Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
  • Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.

Details on Ultium Batteries

14K views 116 replies 21 participants last post by  XJ12 
#1 ·
GM released a webpage with a lot of details and information on their Ultium batteries.

 
#2 · (Edited)
I don't see any information that had not already been announced...larger 100 Ah pouch cells, NCMA chemistry, BMS boards on the modules instead of remote. The smallest packs will be 120s1p. 500 volt...up from 96s3p, 400 volt. They show modules with 12, 18, and 24 cells, and describe packs with 6, 8. 10, 12, or 24 modules.

They have said they would have ten new EVs with 400 volt to 800 volt packs. I can't see how you make a 400 volt, 50 kWh pack with 100 Ah cells. Maybe the Ultium breakthrough is new math? I assume they are counting the fat Bolt with the current Bolt pack.
 
#6 ·
A 120s1p configuration (5 of the 24 cell modules, or 10 of the 12 cell modules, or what ever configuration fits best) will give you 48 kWh at a pack voltage of 480 volts.... our "60 kWh" pack is actually 57 kWh, so why would you consider a "50 kWh" pack actually being 48 kWh any worse math than used with the old 50 amp hour cells?

Keith
 
#4 ·
30 GWH is capacity. Divide that by 75kwh, the size of a typical model 3 battery, and you get 400,000 cars.
I doubt GM will have 400,000 cars worth of production ready in 5 years, but I’d be pleasantly surprised if they did.
That's just Lordstown. They have other battery manufacturing facilities plus access to even more (particularly for the Chinese market).

One thing that could limit GM's overall EV production is the fact that they are also planning to license this battery technology to others. Honda has already signed on.
 
#5 ·
I certainly hope their concept is successful. Competition is a good thing. Not being knowledgeable in the field of electrical propulsion (Master in Criminal Justice...) I don't have a clue as to which type of battery, cylindrical or flat has the edge. Probably depends on how you want to use them.

Rich
 
#8 ·
It definitely depends on how you use them, but for automotive use, it's pretty easy to make the blanket statement that pouch cells are strictly better than cylindrical cells. Of course, that's only if you put a premium on build cost, cooling, and pack energy density.
 
#16 · (Edited)
I said, "They have said they would have ten new EVs with 400 volt to 800 volt packs." I didn't say it was in that article.

"Ultium-powered EVs are designed for Level 2 and DC fast charging. Most will have 400-volt battery packs and up to 200 kW fast-charging capability while our truck platform will have 800-volt battery packs and 350 kW fast-charging capability."


"Ultium energy options range from 50 to 200 kWh"


Our Bolt will charge to 4.167 V/cell, 400.03 V pack at 100%. It quickly drops to about 4.159 V/cell, 399.3 V pack.


Font Screenshot Office equipment
Font Screenshot Games


If you guys are comfortable believing that GM will soon have the best battery packs in the world, and they will somehow build 400 volt, 50 kWh packs with 100 Ah cells, because their press releases say so...go for it.. My suspicion is they will be an improvement over the current pack in the Bolt, for energy density, and charging speed. Beyond that, I will wait and see.

I am old enough to remember when GM was saying that monocoque/unibody chassis construction was crap...because they used obsolete ladder frame construction after the war, and hadn't caught up.
 
#17 ·
I am old enough to remember when GM was saying that monocoque/unibody chassis construction was crap...because they used obsolete ladder frame construction after the war, and hadn't caught up.
A friend who worked as an aerospace engineer for Boeing and Raytheon stated that he and his coworkers were well aware that GM had some of the best engineers and engineering in the auto industry. The only question for them was whether that class-leading engineering would make it into actual cars and trucks.

I have no doubt that GM's representations of their tech (and their tech advantages) are valid. To your point, though, the real question is whether we actually see them implemented. This is a new GM (not the one that "killed the electric car" or chose body-on-frame over unibody chassis), so I'm trying to stay positive.
 
#24 · (Edited)
OK.. I thought about this a bit more. You guys may be right. But what that would mean is that they will not be building any new Bolt sized cars for now. They said they will be doing 100 kWh cells "initially", and they also said "most" of their vehicles will have 400 volt packs. This suggests they first vehicles will be 96s2p, 80 kWh, and/or 96s3p, 120 kWh. This makes perfect sense for SUVs, and pickup trucks.

I am really glad we got the Bolt while we could. Unless they have way surpassed Tesla for the energy density, they will not be fitting an 80 kWh pack into a Bolt.

Or maybe they will.

"At the same energy capacity, weight is 25% less than the batteries in today’s Chevy Bolt"

He said weight. He didn't mention volume, but I have to guess the new cells are about the same weight/cm3.

66 kWh x 1.25 = 82.5 kWh
 
#25 ·
OK.. I thought about this a bit more. You guys may be right. But what that would mean is that they will not be building any new Bolt sized cars for now. They said they will be doing 100 kWh cells "initially", and they also said "most" of their vehicles will have 400 volt packs. This suggests they first vehicles will be 96s2p, 80 kWh, and/or 96s3p, 120 kWh. This makes perfect sense for SUVs, and pickup trucks.

I am really glad we got the Bolt while we could. Unless they have way surpassed Tesla for the energy density, they will not be fitting an 80 kWh pack into a Bolt.
Yes, that's what I was thinking. The terms "initially" and "large-format" seem to indicate that other, smaller formats will come later. I think the 100 Ah cells are specifically for the Hummer EV and Cadillac EVs.

It's worth considering that GM could use LiFePO4 cells in their Ultium packs, which could also greatly reduce costs while still providing adequate range and charging speeds for budget EVs.
 
#29 ·
I would say it's a possibility, though doubtful.

Some have reported that the Bolt EUV will be using "the same battery" as the 2020 Bolt EV; however, I think they either didn't understand what they were told or are misrepresenting what they heard. Based on the 2020 Bolt EV's battery pack having 10% more energy than the 2017 to 2019 Bolt EV while weighing in at about 14 lbs less confirms GM statements that the 2020 Bolt EV was "using new chemistry." That chemistry is most likely NCM 712, with about 300 Wh/kg gravimetric energy density.

Now what I believe was told to the reporters is that the Bolt EUV will be using the same battery cells/chemistry as the 2020 Bolt EV. Is it possible that it uses the same packaging for a 66 kWh pack? Yes, that's possible; however, I think it's unlikely. GM has been very vocal that their minimum bar for EV range is 300 miles. A 66 kWh battery isn't even enough to achieve 300 EPA miles in the 2020 Bolt EV (which is possibly one of the key reasons they are refreshing the Bolt EV for the 2022 model year). Achieving 300 miles of range in the Bolt EUV (a slightly larger package) would require at least 75 kWh, so that is the minimum battery pack size I would expect to see in the Bolt EUV.

So I personally don't think the Bolt EUV will come with a 100 kWh battery (GM will still be balancing capability with price at this point), but I do think it will be somewhere between 75 kWh and 80 kWh usable.
 
#37 ·
The Ultium line specifically will be capable of 200 kW and 400 kW initially, though I have my suspicion that GM will eventually move to even higher voltage systems (similar to what Atlis has described) that will allow for sustained 600 kW to 800 kW charging even at 500 A.

The bigger question is the BEV2 vehicles that will be released in the meantime. It's pretty clear that the battery for the Bolt EV isn't the weak link in terms of charging speeds (there is at least one 150 A bottleneck in the system outside of the battery), and based on my observations with the 2020 Bolt EV, its battery should be able to charge at a peak rate of 90 kW to 100 kW (based on the tapering). If GM beefs up the systems in the refreshed Bolt EV and Bolt EUV, we're likely to see charging rates between 75 kW and 125 kW.
 
#34 ·
All the discussion of press releases about what car companies are going to do in the EV space, while ignoring their financial health, strikes me as a bit shortsighted. The assumption, I guess, is that governments will bail these companies out no matter what their value?

Tesla market cap $254.39B
GM market cap $36.82B
Ford market cap $24.62B
EOM market cap $187.69B
 
#35 · (Edited)
To put it into perspective of just how bad it is, here's a chart from a few months ago so not current certainly on market cap but only one I believe is now higher. Assuming debt remained unchanged, gloomy outlook for some.

Tesla Market Cap—$144B Total debt—$13B
Ford Market Cap—$32B Total debt—$155B
GM Market Cap—$50B Total debt—$103B
VW Market Cap—$96B Total debt—$227B
Daimler Market Cap—$59B Total debt—$169B
BMW Market Cap—$43B Total debt—$113B
Toyota Market Cap—$198B Total debt—$183B

But some will argue that cash reserves vs debt is a better indicator to the financial health and I tend to agree so here's another dated list.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/25/at-f...-for-cash.html
Ford:
$155B in debt, $37B in cash
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/c...s/cash-on-hand
GM: $103B in debt, $23.2B in cash
https://www.marketwatch.com/investin.../balance-sheet
VW: $227B in debt, $48B in cash
Tesla: $13B debt, approximately $9B in cash
 
#49 ·
"We reduced the height of the battery module underneath the second row, which will not only give second-row passengers a more comfortable ride, but also adds 22 kWh of energy storage in this space." This is straight from the GM page as far as I know the bolt is the only ev Chevy makes as of right now. Are they saying they will add 22 kWh to the bolt? The very first line almost indicates this.
 
#58 ·
GM batteries are no better than any other legacy battery. You might as well say Tesla should use Hyundai batteries.
Maybe you were thinking the Ultium format is a benefit to Tesla but they've been doing modular skateboards for about 8 years so nothing to see there. Unfortunately, the current skateboard using the cylindrical cell form factor is a major structural component that helps Tesla build the safest cars you can buy. Not sure how a pouch cell pack would adapt for such a use.

Tesla has also patented a tabless process to eliminate some of the complexity you mentioned earlier which is a bit hypocritical as Musk has a distaste for patents as he feels they stifle creativity, but regardless, there hasn't been any out of the ordinary issues that I'm aware of with the current format in that regard.

“Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.”


"In fact, removing the tab not only simplifies the manufacturing process, but also reduces the ohmic resistance in the negative electrode during electrochemical cycling by 5 to 20 times."


Here's the soon to be released information for the "roadrunner" batteries that Tesla will be revealing in about 9 weeks.


What separates the different batteries on the market is the results of the performance and price data.
This is where the roadrunner batteries using the Maxwell dry electrode technology as well as the SilLion cathode/anode developments will bring the price even lower than the already lowest in the industry.

"As noted by Tesla owner enthusiast Sean Mitchell in a recent video, SilLion’s tech, if integrated with the work of other companies like Maxwell that the electric car maker has acquired over the years, could make Elon Musk’s statements about “mind blowing” innovations on Battery Day accurate. Of course, mass manufacturing these next generation cells is a completely different story. Fortunately, such a challenge seems to be addressed by Project Roadrunner, at least up to a point."

"According to SilLion, it has manufactured early 2.5 Ah prototypes of its battery cells that are capable of achieving greater than 300 Wh/kg, a prerequisite step to ensure that the company’s tech could be inserted into the markets. What’s more, SilLion’s cell technology, through the utilization of lower cost materials and manufacturing capabilities, is poised to be 30% less expensive than state of the art and industry leading lithium ion batteries at the time."




Now all the hype about battery day could just be baseless rumors but Tesla seems to have a pretty good track record on delivering what they say they will so let's just wait a few weeks and then we can throw around "told you so's".
 
#60 ·
You mean the same ones in the Renault Zoe?

The battery capacity advertised by Chevrolet is neither total nor usable, is something in between…

Regarding the new 2020 generation, it is likely that there was a change to NCM 712 battery cells and although the increase in energy density seems minimal, there is an explanation. The 2020 Chevrolet Bolt EV now has the “cold weather battery pack” that according to GM allows 150 % faster DC charging in cold weather.

This “cold weather battery pack” means better insulation and heating of the battery but is likely to result in extra weight. Explaining why the energy density of the battery pack only increased from 143 to 158 Wh/kg, while in the Renault ZOE, the upgrade to NCM 712 battery cells resulted in an energy density increase from 145 to 169 Wh/kg.

New 2020 generation

  • Total battery capacity: 68 kWh
  • Usable battery capacity: 64 kWh (variable)
  • Battery weight: 430 kg
  • Battery energy density: 158 Wh/kg
  • Cells: 288 (96s3p)
  • Chemistry: NCM 712 (not confirmed)
  • Manufacturer: LG Chem
  • EPA range: 417 km (259 miles)


Where are you seeing in excess of 300Wh/kg? Is there a more current testing data?
 
#62 ·
"While I face backlash every time I say this, Tesla is simply not interested in collaborating on charging. People can point to random tweets and messages all they want, but actions speak louder than words. To this date, Tesla has taken no action in opening their network of chargers despite automakers publicly approaching them. When Tesla opens their Supercharger Network to non-Tesla EVs, I'll be more than happy to retract my assertion that Tesla was falsely claiming any real interest in collaborating on charging infrastructure. Prove me wrong, Elon. I'll sport some S3XY short shorts if you even open the CCS Superchargers that already exist in Europe to non-Tesla EVs. My only caveat is it can't be forced by government regulation. It must be a voluntary, open invitation to non-Tesla EV owners. Go on, Elon. I've got my $69.420 ready. Didn't think so..."

You might want to place your order on those shorts now since they're backordered I suppose.
There's speculation that Tesla's new hire from Apple may be to expand the experience to the non-Tesla crowd since there's really not much to improve on for us.


Yesterday, Michael Rihani announced on LinkedIn that he left his position as senior product manager for Apple Card and Apple Cash at the Cupertino, California, company to join Tesla as the new product manager for “Supercharger User Experience and Strategy.”
 
#63 ·
There's speculation that Tesla's new hire from Apple may be to expand the experience to the non-Tesla crowd since there's really not much to improve on for us.
That's not the sentiment I see on a number of Tesla owner groups. There's still a lot of room for improvement to the Supercharger Network beyond just opening it to non-Tesla owners. For obvious reasons, I don't do site reviews for Tesla Supercharger sites, but if I did, most of the sites wouldn't score particularly well compared to the best public charging sites.

Also, one of the biggest improvements might be the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. Michael might have been brought onboard to help Tesla owners leverage the public charging infrastructure, which is more diverse (and in many areas faster) than the existing Supercharger Network. This could include integrating those charging sites into Tesla's built-in navigation as well as providing a CCS adapter and integrated billing service similar to what Ford and Mercedes are providing to their customers.
 
#64 ·
Oh I'm sure there's locations that have issues, and I suppose I'm jaded from what I read here that comparatively, my experiences have been almost flawless, but from a software perspective, which is what this guys background is, where is Tesla falling short?
It may be a west coast thing or big city issue. There will always be holiday congestion too which there's really not much other than the mobile generator you can do about it.
Some of the complaints one might have are also out of Tesla's hands like restrooms & restaurants. Just trying to read between the lines though and it doesn't sound like this guy is a hardware guy so most of the issues don't seem to be in his wheelhouse. My point is from a software POV, I don't know what else he could do to improve a Tesla owners experience. But then again, they are quite creative with coming up with improvements like battery conditioning or how many stalls are available all before you arrive or the entertainment stuff (games, careoke, netflix). There's so many different directions this could go with the robotaxi's, Tesla network, app, starlink, restaurant franchise affiliation, (years ago it was rumored that Applebys was going to put in superchargers) etc.

I think the latest OTA upgrade did incorporate the third party chargers into the navigation. Another theory is to have a tie in with local businesses, not really sure how.

How is the public charging infrastructure faster? Tesla's max out at 250 which is what the V3 is. Even the V2's are 150kW. It does seem reasonable though that it's a precursor to CCS compatibility for Tesla's.

Curious that you find the existing EA network better than the Supercharger Network. Baffling.

My thoughts for years though have been that the build out needs to ramp up biggly. Even though in my neck of the woods, I've really not compromised or had to detour, with the huge number of 3's and & Y's joining the ranks, the supercharger network is exponentially busier than the 3rd party network. If the EA and EVGO's and all the rest have an equal number of portals but 1/4 the number of EV's using them, Tesla will be in a world of hurt unless they get back on schedule.
I think until the V3 was in production, they probably held off on expanding for a few months but now, no excuse. There's also the possibility that they have been holding back on the Supercharger build-out as well as Service Centers which is another potential black eye if not already.
My biggest gripe though is splitting a charge which if you are the second car, you get about 70kW. That's not an issue with V3 of which all new superchargers currently are. We even have one that just opened up about 80 miles from here so I may have to give it a go.

The other arguments are that by making it public, it would avoid any monopoly investigations, give access to public funds, public lands,
 
#65 ·
How is the public charging infrastructure faster? Tesla's max out at 250 which is what the V3 is. Even the V2's are 150kW. It does seem reasonable though that it's a precursor to CCS compatibility for Tesla's.
Last I checked, 350 kW is faster than 250 kW. Any questions about the 350 kW chargers in that regarded should be well and thoroughly answered by the Porsche Taycan's 270 kW peak, actual charging rate with a 10% charging speed boost slated for the next generation Taycan at the least, if it's not also provided as an OTA update for current Taycan owners. These same 350 kW chargers will likely be upgraded to 500 kW in the near future, but we're just talking about right now.

Even for Tesla owners, these chargers would be faster than the 150 kW V2 Superchargers as European Model 3s are able to charge at 180 kW on that class of public charger.

Curious that you find the existing EA network better than the Supercharger Network. Baffling.
You're straw manning again. I said "the best public chargers." I'm not necessarily referring to Electrify America when I say that, and I'm specifically referring to sites, not networks. EVgo and Recargo have both installed charging sites that are capable and compelling even by Tesla Supercharger standards with the added benefit that they are open and available to all EV owners. Though I haven't been able to check them out personally, Francis Solar is doing great work out in Oklahoma as well.

Your ignorance about the public charging infrastructure really is the perfect example of why someone like Michael would need to be brought on in order to integrate the public chargers into Tesla's navigation, route planning, and billing software. The first order of business, though, would be for Tesla to produce a CCS adapter that doesn't require a flamethrower case to transport around and isn't restricted to 125 A. At that point, Tesla owners could be rerouted when Superchargers are overbooked or simply when it's more conducive to their travel plans. It would also help those poor SR/SR+ owners who are sitting in Supercharger stalls for an hour charging up to 100% just so they can (hopefully) make it to the next Supercharger without having to drive too slowly.
 
#67 ·
No. I don't know either way what a Tesla's max theoretical charging speed is. What I know is that 250 kW V3 Superchargers are slower that 350 kW CCS chargers. That's grade school math.

The other concept you might be struggling with is that, even with the limitations of current Tesla vehicles' charging systems, those 350 kW chargers will charge a Tesla vehicle faster than 150 kW V2 Superchargers, which as far as I know are still far more prevalent than V3 Superchargers.
 
#70 ·
I don't know that GM will ever offer those as an aftermarket upgrade (it would be fun if they did). Now if you're asking when we can expect the Bolt EV or other BEV2 EVs to be equipped with the Ultium packs, 2025 might be a good guess. Whatever packs GM uses for the Bolt EUV and refreshed Bolt EV will probably be in use for at least 3 years prior to another model refresh, at which point, GM might be ready to apply the Ultium batteries across their entire EV line.
 
#85 ·
I really need to apologize to Professor John Kelly as far as my remarks about EV content on YouTube. He has really done an outstanding job of tearing down various EV's and his videos seem quite accurate. He did a very professional job with the Bolt EV. I was amazed that he was able to obtain various special tools from Chevrolet to support his teardown. This stuff is supposed to be available to everyone but it was pleasant to see none the less.

Professor John Kelly

I really hope he publishes more.
 
#86 ·
I really need to apologize to Professor John Kelly as far as my remarks about EV content on YouTube. He has really done an outstanding job of tearing down various EV's and his videos seem quite accurate. He did a very professional job with the Bolt EV. I was amazed that he was able to obtain various special tools from Chevrolet to support his teardown. This stuff is supposed to be available to everyone but it was pleasant to see none the less.

Professor John Kelly

I really hope he publishes more.
Yes, he's been a great resource. Unfortunately, with the way things are right now, he might not be back at the school for a while. It's unfortunate, too, because his content is great for distance learning.
 
#92 ·
I don't think Dave's experiences are cherry picking but you can debate that with him. To be fair to his comment, it seems as though the Taycan was just as much at fault as the EA network.
Regardless, you've been singing this tune about the "improving" experience for 2 years now. There is only one person on the planet that feels the EA/public charging infrastructure is even worthy of comparison to the Supercharger network.
 
#93 ·
I don't think Dave's experiences are cherry picking but you can debate that with him. To be fair to his comment, it seems as though the Taycan was just as much at fault as the EA network.
Nope, I mean focusing on Dave's negative experiences to prove your point rather than looking at EV owner experiences as a whole. I try to avoid that by focusing on my own experiences, so I shy away from picking and choosing which story matches a particular narrative.

Regardless, you've been singing this tune about the "improving" experience for 2 years now.
Yes, because I haven't ignored those improvements as they've happened. Whether it be Electrify America's changing their fee structure, providing an app to bypass an issue-prone Nayax payment reader, reassessing their fee structure for Hyundai and KIA owners, etc., or EVgo's upgrading to higher power chargers, retrofitting older charging sites to have multiple dual-standard chargers, and changing their session time limits to account for larger battery EVs.

There is only one person on the planet that feels the EA/public charging infrastructure is even worthy of comparison to the Supercharger network.
Who? Ben Sullins? Fred Lambert? I see a number of EV "news" sites making that comparison, over, and over, and over again. Unfortunately, most are disingenuous about how they do so (e.g., comparing Tesla's global Supercharger Network count to individual national and regional public charging networks).

But, because you like to straw man so much, I'll be clear and precise about how I think the public charging infrastructure compares to the Supercharger Network, and which is favored based on each category:
  • Access: Public Charging Infrastructure (Clearly.)
  • Charger Count: Supercharger Network (This is closer than some make it appear, but I'm giving Tesla credit for their split-power chargers.)
  • Cost: Tie (This might come as a surprise to some, but the cost difference between the Public Charging Infrastructure and the Supercharger Network isn't significant. It's also dependent on individual network, region, and vehicle type. Not to mention, many Tesla owners paid a premium upfront for the privilege of accessing the Superchargers.)
  • Coverage: Tie (Tesla does a better job of covering travel corridors, but their coverage is not as robust as the Public Charging Infrastructure outside of that. Both have significant gaps that require addressing.)
  • Ease of Use: Supercharger Network
  • Growth: Public Charging Infrastructure
  • Reliability: Supercharger Network (However, this is network dependent, and some public networks are every bit as reliable as the Supercharger Network.)
  • Site Concentration: Supercharger Network
  • Site Count: Public Charging Infrastructure (This isn't even close. Whether you look at Tesla's 2,000 sites globally or assess it region by region.)
  • Speed:Tie (The Superchargers have a more consistent speed across sites, but they aren't the fastest chargers overall. Note: If this was a direct comparison between Electrify America and the Superchargers, I'd give the nod to Electrify America. Same for Ionity.)
Let me know if there are any other individual categories you think I should compare them on. Again, my assertion has always been that Electrify America will provide functionally equivalent service to the Superchargers in the United States. What that means is, traveling to similar places in similar amounts of time given the capabilities of the vehicle. That's not an assessment of cost, ease of use, reliability, etc. I'm speaking purely of functional equivalence. There are a couple of corridors where EA has fallen short, yes, but they appear to be listening to feedback. Considering the speed that they are bringing new sites online, it's forgivable. It sucks to be in those regions without coverage, but with hundreds of charging sites currently under construction, it's not reasonable to say Electrify America is just sitting around not doing anything.
 
#101 ·
I think this video provides a very good overview of what a typical long distance (North Carolina-Vegas) trip in a Tesla using Superchargers is like.



Some of the key points to note:
  • It's a Model 3 Performance
  • A variety of weather and conditions including wet, rainy, cold, hot, windy.
  • Different Superchargers with a mix of:
    • Vintage V2 that maxes at a little over 100kW (probably one of the first to be upgraded to V3)
    • Pull through Superchargers
    • Superchargers in parking garage
    • How much inconveniences you may or may not encounter e.g. detours
    • Amenities at Superchargers
    • Supercharger layouts
  • High speed runs at 95 mph
  • Very casual, leisurely trip-no barnstorming or cannonballing
  • How to find a destination charger and charging speed (6% to 100% in 8 hours)
  • How the navigation routes the most efficient charging time. (He charges almost to 80% once that I saw)
  • Efficiency under various driving styles (95 mph leg) and conditions. At 85-90 mph he averaged 342 watt hours/mile
One thing to note which has been debated a lot here is that there is absolutely no reason to charge more than 50% using just Superchargers with the LR Model 3. At some stops he overcharges by double what he needs mostly because he gets distracted for a few minutes.
Due to the convenience and locations, he rarely is wasting a lot of slop time by charging more frequently than if he charged to 80% instead of 50% He also explains where it makes sense to skip chargers and when it makes more sense to stop.
On the stop where he charged from 18% to 78%, he added 45 kWh in half and hour so this gives some V2 charging data vs V3.
V3 would have added 180 miles in 24 minutes vs. 160 miles in 30 minutes.

On his second leg, he does 900 miles starting his day at 9:00 AM without any stress, drama, worry's, or phone calls. Without getting into too much detail, it looks as though his average charge time was about 20 minutes.

There's also much made about average charge rate vs peak charge rate. So to approach this scenario using that metric, and using the table of the V3 chargers, to 80% it works out to 125kW. As noted above and based on my own experience, it's extremely rare to charge to 80% on the road. Using 50% as the typical charging cap, the average works out to be 176 kW which adds 150 miles.
Let's use that to compare with the 210 mile AWD Mach e since that's the closest in spec and battery size and assume they have the 100 kW flat charge curve to 80%. This will give the Mach e less stops than the Tesla so should do well.

The only assumptions we have to make is slop time and Mach e flat charge curve. To give the Mach e a little help, let's use 15 minutes and we've agreed before that 100 kW is reasonable. This fictitious trip assumes when the Tesla gets to 50% there will be a functioning Supercharger and when the Mach e gets to 80, there will be a functioning public charger. No phone calls, no fail to charge, no moving to another cabinet, no sharing, no icing, etc.
To make things easier, I'll use the flat charge average for the Model 3 calculated above at 176 kW.
Here's the math on the Tesla:
2%-12%: 250 kW
12%-20%: 244 kW
20%-50%: 134 kW
This works out to be 2,500 + 1,952 + 4,020 = 8,472/48% (starts at 2%)=176.5 kW average to 50%
To get to 50% takes about 11 1/2 minutes so the total stop is 11.5 + 15 = 26.5 minutes for +150 miles

For the Mach e, 100kW into a 70 kWh battery will get to 80% in a little over 33 minutes. (70 kWh * .8 =.56 of an hour.) This adds 168 miles.
So rather that do a bunch of stops and adding up all the time driving and stopping and charging, it's easier to just calculate how many miles per minute does each car add, INCLUDING the charging and slop time. Here's the results:
Model 3 adds 150 miles in 26.5 minutes which is 5.6 miles per minute​
Mach e adds 168 miles in 33 minutes which is 4.8 miles per minute​
Now if you look at the flat charging rate average for the Tesla to 80%, you will see that it's already higher than the Mach e. 125kW vs 100 kW. So there's really no point in belaboring this point any further.

UNLESS

You want to use the bigger Mach e battery spec. That would mean we should use the closest Tesla to that spec which is the Model S Raven with 404 miles of EPA range.
Let me know if we need to crunch those numbers too.

I really can't think of any possible condition where the Mach e with similar specs will have a faster charge rate per minute overall for any conceivable trip you can dream up. Keep in mind, in the real world, we know the public chargers are undependable and a hassle so I'm looking forward to the side by side. Let's do one from Chicago to Dallas. Anywhere but California.

Notice too that I'm not using any EPA estimates for the Tesla (that's all we have for the Mach e), it's actual data. But I'll give you a concession that could help the Mach e and that is the V2 Superchargers aren't as fast as the V3 used in this comparison. Depending on when the Mach e is available, the number of V3's may be but a small percentage of Superchargers. But I'm not worried cause we're also comparing it to the public network.
 
#102 ·
That's a very substantial post that might be more appropriate for a different thread. However, bringing it back to the topic of this thread, how do you think a 400-mile GM EV with an Ultium pack capable of charging from 10% to 90% in 15 minutes would fit into your calculations for a trip from North Carolina to Las Vegas?
 
#103 ·
Probably another deserve its own thread- Nissan no longer even using Chademo US and Europe- bringing a question relating to the Ultium topic at hand would GM even allow Chademo or some other standard as part of licence of the battery tech to other companies?
 
#104 ·
As far as I know, it wouldn't or shouldn't matter. GM is also a global company, and Honda is one of the companies that is licensing their Ultium technology. Now, it could be that Honda only wants these batteries for cars in North America and Europe; however, it's far more likely that they would also use the technology in Japan and Asia. If so, CHAdeMO is basically a requirement. Because CHAdeMO communicates on the CAN bus, it would integrate fairly easily into an EV with an Ultium battery.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top