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

The 2019 Bolt EV Recall update is here!

35K views 192 replies 54 participants last post by  duncanator 
#1 ·


It just dropped a little while ago for the 2019 Bolt EV.
 
#3 ·
Bah. Just called the Canadian Chevy Concierge line to inquire about a buyback too. Doubt it but hey if I can get a 2021 P for the same as my 2019 LT.....I'm in.
 
#5 ·
Is the max range reduced or did they just change the charging profile? I requested a buy-back quote from GM and yesterday they called me to ask some questions including whether I wanted a trade-up or a buy-back. I requested buy-back and they said fine. So I'm guessing the they wouldn't have offered that if there truly was a fix that didn't reduce range?
 
#61 ·
Just because the initial people you're speaking with said fine, doesn't mean anything. They're just filling out the form. Once the internal people review, it'll most likely be denied unless your state lemon laws dictate that they must do it.
 
#10 ·
I checked the VIN for my 2017 Bolt and it seems to have the same update available as well.
Are you sure about that? I've collected a few Bolt EV VINs off the internet and none of the 2017 and 2018 ones have the relevant updates available.

The "Update to improve the safety of DC Fast Charging (DCFC) and performance of HVAC diagnostics - Bulletin N202311730, N192290680 and 20-NA-053" is the interim fix. The one that includes "Enhanced diagnostics for battery cells for field action N202311731 and N202323690" is the apparent final fix.
 
#17 ·
My 2019 is listed. As someone whose Bolt's capacity mysteriously dropped from nearly 190 Ah in December to 166.8 Ah at the end of March, I'm interested. Since that low, the capacity has increased to 170.66 as of yesterday. All these numbers courtesy of TorquePro and Telek's pids that decode 2019 capacity. That obviously can't be normal degradation. We'll see how much it recovers as the weather warms but I'm a little concerned.
 
#22 ·
had an appointment to get my Bolt flashed tomorrow anyway. Still not convinced this software "fix" will resolve the issue, more importantly that it will quell concerns of people like my wife. Been parking my Bolt outside and charging at 90 percent or below. Also doubt KBB values will go back up just b/c of the update. anybody know if Louisiana has good lemon laws?
 
#24 ·
I find it very, very hard to believe that GM will allow out-of-warranty batteries that fail the diagnostics to stay out in the wild where they can cause a fire, or become unusable with no recourse. I can say from experience that it is highly likely that GM will either voluntarily, or involuntarily, extend the warranty on the battery, possibly to "lifetime". That's what Hyundai and Kia were forced to do in court, when their poor engine designs caused thousands of engines to seize up, some starting on fire. They settled with owners in court, and agreed to give all of us "lifetime" engine warranties. If the knock-sensing software they installed gets tripped off, it puts the car into limp-home mode. Then we get a free engine. (Ask me how I know)
 
#37 ·
With the chip shortage, you may want to hold on to the Bolt. Just checked Carvana, my Rav4 Hybrid that gets driven a few times a year just went up another $800 from a week or two ago. This means retail price is up over $1K.
 
#41 ·
I can speculate two possibilities when it comes to "advanced diagnostics" as a "fix":

Scenario 1
Previous cell diagnostics were not good enough to detect when a cell (or multiple cells) went bad and the BMS continued to charge those cells which damaged them further and caused fires. In this case, the "fix" is more akin to a "smoke alarm" fix: the advanced diagnostics can tell when cell(s) go bad and will not continue to try to charge them. In this case, IF your battery pack suffers from this problem, you're likely to get a message that the propulsion system has failed and the car won't charge/drive... thus preventing a fire by continued charging causing further cell damage.

Scenario 2
Previous cell diagnostics were not good enough to compensate for weaker cells and the previous software was actually the cause of the cell damage. In this case, if the advanced diagnostics are able to better balance the pack without causing further damage to accumulate in weaker cells, it may result in cells not going "bad" in the first place. And if cells are bad beyond balancing, the diagnostics may disable the vehicle like in Scenario 1.

The important distinction here is that scenario 1 simply detects an existing problem and disables the vehicle while scenario 2 could actually prevent cell problems AND may disable the vehicle if cells are "beyond balancing repair" via the BMS. I wish we knew which of the above is true or if neither (and it's some scenario 3), what that is. But this is GM... so I suspect we'll never know the details.

Mike
 
#43 ·
I think GM owes the public some reassurances. If they are confident they can identify the issues that contribute to the fires, and if they are confident the immediate remediation is effective (and presumably would be noticeable either in warning, lower charge levels, or otherwise), they should provide some details. I am sure they want to stem the tide on buybacks, customer satisfaction requires transparency.

What is interesting is, '17 and '18 models would presumably have more risk, the damage has had longer to fester. So why would they target '19 models first? It could be as simple as picking a smaller sample size so they can verify the results, or perhaps they need more time to test something else that might be contained in the update.

Remember, '19 introduced Target Charge Level, and wasn't the cold weather charging improvement included in '19 MY also? Maybe they are testing the '19 update on older models and need more time to validate the "new" features it introduces to these? If they did apply these kinds of updates, user manuals would need updating as well.

I am not at all surprised all Bolts, existing and future will use the diagnostics, that just makes perfect sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lexcyn
#50 ·
Well, if this software does not fix it, I would be more than happy for a MSRP trade for a Bolt EUV. MSRP trade meaning my high 2019 Bolt MSRP would get me a 2022 Bolt EUV premium model plus tow hitch plus roof rack plus home wall charger - installed. LOL
 
#53 ·
Subtract Hybrid/EV Battery Voltage Sensors Average - Minimum Hybrid/EV Battery Module Voltage
Difference > 0.08V
I am not impressed at all. The 2017 service manual said that all cell groups must be within 0.030 volts of each other. If any exceeded that range, the section or sections containing that cell group, or cell groups, must be replaced.

They got tired of replacing sections, so in the revised service manual they greatly increased the range of acceptable cell group voltages to 0.070 volts difference between the AVERAGE of cell groups, and any cell group.

Now they are saying that they will replace any section with cell group/s greater than 0.08 volts from the average, which, if they really used only two decimal places, could be 0.084 volts.

We have had at least a dozen forum members get sections replaced over the last few years. Most of those would not have qualified for replacement, under this new "standard."
 
#54 ·
If you think many are going to let the monkeys replace just grouping of cells.... GM may be in for some more surprises. Many of the EV techs suck. You will read it time and time again here. Near me they can't get them to stay, they all leave because they don't make any money on commission with all these bolts being just warranty work
No way would I let the do that. Just replace the full battery pack and stop drinking around GM.
 
#56 ·
Aren't there just 9 40v pods ? Even a monkey can remove some bolts and a bms harness, and the thicc wires.


I guess you could just drop the whole pan, and just pop in a new one...

Teslas were rigged up to hot swap batteries on the S, so they are real easy to swap.
 
#57 ·
A few things.

The cell min/max PIDs that they are using are rounded to 0.02V. So a 0.08V delta could be 0.06 or 0.10V.

Also, the BMS will balance to within 0.03V of actual real cell voltages.

Ergo, if you see 0.08V or more, that means the BMS has failed to balance and the cell(s) is/are definitely dead.

But, this MEANS NOTHING. This is exactly the same that it was before. There is no indication of improved processes here. Also, cells that can lead to fire do NOT NECESSARILY SHOW UP this way. They can look perfectly fine from a voltage perspective, then they catch fire. Dendrites are a huge pain. They can cause a minor impact which can show up with voltage, or they can cause a major short and burn up within an hour or two.

Boeing spent 3 years on this, and their solution was to put their batteries in a fireproof box and hope for the best. Multiple studies have also concluded this.

The only promising technology that I've seen is high frequency impedance measurements, and neither the existing BMS nor the external balance tool can do this currently. Alternately you can use improved cell separators which are much more resistant to dendrites, but that's obviously not an option.

So all they can do is enhance their ability to watch for voltage differences which indicate that a cell needs to be replaced - they can't even measure impedance of every cell. This is a mostly different problem than when the cell might catch fire.

Also I don't know why the OP is talking about 6-7 hours for a recall fix as a sign of commitment - that's ONLY when the cell needs to be replaced, which they expect less than 1% to be done. I've already heard back from owners who have had this fix applied - it's just 15 minutes for the software flash and that's it.
 
#64 ·
All I can say is hang in there with your work on TorquePro. It will be really interesting to see how this all plays out.

FWIW, LG has responded in other cases that Lithium plating may not cause a fire issue. They claim that dendrite growth is not a "done deal" if plating is found. Is this just CYA or do they actually know something?

I think if one is to accept using Lithium Ion batteries at all, one may need to accept that minor dendrite failure is a fact of life that may not always lead to a spectacular failure. A lot of this is in the statistics and what a failure will lead to. Obviously it's a lot bigger deal at 30,000 feet with 200 people on board. As an engineer, I just don't know how to respond without seeing all of the data.

At this point, I'm going to trust GM until I see a reason not to. Hey, we are Beta testers after all. lol
 
#84 ·
The fact that they are putting this software into all the new models makes me think (and I said this at the beginning of the recall) that a lightbulb went off in some dim witted GM engineer's brain that a true BMS, especially in a $35K+ car,
should do a lot more than just balance cells. Any BMS worth its salt will protect the batteries and the device from self immolating. GM was slumming it, period. LG may have made some defective pouches but GM should have been aware that a good BMS should "brick the car". Hence we have now what should have been from the start.

Will it be sensitive enough to detect a bad trend, time will tell. But be aware that any Li car new or old, can have a defective section as there is no such thing as perfection in manufacturing. GM has finally woken up to this.

I am happy with the fix but still won't charge to 100% inside for a least a year.
 
#141 ·
The fact that they are putting this software into all the new models makes me think (and I said this at the beginning of the recall) that a lightbulb went off in some dim witted GM engineer's brain that a true BMS, especially in a $35K+ car,
should do a lot more than just balance cells. Any BMS worth its salt will protect the batteries and the device from self immolating. GM was slumming it, period. LG may have made some defective pouches but GM should have been aware that a good BMS should "brick the car". Hence we have now what should have been from the start.

Will it be sensitive enough to detect a bad trend, time will tell. But be aware that any Li car new or old, can have a defective section as there is no such thing as perfection in manufacturing. GM has finally woken up to this.

I am happy with the fix but still won't charge to 100% inside for a least a year.
I disagree with this. I'm certain that GM had industry leading BMS software - but that doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement. More heuristic analysis can always be done. Once you have that, why not use it on all your vehicles? That's just common sense.
 
#87 ·
As I posted in other threads:
One new doc has appeared at Vehicle Detail Search | NHTSA. It's now at 20 associated docs. Was stuck at 19 for a long time. I think it's https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2020/RCLRPT-20V701-7407.PDF submitted April 29, 2021.

It is pretty vague and mentions the software (we already know about that) and:
"GM and LG Chem’s investigation concluded that the known field incidents were likely caused by one or more rare, latent cell-level manufacturing defects in design level N2.1 batteries produced at LG Chem’s Ochang, Korea facility."

"Owner notifications of the final remedy are estimated to occur in two phases; the first on May 13, 2021 to address 2019 model year vehicles and the second on May 31, 2021 to address remaining vehicles. The final remedy will be executed under bulletin N202311731. Until the final remedy is available, an interim remedy is executed under bulletin N202311730."

From the top, the estimated percentage with defect is still 1%, just like in the Feb 2021 submission.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kallisti5
#88 ·
I got my 2019 updated yesterday (4/30/2021). It did take awhile. The update time is listed at 1.1 hours. With this plus the Multipoint Inspection that they always do I was at the dealership about 2 hours. Adjust your expectations accordingly. BTW, I do think that all of this effort is of value and I would be dubious of relying on an over the air update.

I have not noticed any issues so far. I can set the charge target to 100% so that looks good. Given my normal usage pattern, I will continue to charge to less than 90% unless I will need more. Normally I only charge to 60% using departure charging. FWIW
 
#89 ·
Nice! Were you able to get the radio update listed in #20-NA-119 as well? (34.9.2 is the new infotainment version number for the 2019 models.. supposed to have a bunch of stability fixes). I couldn't download it on TIS2Web, but GM is moving to a new system called "techconnect" that costs like ~$3,800 a year (I'll pay $40 for 2 years of updates, but **** if i'm going to pay $3,800 as a DIYer)

My appointment is on the 11th, but our local EV certified dealership is always backed up.
 
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