Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
221 - 240 of 291 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
I would think the potential to flag a bad battery before it goes up in flames is also a reason to get the update. The last software fix flagged several vehicles that ended up getting new modules or batteries, so there is no reason to think this one will not do the same.

"This software also contains new diagnostics designed to detect specific abnormalities that might indicate a rare battery issue in your vehicle."
I understand EV Fan rationale. But it is not common sense that if you don't know the reason for the fire for older 17-19 that you assume that the defect is not in the 20-22 vehicles and continue to sell them. All the drive train and electrical components are the same or very similar and the big difference is just where the battery is made and a slightly large battery capacity. IMO it was just an economic and face-saving rationale that GM guessed that the 20-22 did not have the same defect. Auto companies are very engineer and financially driven organizations so their rationale is to always want specific proof before a recall with a bias toward thinking this problem cannot be in the other factory. This is just an idiotic approach to solving the problems. EVs are a whole new breed of vehicles and they are novices on how to approach defects.

We also don't know the real investigation of the Korean battery plant and did this same investigation happen in the Michigan plants. Did LG cover up the problem in Michigan? Why didn't GM do a temporary stop sale when the fires started in January 2021 and investigate the Michigan plants more thoroughly? No they assumed a lot of wrong stuff and continued to sell, sell, sell and save face. Many of the newer 2021-22 vehicles had low mileage and many people did not charge to 100% on a regular basis so fires in these model years would be lower. And now that owners are not charging to 100% and running below 70 miles the fires stopped.

Raised and living in the Detroit area with a brother that is an engineer for GM I want GM and Ford to be successful in their EVs. And I have purchased many many new GM vehicles as has my extended family. But, this is just another example of corporations thinking they "know it all" and not siding on customers' safety and product reliability. It is partially my own fault to think GM had the problem solved in July 2021 when I got the Bolt. GM has a lot of mud on their face and it will take a lot for me to buy another GM vehicle. Mary recalled all the 20-22 vehicles but deserves no praise as it was a no-brainer anyone would make if they ever wanted to really transition to all EVs.

How long do I have to wait for a new battery? Probably 2 years but GM won't say or even give a realistic estimate or any other resolution, just less battery capacity. They claim this new software will give more range, but this is unrealistic as no one usually wants to drive the battery to 0% or even can given the weak DC charging infrastructure. Hence you normally have 20% to 80% you lost 40% or about 100 miles of range if you don't know where the next public DC fast charge is and within range with a safety margin. And we don't know if the DC fast charging will work quickly or taper off as it approaches 80%. Did GM test this and will they give us an answer? Probably not. GM's PR dept is very deceptive and not transparent.
 

·
Registered
2020 Premier
Joined
·
136 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,413 Posts
If you have the expertise maybe these LG patents provide some insight (these were just granted patents in the last few months):
Device and method for diagnosing battery deterioration
Apparatus and method for diagnosing battery
That has nothing at all that could be used to somehow diagnose an internal cell defect in a Bolt, which is impossible with the existing hardware and cell configuration. Impossible. Not maybe hard. Not maybe there's some super secret software code that can change the laws of physics and do it. No. Impossible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,467 Posts
I understand EV Fan rationale. But it is not common sense that if you don't know the reason for the fire for older 17-19 that you assume that the defect is not in the 20-22 vehicles and continue to sell them. All the drive train and electrical components are the same or very similar and the big difference is just where the battery is made and a slightly large battery capacity. IMO it was just an economic and face-saving rationale that GM guessed that the 20-22 did not have the same defect. Auto companies are very engineer and financially driven organizations so their rationale is to always want specific proof before a recall with a bias toward thinking this problem cannot be in the other factory. This is just an idiotic approach to solving the problems. EVs are a whole new breed of vehicles and they are novices on how to approach defects.
Generally speaking, automakers aren't going to recall parts that they don't have to. This was certainly a unique situation, as the source of the fires was difficult to pin down. Perhaps a temporary stop sale on newer Bolts could have been justified, but without any affirmative evidence that the newer vehicles were going to have the same problems, I doubt any automaker would have done that in the same situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,500 Posts
OMG. You people are hopeless, thinking software can defy the laws of physics. I'm done.
Nobody has said that the diagnostic software will detect all defects. If it did, GM wouldn't need to replace all batteries. The purpose of the software is to detect batteries so bad that it they be sussed out using the sensors in the Bolt. In other words, the ones that need to be replaced ASAP.

Limiting charge to 80% is to remove the worst of the conditions under which the defective batteries catch fire. Detecting the worst batteries is to bump them up in the priority queue. These are not meant to be perfect solutions, it's a matter of battery triage while GM attempts to get new batteries into the entire fleet.

Seems to me like the responsible thing to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Discussion Starter · #230 ·
Nobody has said that the diagnostic software will detect all defects. If it did, GM wouldn't need to replace all batteries. The purpose of the software is to detect batteries so bad that it they be sussed out using the sensors in the Bolt. In other words, the ones that need to be replaced ASAP.

Limiting charge to 80% is to remove the worst of the conditions under which the defective batteries catch fire. Detecting the worst batteries is to bump them up in the priority queue. These are not meant to be perfect solutions, it's a matter of battery triage while GM attempts to get new batteries into the entire fleet.

Seems to me like the responsible thing to do.
This is what I think is the case as well. It's not good enough to weed out all the bad ones from good ones but good enough to say this ones got issues the "Might be" so move it to the front of the line
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
We all try to guess what GM is thinking and actually doing. New technology may help at the battery factory in testing but I doubt it can help in the future as GM and LG would have to redo the BMS and lots of the battery connections to test at the cell level. Better testing at the factory level should be the future and will probably work.

As for how GM and LG attacked this battery problem in multiple factories it is just plain stupidity or a cover-up on their part. GM knew they had a battery problem that caused fires plain and simple. But they are a company will a long history of deception when defects happen to lower their warranty costs and keep selling vehicles. I hope some insider writes a book about how this all happened or does a TV documentary to show how corporations think about themselves first and the customer second. GM has made so many bad vehicles and other mistakes and that is why the Asian auto companies are so successful. I know lots of friends that would never look at a GM or Ford product again.

On the other hand, Tesla has also made mistakes, but they are a very young company tacking a new propulsion system. They are the leaders and if they get it right with customer service and quality in their new factories they will dominate the EV market for a very long time. At least Tesla is a USA company employing USA people and contributing to our overall economy. Want more proof. GM pulled out of Europe but Tesla built a brand new factory in Germany and probably has more factories ready to be built once they are generating more profits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
193 Posts
Discussion Starter · #232 ·
I will agree on GM being a shady on stuff in the past. "Silent Recalls" are something they're done. One such on a mid 90's Buick of my dads caused me to rear end a car. Their ABS modules were flawed and would prevent the wheels from locking if a skid was detected under 20KPH. I was on a wet road going down hill in very slow traffic about 15KPH. Car stopped ahead I hit the brakes and they just buzzed and the car just kept right on going 15kph into the car in front of me. I told my dad what happened, he blamed me but I had 4 other people in the car who all heard the brakes and I had plenty of time to tell the WTF we aren't stopping get ready to hit that car! I started searching it and found out there was a silent recall and dealers were fixing the modules on scheduled services. It would have been done on the next "Free" oil change later that month. I showed the law suite I found about it to my dad years later and he said "Huh, I guess your were telling the truth."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,397 Posts
Look like 2019 CHEVROLET BOLT EV 5 HB FWD | NHTSA has a dump of a new set of docs. 21V560000 went from 37 associated docs to 46, specifically covering N212343883 like these:
https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2021/RCSB-21V560-5443.pdf indicates you should bring it in at 80% SoC or lower, otherwise the dealer will need to spend time lowering the SoC.

@boltage as an FYI.
Sigh... just got off the phone w/the closest dealer and they're claiming that despite me having a '19 and me telling them I received the email below that it's not available for my vehicle:
We are pleased to inform you that we have developed an advanced diagnostic software package that will remove parking and charging limitations on your 2019 vehicle while we work on building replacement battery modules. This software will automatically limit your vehicle’s maximum state of charge to
80%, which will allow you to safely resume:
• Charging indoors overnight
• Depleting your vehicle’s battery below 70 miles (113 km) of range, resulting in greater overall vehicle range compared to GM’s prior interim charging guidance
• Parking indoors after charging
This software also contains new diagnostics designed to detect specific abnormalities that might indicate a rare battery issue in your vehicle.
This software is now available for your 2019 vehicle.
They claim it isn't open and it'll be available in the next 30 days, to which I responded, yes, I know about the next 30 days for '17 and '18 but I have '19. They also pointed me to the web site (Chevy Bolt EV & EUV Recall | Chevrolet) to which I read to them:
As battery module replacements continue under the previously announced recall, Chevrolet has informed owners of 2019 Chevrolet Bolt EVs that it will begin installation of a software update that will allow owners to remove the parking and overnight charging limitations on their vehicles while we work on building replacement battery modules. We expect that this software update will be available for all other Bolt EV and EUV owners in the recall population within approximately the next 30 days.
...
Owners of 2019 Bolt EVs should schedule a service appointment at their preferred Chevrolet EV dealer as soon as possible to have the software installed.

Nope, not good enough for them. So, I got nowhere. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Sigh... just got off the phone w/the closest dealer and they're claiming that despite me having a '19 and me telling them I received the email below that it's not available for my vehicle:
I got a letter today saying to schedule (in addition to the email).

On Friday my dealer gave the the same 30 day runaround you got. If they were a little closer I'd drive there with the letter in hand and see if they'd still deny me. Probably would.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,397 Posts
I got a letter today saying to schedule (in addition to the email).

On Friday my dealer gave the the same 30 day runaround you got. If they were a little closer I'd drive there with the letter in hand and see if they'd still deny me. Probably would.
There is a snail from Chevrolet "IMPORTANT VEHICLE INFORMATION" addressed to me thanks to USPS informed delivery. I'm not at home to open it to see it but I suspect it's the same as the email I got. If I had more time and didn't have pressing work obligations, I would go straight to the dealer or try another dealer.

I did try to explain to the woman on the phone that I suspect the "remedy not available" refers to the pack not being allocated for my car, not the software update. Not good enough for her.

Sigh... I will try calling again tomorrow. If they give me the runaround, I guess I'll try another further away dealer which is not nearly as convenient. Closest dealer is much closer and also right near where my parents live (so they could give me a ride to/from if the dealer still has no shuttle). Further dealer is probably out of range for their shuttle, if they have one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,397 Posts
I tried clicking MESSAGE at the bottom of Chevy Bolt EV & EUV Recall | Chevrolet. That chat was useless. Was hoping they'd reach out to the Chevy dealer I called to clear up the confusion.

They claimed the remedy is not yet available and asked me to call a Ms. Heather at 866.802.6625. That turns out to be the repurchase dept #. After over 5 minutes of it ringing, it was auto-disconnected.

Chat person also gave me a case # which is the same as the one I have in email when I started my repurchase request on 9/14 in the form of 9-nnnnnnnnnn.
 
221 - 240 of 291 Posts
Top