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.
cwerdna said:
If you look at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends like https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report, you'll see that since 1975, fuel economy has gone way up (and thus CO2 emissions down) and horsepower has gone considerably up since 1980.
I know that cherry picking is your daily bread and butter, but here is a general overview of the ICE state of affairs
https://www.consumerreports.org/fuel-economy-efficiency/vehicle-fuel-economy-vs-performance/

It was, and remains, pathetic. Doubly so if you exclude hybrids. And as for performance, that mostly boils down to turbo additions that pollute horribly but get by regulatory testing. Are you going to sing the praises of clean diesel now ?
 
Back off a bit, Sagebrush. Cwerdna is correct, in that large improvements in ICE efficiency AND pollution reduction have occurred in the last 25 years. The fact that manufacturers have chosen to use these improvements mainly to increase horsepower, rather than greatly increase fuel economy, is not a reflection on the engine designs. It's a reflection on both the priorities of the auto manufacturers and of the car buying public, driven by the advertising industry. There have been early exceptions that were later rolled back, like the first Hondas with the CVCC engines. They were both faster AND got fantastic fuel economy. Then later on, Honda started making the Civics and Accords bigger and bigger, heavier and heavier. The engines started growing in displacement to partially compensate, and both fuel economy suffered while in most cases performance either stayed the same or dropped a bit. This is exactly why we need ever-increasing fuel economy standards.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Back off a bit, Sagebrush. Cwerdna is correct, in that large improvements in ICE efficiency AND pollution reduction have occurred in the last 25 years. The fact that manufacturers have chosen to use these improvements mainly to increase horsepower, rather than greatly increase fuel economy, is not a reflection on the engine designs. It's a reflection on both the priorities of the auto manufacturers and of the car buying public, driven by the advertising industry. There have been early exceptions that were later rolled back, like the first Hondas with the CVCC engines. They were both faster AND got fantastic fuel economy. Then later on, Honda started making the Civics and Accords bigger and bigger, heavier and heavier. The engines started growing in displacement to partially compensate, and both fuel economy suffered while in most cases performance either stayed the same or dropped a bit. This is exactly why we need ever-increasing fuel economy standards.
+1 it's like mfgs. and especially auto press is infatuated with more and more HP. I watch PBS's Motorweek and they are basically never happy with engine HP and speed, they always want more HP and more speed :roll: Same with auto mags, it's all about more and more, MPG gets mentioned but is generally low on the priority list. Of course it's not just the press but people must by into it too, if they refused to purchase Chrystler vehicles(most of them are what I'd describe as energy pigs, especially Dodge) they'd be forced to make more efficient vehicles. While our Prius gets great MPG it's not that much better than my new purchased '94 Geo Metro that got close to 50 MPG Hwy and similar city. At the time I was also looking at the Honda Civic VX? that got AFAIR close to 60MPG Hwy and 50 city, neither relied on batteries/hybrid technology, they were both just designed for efficiency. Sure the Metro was very light, underpowered and not particularly safe compared to say the Prius but just saying, if a mfg. wants to make an efficient vehicle they can, it just has to be a priority and not HP and speed oh and tire sizes! My Geo had 155? 12" tires and still could cruise down the freeway at 70 and get close to 50mpg :cool:
I have no time for inefficiently designed cars, MPG and now EV range is basically at the top of my list for a given vehicle style. I feel if more people shopped like this we'd have many better-designed vehicles but I know other people have different priorities and I guess that's OK too.
 
What do you suggest though for EVs? Performance has also been a metric, especially for tesla. I have a reservation for the cyber truck. I would be perfectly happy with 8 second 0 to 60 times and rwd for my ev truck. I certainly don't need tri motors. But to get 500 miles of range, I am forced to buy Performance I do not want.
 
The flip side though is adding more HP to an electric vehicle doesn't significantly decrease overall efficiency where it does in ICE's, there is some penalty, but no where near what ice have, sort of a have your cake and eat it to, if you can keep your foot off the go pedal.

I know our whopping 90hp 2003 VW diesel wagon didn't have a lot of get up and go, but dang I regularly got 60 mpg with it. I remember when we were getting the car so many people wanted us to wait a year because the next model had 15 more hp and 5 less highway mpg. They also tried to get us to look at the gasser with 2.5 times the hp and got in the upper 20's, not having that...
 
danrjones said:
LeftieBiker said:
Tell this to Tesla. Explain that you want decent performance and great range, in a package that you can afford.

If only I used Twitter right? Then I might be able to get Elons attention...

Don't look at me - I never use it either. Or Facebook, Spotify, or any of those other millennial drugs.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Don't look at me - I never use it either. Or Facebook, Spotify, or any of those other millennial drugs.
Funny. I never thought of the social medias as an addiction but it does have that flavor.

Count me in the curmudgeon corps. I cannot tolerate the incessant nagging or deluge of trivia, and the echo chamber of disinformation makes me want to puke.
 
My sole experience of Facebook was with a local EV group. The "owner" of the group was on an ego trip and started editing my posts when he didn't like them. I was one of the few successful FB escapees.
 
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
Don't look at me - I never use it either. Or Facebook, Spotify, or any of those other millennial drugs.
Funny. I never thought of the social medias as an addiction but it does have that flavor.

Count me in the curmudgeon corps. I cannot tolerate the incessant nagging or deluge of trivia, and the echo chamber of disinformation makes me want to puke.
I post pictures of local scenery. I regularly follow no one's posts, other than a couple of HS friends. One of which posts pictures of Hawaii. The other of Mexico.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
LeftieBiker said:
Don't look at me - I never use it either. Or Facebook, Spotify, or any of those other millennial drugs.
Funny. I never thought of the social medias as an addiction but it does have that flavor.

Count me in the curmudgeon corps. I cannot tolerate the incessant nagging or deluge of trivia, and the echo chamber of disinformation makes me want to puke.
I post pictures of local scenery. I regularly follow no one's posts, other than a couple of HS friends. One of which posts pictures of Hawaii. The other of Mexico.

I agree, I think Facebook is what you make of it to some extent. I use it exactly the same, just a place to post my hiking photos for my friends and family. There certainly are many crazy groups one could join to get the full Facebook experience.... but no thank you. For example I live in a very conservative town, for CA, and I know there are some Trump parade / rally Facebook groups still going strong. Barf.
 
Looks like a definite liftover "lip" back there, if a relatively low one. And if you want a flat cargo floor that can carry more than a light load, you'll likely need to build it yourself. They should just give you a shaped block of the tough flex foam used to ship laptops.
 
LeftieBiker said:
My sole experience of Facebook was with a local EV group. The "owner" of the group was on an ego trip and started editing my posts when he didn't like them. I was one of the few successful FB escapees.

Given where you live, I think I know the individual you are referring to. He is a great EV advocate, but often gets wrapped up in his opinions. He kicked out a good friend of mine for having a different opinion on the topic of BEVs versus PHEVs.
 
I came across https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2020/RCLRPT-20V701-6414.PDF where on page 1 it says Estimated percentage with defect : 1%. A few new documents have been added to https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2017/CHEVROLET/BOLT/4%252520DR/FWD#recalls recently.

The last page mentions 2 phases for notifications of the final remedy.
 
Here Are The 2022 Chevy Bolt EUV Option Packages
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/02/here-are-the-2022-chevy-bolt-euv-option-packages/

2022 Chevy Bolt EUV Introduces Panoramic Sunroof
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/02/2022-chevy-bolt-euv-introduces-panoramic-sunroof/

Chevy Bolt EV Has Sold Over 100,000 Units Globally Since Launch
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2021/02/chevy-bolt-ev-has-sold-over-100000-units-globally-since-launch/
 
cwerdna said:
SageBrush said:
The Bolt case may also be the Hyundai case, since they share the same battery/pack.
Last week Hyundai pointed a finger at the electrode separator as the root cause but LG disagrees.

The idea of the separator being the problem has to do with its failure to prevent dendrite penetration (and thus a short.)
May be true, but those sound like some serious dendrites.
No. I've never heard of Bolt and Hyundai Kona Electric sharing the same pack.

Seems unlikely given that https://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/bolt-ev/2019.tab1.html says there are 288 cells whereas https://electricrevs.com/2018/12/20/exclusive-details-on-hyundais-new-battery-thermal-management-design/ says 294 for Kona EV.

There's a pic that says:
This image shows the type of LG pouch cell used in the Chevrolet Bolt EV. It is about 4 inches high, 13 inches long, and 0.6 inches thick and weighs about 1.8 pounds. The Hyundai Kona Electric, Kia Niro EV, Jaguar I-PACE, and Audi e-tron use cells with a roughly similar shape, size, and energy capacity.
A common thread is LG Chem.
Besides GM claiming that Bolt uses different separators than Kona Electric (https://insideevs.com/news/489753/chevy-bolt-cells-different-separators-kona/), https://insideevs.com/news/490950/lg-energy-solution-suspected-cause-kona-fires/ came out which also has a pointer to https://www.hyundai.com/content/hyundai/ww/data/ir/calendar/2021/0000000310/files/21-02-24-kona-ev-recall-presentation.pdf.

To quote IEVs which quoted LG Energy Solution:
“LG Energy Solution’s Statement on Kona EV Recall:

In connection with the additional implementation of the recent voluntary Kona EV recall, the investigation has not yet been completed. However, we will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of the Republic of Korea and Hyundai Motors to ensure the recall is carried out smoothly with our highest priority on consumers’ safety.

The misalignment inside the battery cell (the folded anode tab) is cited as the reason for this recall, but it is hard to consider this as a direct cause since no fire occurred in the reproduction experiment as announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport. Moreover, this problem was discovered in the early production stages of LG Energy Solution Nanjing plant’s Hyundai Motors-only production line, which has already been corrected.

In addition, it has been confirmed that Hyundai Motors’ misapplication of the BMS charging map was caused by their incorrect application of fast charging logic, proposed by LG Energy Solution, to the BMS. We will be cooperating with the relevant authorities to discover whether this had any connection to the fire.

LG Energy Solution is fully committed to further enhancing the safety in all processes, from product design to manufacturing and inspection.

Furthermore, the damage to the separator, which was proposed as a possible cause of the fire last October, has since been confirmed as unrelated by simulation test conducted by a joint investigation team.”
https://www.hyundai.com/content/hyundai/ww/data/ir/calendar/2021/0000000310/files/21-02-24-kona-ev-recall-presentation.pdf says
"Replacement of all BSA(Battery System Assembly) of subject vehicles due todefective manufacturing in some of the battery cells produced by LGES at its Nanjing, China Plant"

Bolt recall 20V701000 per https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2020/RCSB-20V701-2489.pdf and many many other places like https://my.chevrolet.com/how-to-support/safety/boltevrecall involves batteries produced in Ochang, South Korea.
 
Does this thread also apply for the Bolt EUV?

I noticed this AM that Alex from Alex on autos has a first drive review posted for the EUV. didn't have time to watch it, so I'll check it out after work. I'm curious to see how the legroom works out.
 
Back
Top