Well I've had my 2016 sparky for a few weeks after selling my 2014. The 2016 is faster and overall better. The dcfc is wort it IMHO. Fast chargers are popping up everywhere so getting one without one is a mistake. It's really come in handy. The leather seats r awesome compared to the 1 Lt. Overall I love my 2016. Greatest car ever made.
2016 vs 2014
- Thread starter evboy
- Start date
Help Support Chevy Spark EV Forum:
MrDRMorgan
Well-known member
For 5 years, I have had the pleasure of driving a used 2014 2LT w/o DCFC. Absolutely no problems. I have also had the opportunity - my first Spark EV - to drive a leased 2015 Spark EV 2LT with DCFC for three years / 30k miles. Only one problem with some sort of charging issue that required a dealer visit to rectify. Again, almost trouble-free. Finally, I have had the opportunity to drive a used 2016 Spark EV 2LT with DCFC for three years. with absolutely no problems. Overall, I would rate the 2016 first, the 2014 a very close second and the 2015 third because of the electrical problem that caused a permanent 1.5 kWh loss in battery capacity.
My wife and I are still driving both the 2016 and 2014. The biggest difference between the two cars is the battery degradation in the 2014 is happening faster that that in the 2016. Otherwise, both cars have been trouble-free and are still great vehicles.
My wife and I are still driving both the 2016 and 2014. The biggest difference between the two cars is the battery degradation in the 2014 is happening faster that that in the 2016. Otherwise, both cars have been trouble-free and are still great vehicles.
I have the TorquePro. I have two different OBD-II to BT adapters.
Last time I tried, I can't get the PIDS to load to wherever they load to....
I'll go over Londonbroiler's video again someday......
BUT,
Those that do use TorquePro, how much is it different than the car's Energy Page numbers?
That should be easy to answer.
Last time I tried, I can't get the PIDS to load to wherever they load to....
I'll go over Londonbroiler's video again someday......
BUT,
Those that do use TorquePro, how much is it different than the car's Energy Page numbers?
That should be easy to answer.
NORTON said:
I hardly ever drive very far, usually just a 14 mile round trip downtown, so I don't have very accurate numbers, but speaking roughly, I would say that the Energy Page numbers are not very far off. Sometimes the calculated capacity looks a little high especially when I haven't driven very far, but that might just be because I don't catch the numbers just as they roll over. Usually the calculated capacity looks pretty close. Definitely I would say that you have impressive capacity.
I had to struggle a bit to load the PIDs, but it's been so long that I don't remember enough to be much help.
If you are dealing with high heat where you live you should be plugging in, at least during the daytime.RSC said:
If it wasn't for needing TMS for the pack, nothing is stopping you from running the pack very low to get some data on <50% SOC.
Thanks for sharing that the energy page is not far off from Torque numbers.
I'd like to see a few data points with both sets of numbers for comparison.
NORTON said:
My Torque readings have been consistent at 15.2 kWh since March. When I say that sometimes the calculated capacity seems a little high, I mean as high as 15.5 kWh. I will try to collect some more data.
The weather has been hot, consistently over 100 F, so I have to leave the car plugged in whenever I'm not driving it. A long range test will have to wait for cooler weather.
SparkE
Well-known member
No, you need to try that new Vegan BBQ restaurant, that serves tofu ribs !
{{ Edit : this isn't new, but when I saw it years ago, it made me laugh sooooooooooo much }}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8
{{ Edit : this isn't new, but when I saw it years ago, it made me laugh sooooooooooo much }}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8
I'm retired, so a weekend day is the same as any other. A road trip is going to happen, just not right away. I live on the outskirts of a small town out in the sticks, and really there's not much within range of the Spark EV other than going into town. During the summer when I go out hiking I have to go up to higher elevations where it's cooler. This is beyond the range of the Spark, and many of the trailheads are on Forest Service roads requiring a high clearance vehicle.NORTON said:
However, there are a few possibilities and I will report back with energy screen results when I get some. The pandemic is a bit of a deterrent, but I live in one of three out of 58 California counties rated by the state government at minimal risk (the lowest level).
I just got back from the post office and grocery shopping and have my first energy page numbers since my last post:
Energy used 3.0 kWh
Driving and accessories 16%
Climate 2%
This gives a capacity of 16.7 kWh, which is higher than I expected considering that the Torque Pro number is 15.2 kWh. I remember the energy page numbers being much closer to 15.2. If the numbers are really 2.95 kWh, 16.5% driving, and 2.5% climate, this would give 15.5 kWh. I'll collect more data when I can.
NORTON, I'm looking forward to hearing your impressions of the Bolt and your stories from the trip home. I've been seriously considering a Bolt for myself, possibly as a replacement for the Spark EV, but really more for our Toyota Highlander. I would like to go to an all-EV garage.
28%
Update:
Tacked on a trip to the thrift store.
Energy used 5.4 kWh
Driving and accessories 28%
Climate 5%
Battery conditioning 1%
This gives a capacity of 15.9 kWh. A little closer to expected, but still high.
Energy used 3.0 kWh
Driving and accessories 16%
Climate 2%
This gives a capacity of 16.7 kWh, which is higher than I expected considering that the Torque Pro number is 15.2 kWh. I remember the energy page numbers being much closer to 15.2. If the numbers are really 2.95 kWh, 16.5% driving, and 2.5% climate, this would give 15.5 kWh. I'll collect more data when I can.
NORTON, I'm looking forward to hearing your impressions of the Bolt and your stories from the trip home. I've been seriously considering a Bolt for myself, possibly as a replacement for the Spark EV, but really more for our Toyota Highlander. I would like to go to an all-EV garage.
28%
Update:
Tacked on a trip to the thrift store.
Energy used 5.4 kWh
Driving and accessories 28%
Climate 5%
Battery conditioning 1%
This gives a capacity of 15.9 kWh. A little closer to expected, but still high.
MrDRMorgan
Well-known member
Keep in mind the display only shows whole numbers - rounding. If you divide the 3.0 kWh used by the 15.2 kWh TorquePro number, you get 19.7%. I have been collecting TorquePro data on my 2014 and 2016 Spark EVs for a couple of years now and I believe the TorquePro number is more accurate.RSC said:
When using the car console numbers, try to take the numbers when both the kWh and the % change at the same time.
That will reduce the rounding errors.
Also if possible take numbers when there is no conditioning value as this increases the magnitude of rounding errors by 50%
That will reduce the rounding errors.
Also if possible take numbers when there is no conditioning value as this increases the magnitude of rounding errors by 50%
