GM Bolt battery problem

Another site said they limited it to 95%.

"The plaintiff says that GM?s temporary fix means owners aren?t getting the same range out of the vehicle as was originally advertised to them."

The range figures that are advertised on these cars are funky numbers anyway and the number of customers able to accurately determine whether they're really experiencing reduced range on average from an actual battery capacity issue, as opposed to temperature effects, driving style, weather, terrain, etc. is really close to zero, outside gross failures.

I get anywhere from 42 - 70 miles off the Volt's pack mainly season-depending; if I suddenly lost 5% of my pack capacity in the springtime when ambient was getting warmer simultaneously, without some other way to test it would probably take me two more seasons to figure it out.

"It also says the vehicles have lost resale value due to GM?s apparent inability to properly address the battery issues."

Interesting to see how this plays out, I doubt GM ever guaranteed the pack would have some specific minimum usable kWh capacity there's probably a tolerance on that from the factory, too, like the tolerance may be close to +/- 5%, also.

I think the MPGe figures on EVs tend to be conservative numbers as opposed to the numbers on gas cars which seem to just be pulled out of someone's ass.

t to 90%. Just don't tell customers about the additional cells.

??t getting

arent

So they deduct another 5-10% and customers are supposed to be happy? It's not about customers getting their 10% back. I expect GM is still selling n ew cars talking about the range without derating it for this "fix".

Tesla had/has a similar problem. The extended range version of their batte ry in the older model S cars had a problem with rapid wear which they fixed with a max charging rate fix lengthening the charging time by 20% or so. Yeah, I'd be pissed. There is an ongoing law suit about it.

I can't find any utility in MPGe numbers, so I don't care how "good" they a re. They have nothing to do with driving an EV. They are supposed to be a way to compare EVs to ICE. Who cares? What matters is $/mile and other f actors that have to do with an EV without trying to compare to a horse and buggy.

Class action law (like most law) is complex and I definitely don't claim to understand it fully. It's understandable that they're annoyed but I guess it depends on large part if a significant number of buyers aren't in fact getting the range that was advertised to them, as there's room for interpretation of what "the range that was advertised to them" means exactly when you're talking relatively small decreases in battery capacity and about a class action with thousands of users with varying usage profiles.

Yeah I'm sure they're annoyed about it and I don't know about Tesla but I'm pretty sure GM never guaranteed some exact minimum battery capacity in advertising or on the purchase agreement and that this would never ever change. and the 5-10% may be within the tolerances of the window-sticker which with EVs tends to be a pessimistic estimate, anyway, as you likely already know.

so the plaintiffs have to demonstrate what did we lose, and how much, as compared to something that was actually guaranteed somewhere, the court doesn't just take their word for it. That is to say "you decreased my pack capacity 5-10% from what you sold me originally now gimme money" isn't a case by itself I don't think unless GM wrote down "your pack capacity will be 60kWh and no less for..."

And the car may be believed to lose value due to the perception it's "defective" in some way, now, but you could say that about any kind of recall for anything, idk how great a case that is in isolation.

Like there were probably recalls where they had to modify fuel tanks or fuel systems such that the car had somewhat less fuel capacity or fuel efficiency than it did before, now gimme money, I don't know if there were any suits regarding something like that in particular or what the outcome was but there have surely been recalls in the past where the vehicle performance in some aspect was reduced somewhat after the fix.

I mean it has to be about somehow getting what they lost back, if they did in fact lose something tangible as compared to what was advertised, that's what a consumer class action lawsuit is about, you have to state a claim involving damages that can be compensated, somehow.

If GM is thought to be doing deceptive advertising now then I think that's a different thing.

it to 90%. Just don't tell customers about the additional cells.

?t getting

."

apparent

's not about customers getting their 10% back. I expect GM is still selling new cars talking about the range without derating it for this "fix".

It's a perception problem. Many of us know that we can only use between 20 % to 90% SOC (State Of Charge) of a pack. Now, they are complaining about the top 10%. Are they going to complaint about the bottom 20% as well? If it's common knowledge, can they prove GM to be deceptive?

Yeah, it's not quite the same situation as suing over a dairy farm that's watering down the milk. Or whatever your beverage of choice is

it to 90%. Just don't tell customers about the additional cells.

?t getting

."

apparent

's not about customers getting their 10% back. I expect GM is still selling new cars talking about the range without derating it for this "fix".

ttery in the older model S cars had a problem with rapid wear which they fi xed with a max charging rate fix lengthening the charging time by 20% or so . Yeah, I'd be pissed. There is an ongoing law suit about it.

ey are. They have nothing to do with driving an EV. They are supposed to be a way to compare EVs to ICE. Who cares? What matters is $/mile and other f actors that have to do with an EV without trying to compare to a horse and buggy.

Advertising. Autos are not engineering speced devices. Advertising is ho w they communicate what is sold and there are plenty of examples of range i n the advertising. There is also the simple fact of the actual range befor e the mod and the actual range after the mod.

This is not rocket science. The jury will understand.

it it to 90%. Just don't tell customers about the additional cells.

n?t getting

em."

her

ome

re

s apparent

ce

It's not about customers getting their 10% back. I expect GM is still selli ng new cars talking about the range without derating it for this "fix".

Actually it is exactly the same. Advertise 300 mile range then after the s ale say, "... but you can't use 30 miles of that range", so you only get 27

Nah. They don't advertise "X miles of range" like there's X liters of milk in the milk bottle and that's what you expect to be buying. they advertise "With an EPA-estimated X miles per charge"-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk, fine print.

The ads I see advertise "An EPA-estimated 238 miles of range per charge" the plaintiffs have to demonstrate their clients in fact routinely aren't getting that anymore due to the modification, by whatever standard such things are measured in the real world. They don't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt like a criminal case but they gotta have something.

Juries often tend to not understand very much, but there's no guarantee this will actually make it to trial, anyway. GM may decide to settle or it may be dismissed in the discovery phase if the plantiffs can't provide sufficient supporting evidence for their claim, they have to provide something and it's not clear to me what that would be in this case. Everyone's driving logs?

Courts tend to not come in overtly hostile to companies who address critical safety issues in a a relatively timely and transparent fashion over stuff like, now my Toyota Supra has 30 fewer horsepower than it came with, the line between justifiable and frivolous litigation is a thin one in this area.

That is to say I think it's very unlikely they'd be awarding any punitive damages here at minimum.

If they can find a fix which restores the battery capacity and solves the original issue while the case is moving thru the legal system then the case is moot. If not GM may choose to settle this one, several mil to the law firm and a $500 or $1000 check to the owners in question that probably only 25% of owners will bother to fill out all the paperwork and then wait 3-6 months to collect on. Seems unlikely punitive damages would be awarded in this case. Sucks but even having to settle on only

it it to 90%. Just don't tell customers about the additional cells.

n?t getting

em."

her

ome

re

s apparent

ce

It's not about customers getting their 10% back. I expect GM is still selli ng new cars talking about the range without derating it for this "fix".

battery in the older model S cars had a problem with rapid wear which they fixed with a max charging rate fix lengthening the charging time by 20% or so. Yeah, I'd be pissed. There is an ongoing law suit about it.

they are. They have nothing to do with driving an EV. They are supposed to be a way to compare EVs to ICE. Who cares? What matters is $/mile and other factors that have to do with an EV without trying to compare to a horse an d buggy.

im

ns

as

ow they communicate what is sold and there are plenty of examples of range in the advertising. There is also the simple fact of the actual range befor e the mod and the actual range after the mod.

You insist on talking about things that don't matter. Every EV I've ever b een in showed a range as well as kWhr remaining in the battery as part of t he operation of the vehicle. Either one will suffice to show a loss of ran ge.

Why are you arguing about this? Cars have capacities and capabilities and it's a VERY important thing to show in an EV where it greatly impacts the u tility of the vehicle, so the cars have this information available. It's n ot at all hard to show a loss of 5% in this case if that is what was lost, or even easier if it was 10%. It would not help a manufacturer's case when they had to explain exactly what they had done to prevent the FIRES!

Speaking of which, I understand Hyundai is recalling a bunch of EVs and wil l be taking a nearly billion dollar hit because of it. Kudos to them for o wning up to the problem.

Obviously you've never heard of range anxiety.