2015 Spark no longer 21-kWh and now 19 ???

[tigger19687]

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/2015-chevrolet-spark-ev-to-get-new-battery-pack-81278.html


The 21-kWh was the main reason why I wanted the Spark !

Anyone else know about this?

If you google it, there are several stories about their NEW batteries

 

[Nashco]

The 21-kWh was the main reason why I wanted the Spark !

Anyone else know about this?

Why do you care about the kWh in an advertisement? Don't you care more about how far it drives on a single charge and what the efficiency is? If those numbers remain the same or better, I don't see why you'd care. Unless you have a strange obsession with the number 21, I can't understand why that number would be the main reason for your purchase.

This was brought up here:

http://mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3640&start=30
http://mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3764

Since I started autocrossing mine, the 86 pound weight reduction with no loss of performance is extremely appealing. Do you want to buy mine when the 2015 starts hitting showroom floors? Mine will be low mileage and still under warranty!

Bryce

 

[iletric]

In theory one would lose 10 miles of range by losing 2 kW. I'd be interested to see what transpires in terms of real-world range once the 2015 hits the road...

It seems counterintuitive to lower the capacity while all others prepare to increase it. The only explanation might be that the new batteries' chem has 10% more density.

 

[nozferatu]

As battery technology progresses, they will become smaller and smaller. And lighter. So less energy stored will take you the same or longer distance hopefully!

Now if only they put this system in an Opel Corsa OPC outfit.

 

[gra]

The conclusion to draw from this announcement is that GM is willing to access a greater % of the new battery's total capacity than they were before, as they say the range will be unchanged. That brings up questions about the longevity of the battery. I've been very happy with GM's decision to use only 65% of the total capacity on the Volt for longevity reasons.

I've been a fan of LiFePo4 chemistry as in the Spark EV, because although it has lower specific energy than the LMO chemistry used in the LEAF and Volt, it's also got better cycle life, a wider usable SoC range and better heat tolerance. Unless GM is willing to back the new battery with a good capacity warranty, I'd personally be inclined to get a 2014 over a 2015, although it's unclear if they are going to use LG Chem's LMO chemistry instead of A123's LiFePO4.

 

[GeekEV]

As battery technology progresses, they will become smaller and smaller. And lighter. So less energy stored will take you the same or longer distance hopefully!

Improved battery technology will get you MORE energy stored in the same weight/volume or the SAME energy stored in lighter weight/smaller volume. The only way to go further on LESS energy stored is to decrease drag, improve motor or tire efficiency. Although lighter batteries would improve efficiency overall, the effect would like not be the greatest factor.

 

[nozferatu]

As battery technology progresses, they will become smaller and smaller. And lighter. So less energy stored will take you the same or longer distance hopefully!

Improved battery technology will get you MORE energy stored in the same weight/volume or the SAME energy stored in lighter weight/smaller volume. The only way to go further on LESS energy stored is to decrease drag, improve motor or tire efficiency. Although lighter batteries would improve efficiency overall, the effect would like not be the greatest factor.

I would disagree...the biggest performance and efficiency increase you can give your Spark is to reduce its weight...be it through the batteries of through weight reduction of the car.

When I said less energy stored, I meant that even if the battery energy storage goes down due to reduction in size, it's efficiency will go up so less energy stored will result in the same or better performance.

 

[buickanddeere]

I heard for 2016 Chevy is going reduce the battery pack by half :roll: and double the miles :lol: .

 

[VonSpark]

I heard for 2016 Chevy is going reduce the battery pack by half and double the miles.

Where did you hear that? source...that would be awesome by the time of lease is done I can buy a new Spark.

 

[tigger19687]

In theory one would lose 10 miles of range by losing 2 kW. I'd be interested to see what transpires in terms of real-world range once the 2015 hits the road...

It seems counterintuitive to lower the capacity while all others prepare to increase it. The only explanation might be that the new batteries' chem has 10% more density.

Thank you ...


Also, I didn't see the other postings on this as they were under the News section just a couple hours before this (and the other was less then an hour before and that is why I started a new thread).

It is also not stating if they are using the LiFePo4 or another.

And yes I would also think that they would want to ADD more kWh then reduce it. Not sure how they are figuring out how many miles. I am SURE they don't want to say that it would be less....

 

[gra]

In theory one would lose 10 miles of range by losing 2 kW. I'd be interested to see what transpires in terms of real-world range once the 2015 hits the road...

It seems counterintuitive to lower the capacity while all others prepare to increase it. The only explanation might be that the new batteries' chem has 10% more density.

Thank you ...


Also, I didn't see the other postings on this as they were under the News section just a couple hours before this (and the other was less then an hour before and that is why I started a new thread).

It is also not stating if they are using the LiFePo4 or another.

And yes I would also think that they would want to ADD more kWh then reduce it. Not sure how they are figuring out how many miles. I am SURE they don't want to say that it would be less....

The other possible way that they are maintaining the range while going to a smaller capacity pack is the change to the transmission ratio. This (along with the small decrease in weight) will help the city range, at least on the EPA tests, but will almost certainly decrease the highway range. Since almost nobody will run out of range when driving purely on surface streets, this strikes me as a step backwards. OTOH, it appears that they may be using the same cells they plan to use for the Volt 2.0, so that gives them a cost advantage. Good for GM and maybe will lower the MSRP, but IMO bad for anyone worried about freeway range and maybe battery longevity.

 

[buickanddeere]

I wonder how much cheaper a 19KWhr pack is to build that a 21MWhr pack is to build ?

 

[StevesWeb]

I wonder how much cheaper a 19KWhr pack is to build that a 21MWhr pack is to build ?

Since the new battery is much lighter it likely contains less Lithium and is simply more efficient. I bet using less Lithium saves quite a bit of money. By reducing the weight of the car it is feasible to reduce storage capacity because less energy will be required to travel the same distance. If less energy is required to fully charge the car it will therefore charge faster. I see this as the march of progress.

Let's hope they can reduce costs even more, at some point it will become cheaper to buy an electric car than a carbon belcher.

 

[VonSpark]

I was hoping the range improve, unless they are consider 40kw EV down the line. :evil:

 

[tigger19687]

I would rather see them use the "extra space" they make with the New battery .. to add a few more battery cells and up the kWh. The 2014 Leaf has 24kWh, why not make it the same ?
I think if they did that they would be better then the Leaf with the Liquid cooling.

 

[TonyWilliams]

I would rather see them use the "extra space" they make with the New battery .. to add a few more battery cells and up the kWh. The 2014 Leaf has 24kWh, why not make it the same ?
I think if they did that they would be better then the Leaf with the Liquid cooling.

Making the battery larger costs money with no tangible benefit to GM. The goal is California ZEV compliance, not matching the battery size to a car that has sold the most EV's in history.

Since the car easily meets the range requirements for a 3 CARB-ZEV credit car, and it's likely the car is sold at a significant loss like every compliance car, the smart money is to do whatever possible to lower the cost of the car and still meet the "100 mile" range threshold.

Taking out 2kWh saved them $400 to $600 per car. It's simple math. Also, it may be likely that GM will find some commonality with Volt Gen 2 for even more savings.

 

[VonSpark]

Tonywilliam, are you saying that GM and other car makers will not going to make beyond 21kwh battery?

I don't mind paying $10K more if the battery is double.

 

[TonyWilliams]

Tonywilliam, are you saying that GM and other car makers will not going to make beyond 21kwh battery?

I don't mind paying $10K more if the battery is double.

Uh, no, I have not said what other auto makers will use. The GM Spark EV is one of the smallest battery packs of all the pure battery electric cars.

Tesla sells cars with 60kWh and 85kWh, and Nissan has announced "300km" (183 miles) range LEAF's and Infiniti cars are coming. Mitsubishi has sold over 30,000 iMiev varients worldwide.

What's different between electric cars sold worldwide with a profit motive (Tesla, Mitsubishi and Infiniti) and compliance only cars sold in the absolute minimum volume in CARB-ZEV states at a loss like Spark EV, Honda Fit EV, Fiat 500e, et al, is that the goal for these latter cars is not to make money.

GM, Honda and Fiat need to merely meet a regulatory compliance threshold, hence putting bigger batteries in money losing cars is dumb. Building more than the absolute minimum is dumb. Selling in areas where they dont receive CARB-ZEV credit is dumb (particularly while losing money on every sale).

 

[nozferatu]

I doubt very much they are losing money on any car...that's wishful thinking regardless of what they claim.

 

[cwerdna]

I doubt very much they are losing money on any car...that's wishful thinking regardless of what they claim.

More like your wishful thinking to think that compliance car makers are making money on their low volume compliance EVs.

I'll remind others of some details and my posts on this:
http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5535#p5535
http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5645#p5645 and the 2 or 3 past it