaway - they were still '400V' packs, even though the max. pack voltage had changed.
 
2018 Kia Soul EV with the 30kWh pack had 100 cells in series. https://www.mykiasoulev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=938

Audi e-tron has 108 cells in series. https://electricrevs.com/2018/04/21/audi-e-tron-vs-jaguar-i-pace-battery-pack-comparison/

Original Tesla Model S 60kWh pack had 74 cells in series. http://roperld.com/science/TeslaModelS.htm

There’s also Honda Clarity EV, Mitsubishi iMiev, and the second gen Hyundai Ionic BEV (which got the European small pack from the Kona and Niro I believe) are also less than 96 cells in series.

96 cells in series may be the most common configuration but it is not the only configuration for a “400v” pack.

“800v” packs will also vary in configuration from automaker to automaker. 192 cells in series is NOT guaranteed.
 
TESTED: 2022 Chevy Bolt Tops EPA Range By 7%
Refreshed Bolt EV beats predecessor by a mile. Literally.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2022-chevrolet-bolt-beats-epa-range-by-seven-percent.html
 
So here is what my local dealer is offering price wise for 2022 EUV, and oddly, they have EUVs priced below the 2022 Bolt.
I am curious how this compared with other areas? They have 21 EUVs and 2 Bolts.


Base model:

LT SUV 1-Speed

MSRP
$34,090
California Clean Fuel Reward
-$1,500
AV Chevy Limited 2022 Bolt EUV Special
-$1,209
AV Chevy August Special
-$879
AV Chevy Limited Dealer Dividends
-$500
Customer Cash
-$500
Total Savings
$4,588
Net Price
$29,502

Or with some options (CONVENIENCE PACKAGE,COMFORT PACKAGE,DRIVER CONFIDENCE PACKAGE,BRIGHT BLUE METALLIC)

LT SUV 1-Speed

MSRP
$37,475
California Clean Fuel Reward
-$1,500
AV Chevy Limited 2022 Bolt EUV Special
-$1,209
Customer Cash
-$500
Total Savings
$3,209
Net Price
$34,266
 
Back
Top