6.6kW effective charging?

[TonyWilliams]

This has a lot of potential as the basis for residential L3 charging. I think it would really only be practical with the CCS plug too. I'm not sure you could license the plugs or protocols from Tesla or CHAdeMO very easily. Also, with both your costs would go up dramatically because you couldn't use the OBC to speed up charging.

Not true for CHAdeMO. Just pay about $165 for the plans. It's open architecture.

Here's a good overview how it works:

http://www.chademo.com/wp/technology/details/

For Tesla, it uses the same SAE "Frankenplug" logic and PLC communication, with substantially higher power capable connectors at far lighter weight and smaller size. Of course, it uses a common pin for AC and DC power, unlike Frankenpkug.

Since the Americans and Europeans are supporting CCS you should really be thinking about a broader market than just the Spark. The i3 uses the rare 32 amp J1772. People that want the most out of their vehicle will probably spring for the more expensive home charger and the higher quote from the electrician for installation.

The "Americans" aren't using CCS; General Motors is. The largest American EV manufacturer, Tesla, will never use the CCS Combo 1 or Combo 2. Ford has no public plans for any CCS car, nor do they have one. Chrysler is majority owned by Fiat, and their headquarters is moving to Europe. Of course, Fiat, like most of the world's auto manufacturers, does not support CCS, nor do they have or have publically announced any future CCS.

Yes, every German auto manufacture supports CCS. No others in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, have signed up for CCS.

30/32 amp J1772 isn't rare at all; it's the norm.

When they find out that their car was designed with a DC socket that will eventually be useful at DC-FC stations that might exist near them someday, they will be apathetic. When they find out that their car was designed with a DC socket that can work with a home charger that cuts the charging time in half because it uses the OBC and a garage installed DC charger at the same time, range anxiety will start to melt away.

This has actually already been done with CHAdeMO. A portable charger that you can plug into a NEMA 14-50R, and charge a car through its DC port at 10kW (40 amps continuous @ 250 volts from "the wall").

I wouldn't try to sell a 3.3kW off-board charger for more than $1,500.

Good luck at that price point!!!

 

[Pegasus]

Woah, hold on there guys. The 2009 J1772 standard allows for up to 80A @240VAC, which is 19.2KW. Seems to me that simply adding booster AC chargers on the car will be the easiest way to go plus it'll benefit the owner in that they can charge faster anywhere they plug in instead of just at home. (I plan to do this exact thing to my Spark at some point.)

 

[cwerdna]

30/32 amp J1772 isn't rare at all; it's the norm.

Yep. Off the top of my head, all of these currently sold (+ 1 defunct and 1 discontinued) EV/PHEV have 6+ kW on-board chargers and thus support ~30+ amps over J1772-2009:

'13+ Nissan Leaf SV and SL
'13+ Nissan Leaf S w/charge package
Ford Focus Electric
Honda Fit EV
Honda Accord PHEV
Coda (defunct)
Tesla Model S (w/included free J1772 adapter)
Tesla Roadster (w/expensive J1772 adapter for originals, not sure about the used ones being sold now)
Toyota Rav4 EV
Fiat 500e

 

[FutureFolly]

This has a lot of potential as the basis for residential L3 charging. I think it would really only be practical with the CCS plug too. I'm not sure you could license the plugs or protocols from Tesla or CHAdeMO very easily. Also, with both your costs would go up dramatically because you couldn't use the OBC to speed up charging.

Not true for CHAdeMO. Just pay about $165 for the plans. It's open architecture.

Here's a good overview how it works:

http://www.chademo.com/wp/technology/details/

For Tesla, it uses the same SAE "Frankenplug" logic and PLC communication, with substantially higher power capable connectors at far lighter weight and smaller size. Of course, it uses a common pin for AC and DC power, unlike Frankenpkug.

I actually didn't know they opened the licensing of CHAdeMO up to the public. Thank you for that information.

I was under the impression that the Tesla used the J1772 connector for AC and the proprietary connector for DC. Taking two or three of the OBCs specified for the Model S and using them in parallel would be fairly clever as a marketing tool when customers ask about quality. It might get pricey though. I'm inclined to say price, in general, isn't as important for anything marketed to Tesla owners.

Whether Tesla supports 3rd party hardware developers is another issue.

Since the Americans and Europeans are supporting CCS you should really be thinking about a broader market than just the Spark. The i3 uses the rare 32 amp J1772. People that want the most out of their vehicle will probably spring for the more expensive home charger and the higher quote from the electrician for installation.

The "Americans" aren't using CCS; General Motors is. The largest American EV manufacturer, Tesla, will never use the CCS Combo 1 or Combo 2. Ford has no public plans for any CCS car, nor do they have one. Chrysler is majority owned by Fiat, and their headquarters is moving to Europe. Of course, Fiat, like most of the world's auto manufacturers, does not support CCS, nor do they have or have publically announced any future CCS.

Yes, every German auto manufacture supports CCS. No others in Europe, or anywhere else in the world, have signed up for CCS.

30/32 amp J1772 isn't rare at all; it's the norm.

Everything I've read says that GM, Ford, AND Chrysler are supporting CCS. Things change though. No one takes blood oaths over technology adoption.

For Chrysler the decision may be up in the air because Fiat's Sergio Marchione wants to be dragged to the table on BEVs. He is one of the most pessimistic voices in vehicle electrification I've heard. Until they want to be competitive they aren't going to support either. Considering that the EU seem determined to legislate CHAdeMO out of existence, when they finally are supporting a technology CHAdeMO won't be realistic.

Ford will probably not offer fast charging for a few years, and honestly it's difficult to predict what market factors will be most important. If battery prices drop enough, Ford might get excited about pushing EV technology again. I think the lackluster sales of the C-Max & PHEV disappointed them.

Realistically to Americans the European car makers are the German car makers. No is driving a Dacia around me and the Fiat 500 is insignificant to the car market, even if it's cute.

I meant rare because most EVSEs are rated at 30A, not 32A. BMW was trying to get every bit of charging capacity out of a 40A circuit. It's a minor difference, but I was trying to point out that BMW's method of maximizing charge speed is fairly limited.

When they find out that their car was designed with a DC socket that will eventually be useful at DC-FC stations that might exist near them someday, they will be apathetic. When they find out that their car was designed with a DC socket that can work with a home charger that cuts the charging time in half because it uses the OBC and a garage installed DC charger at the same time, range anxiety will start to melt away.

This has actually already been done with CHAdeMO. A portable charger that you can plug into a NEMA 14-50R, and charge a car through its DC port at 10kW (40 amps continuous @ 250 volts from "the wall").

That's actually really cool. I hadn't heard about that. That's basically exactly what I was thinking in my head. Do you remember the name or price range? I can't find any CHAdeMO chargers online for under $20K.

I wouldn't try to sell a 3.3kW off-board charger for more than $1,500.

Good luck at that price point!!!

Some EVSEs are selling for over a $1,000. I don't think it's unsellable at $1,500. It's a premium price, but it's a premium service too.

 

[cwerdna]

I was under the impression that the Tesla used the J1772 connector for AC and the proprietary connector for DC.

Nope.

See http://www.mychevysparkev.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5012#p5012 for what Tesla puts on their Model S. We have a bunch of Model S that charge at work and they must use a Tesla proprietary connector to J1772 adapter (http://shop.teslamotors.com/collections/model-s-charging-adapters/products/sae-j1772), which comes free w/a Model S. I've plugged their cars in and unplugged them, as have our EV valets. I've also seen Model S cars parked at some free J1772 charging stations near home and found that someone left their adapter there.

US Tesla Superchargers and their North American EVSEs (http://shop.teslamotors.com/products/model-s-mobile-connector-bundle and http://shop.teslamotors.com/products/high-power-wall-connector) have their proprietary connector.

Everything I've read says that GM, Ford, AND Chrysler are supporting CCS. Things change though. No one takes blood oaths over technology adoption.
...
That's actually really cool. I hadn't heard about that. That's basically exactly what I was thinking in my head. Do you remember the name or price range? I can't find any CHAdeMO chargers online for under $20K.

Haha, by "support". We've already talked about it in other threads.

Spark EV is barely more than a CA ZEV compliance car selling in TINY quantities, only very recently (late December 2013? definitely January 2014) available w/J1772 CCS support.

Ford? Also selling in tiny numbers. Still no DC FC capability. Where's their support? What ever happened to the bold claims at http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1050639_2012-ford-focus-electric-will-surpass-volt-on-volume-but-not-leaf?

Ford expects to build more Focus Electrics in 2012 than the "10,000 to 15,000" Volts Chevy has said it will build in 2011. The Ford total won't quite reach the 20,000 Nissan Leafs expected for 2011.

That puts the number of 2012 Ford Focus Electrics around 15,000, a higher total than the 5,000 or so that some analysts had projected.

Here's how many they sold in the US in:
2012: 685
2013: 1,738 (averaging ~145 units/month)
2014 YTD: 229

Chrysler? Chrysler won't even release 500e numbers. And, it has no DC FC capability. Where's their support?

See http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/ for sales figures.

http://nissanqc.com/ is $15.5K. Nissan bragged that they got CHAdeMO DC FCs down to below $10K in price and there was a $9.9K unit at https://web.archive.org/web/20120716030656/http://nissanqc.com/ that mysteriously vanished, w/o explanation. I wonder if one was ever installed anywhere outside Nissan corporate property.

 

[cwerdna]

This has actually already been done with CHAdeMO. A portable charger that you can plug into a NEMA 14-50R, and charge a car through its DC port at 10kW (40 amps continuous @ 250 volts from "the wall").

That's actually really cool. I hadn't heard about that. That's basically exactly what I was thinking in my head. Do you remember the name or price range? I can't find any CHAdeMO chargers online for under $20K.

I think Tony's referring to http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=15444 and http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=13349.

You can hear more about the former via http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW9GEm2iqr4. Click on the eMotorWerks link at the 10 second mark.

 

[Skullbearer]

The CCS allows simultaneous 1 phase, split phase, or 3 phase AND/OR DC charging with the combined J1772 and GreenPHY J1901 based communication for control. I need to dig into the J1901 standard to see how reproducible it is. An ElCon charger for example, combined with the CCS could be used to provide up to 3.3kW via the existing Spark charger plus 3.6 or 7.2kW via the DC ports.

As far as I know, the J1772 connector can do 1-phase (120V to 240V) but not 3-phase. Also, I don't think the protocol allows AC and DC at the same time. There is an option that allows the pins used for AC to support L1 DC charging, but I haven't heard of any plans for cars or chargers to support it. This lower power DC charging might be a reasonable residential option.

If you have > 3kW power available at the EVSE, what benefit would there be in splitting it between AC and DC over just putting it all on the big L2 DC pins?

-Nate

The benefit is that installation and component costs go up with power. The cheapest route to say, 9.9kW charging on your Spark EV, is to add only 6.6kW external. The plug supports both forms of communication on the pilot and both J1772 and GreenPhy communications are independent and non-interfering. In fact the GreenPhy uses the J1772 PWM signal as an 'AC' carrier, as far as I understand from a quick overview. I'll have to dig into it, but communications are one of the easier things to intercept and split if it were necessary... the issue always lies with vehicle fault and contactor controls.

ElCon chargers are exactly the starting point I was thinking of, however they are only reasonably priced in 10+ orders. A prototype/test unit would be pricey, and a high price tag for a Kickstarter to get in sufficient volume. I'm estimating that having a unit which is an integrated EVSE and DC-FC (or should we call it DC-MC 'moderate charge', or DC-RFC 'reasonably fast charge'?) might run along these price tags:

7.2kW AC + 3.3kW DC ~ $2,500
7.2kW AC + 6.6kW DC ~ $3,500
(Probably less for a Kickstarter, would sell them at or very near cost, including labor and no NRE)

For the spark, the most it will use is 3.3kW from the AC side. Only 240V for most vehicles will provide 7.2kW, however the EVSE could be easily adapted to pass a 32A allow on the AC side for i3s and fleet vehicles running 32A chargers.

I definitely won't limit the system to the Spark EV, the market is too small. Initially I'd target Spark EV and i3 owners, with an optional Chademo DC-FC option at 9.9kW maybe. Alternately some vehicles may support both J1772 and Chademo simultaneously, but that would depend on the vehicle OEM and would need to be tested by owners. Given that DC-FC is generally 30kW+ right now, its not likely any effort was made by OEMs to support simultaneous J1772 and Chademo or Tesla charging. To make it clear for hopefuls, this would be very difficult to do as a hack in kit, so I have no intention of adding that feature to anyone's Tesla or Leaf!

 

[NateCrawford]

The benefit is that installation and component costs go up with power. The cheapest route to say, 9.9kW charging on your Spark EV, is to add only 6.6kW external. The plug supports both forms of communication on the pilot and both J1772 and GreenPhy communications are independent and non-interfering. In fact the GreenPhy uses the J1772 PWM signal as an 'AC' carrier, as far as I understand from a quick overview. I'll have to dig into it, but communications are one of the easier things to intercept and split if it were necessary... the issue always lies with vehicle fault and contactor controls.

OK, I see what you are trying to do. At smaller sizes, the 3.3 kW difference in rectifier capacity could be a significant cost. Although at some point, like going from 10 to 13 kW, it might not be worth the extra hassle.

One potential block for using both AC and DC simultaneously is incompatible duty cycle levels on the pilot. The AC capacity is advertised via the duty cycle from 10% to 90+%, but the DC capability is signaled with the duty cycle at 5%. Once you dig through the specs (I haven't), you might see that combined AC+DC was intentionally forbidden.

-Nate

 

[FutureFolly]

The CCS allows simultaneous 1 phase, split phase, or 3 phase AND/OR DC charging with the combined J1772 and GreenPHY J1901 based communication for control. I need to dig into the J1901 standard to see how reproducible it is. An ElCon charger for example, combined with the CCS could be used to provide up to 3.3kW via the existing Spark charger plus 3.6 or 7.2kW via the DC ports.

As far as I know, the J1772 connector can do 1-phase (120V to 240V) but not 3-phase. Also, I don't think the protocol allows AC and DC at the same time. There is an option that allows the pins used for AC to support L1 DC charging, but I haven't heard of any plans for cars or chargers to support it. This lower power DC charging might be a reasonable residential option.

If you have > 3kW power available at the EVSE, what benefit would there be in splitting it between AC and DC over just putting it all on the big L2 DC pins?

-Nate

I was wrong actually. In the US, the J1772 "Type 1" connector only supports single-phase and split-phase AC charging. The "Type 2" connector supports single phase and 3-phase power. The OBC might actually support 3-phase by chance, but you won't find the rest of the equipment you would need.

 

[Skullbearer]

The benefit is that installation and component costs go up with power. The cheapest route to say, 9.9kW charging on your Spark EV, is to add only 6.6kW external. The plug supports both forms of communication on the pilot and both J1772 and GreenPhy communications are independent and non-interfering. In fact the GreenPhy uses the J1772 PWM signal as an 'AC' carrier, as far as I understand from a quick overview. I'll have to dig into it, but communications are one of the easier things to intercept and split if it were necessary... the issue always lies with vehicle fault and contactor controls.

OK, I see what you are trying to do. At smaller sizes, the 3.3 kW difference in rectifier capacity could be a significant cost. Although at some point, like going from 10 to 13 kW, it might not be worth the extra hassle.

One potential block for using both AC and DC simultaneously is incompatible duty cycle levels on the pilot. The AC capacity is advertised via the duty cycle from 10% to 90+%, but the DC capability is signaled with the duty cycle at 5%. Once you dig through the specs (I haven't), you might see that combined AC+DC was intentionally forbidden.

-Nate

Entirely possible, though it would be a tragic error on SAE's part to compete against existing standards with the only advantage being one vs. two plugs on the vehicle.

One of their published intents is to allow bidirectional interfaces via the DC bus, so that car OEMs don't need to add the costly bidirectional feature to the OBC, which is not part of the J1772 protocol. Ergo I feel they would necessarily need the GreenPHY communication always present, at least when DC proximity is detected.

We'll see, the SAE standard is only $50, I'll probably just purchase a copy.

 

[NateCrawford]

The benefit is that installation and component costs go up with power. The cheapest route to say, 9.9kW charging on your Spark EV, is to add only 6.6kW external. The plug supports both forms of communication on the pilot and both J1772 and GreenPhy communications are independent and non-interfering. In fact the GreenPhy uses the J1772 PWM signal as an 'AC' carrier, as far as I understand from a quick overview. I'll have to dig into it, but communications are one of the easier things to intercept and split if it were necessary... the issue always lies with vehicle fault and contactor controls.

OK, I see what you are trying to do. At smaller sizes, the 3.3 kW difference in rectifier capacity could be a significant cost. Although at some point, like going from 10 to 13 kW, it might not be worth the extra hassle.

One potential block for using both AC and DC simultaneously is incompatible duty cycle levels on the pilot. The AC capacity is advertised via the duty cycle from 10% to 90+%, but the DC capability is signaled with the duty cycle at 5%. Once you dig through the specs (I haven't), you might see that combined AC+DC was intentionally forbidden.

-Nate

Entirely possible, though it would be a tragic error on SAE's part to compete against existing standards with the only advantage being one vs. two plugs on the vehicle.

One of their published intents is to allow bidirectional interfaces via the DC bus, so that car OEMs don't need to add the costly bidirectional feature to the OBC, which is not part of the J1772 protocol. Ergo I feel they would necessarily need the GreenPHY communication always present, at least when DC proximity is detected.

We'll see, the SAE standard is only $50, I'll probably just purchase a copy.

I've dug around a bit, and it looks like combined AC/DC is at least assigned a type in the v2gtp. Here is a snip from the OpenV2G code (from http://sourceforge.net/p/openv2g/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/src/service/v2g_dataTypes.h#l92)

enum EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType
{
	AC_single_phase_core_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=0, 
	AC_three_phase_core_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=1, 
	DC_core_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=2, 
	DC_extended_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=3, 
	DC_combo_core_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=4, 
	DC_dual_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=5, 
	AC_core1p_DC_extended_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=6, 
	AC_single_DC_core_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=7, 
	AC_single_phase_three_phase_core_DC_extended_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=8, 
	AC_core3p_DC_extended_EVSESupportedEnergyTransferType=9

};

So you would want your EVSE to offer type 6. But I am probably misunderstanding how this is used, as the file also has:

enum EVRequestedEnergyTransferType
{
	AC_single_phase_core_EVRequestedEnergyTransferType=0, 
	AC_three_phase_core_EVRequestedEnergyTransferType=1, 
	DC_core_EVRequestedEnergyTransferType=2, 
	DC_extended_EVRequestedEnergyTransferType=3, 
	DC_combo_core_EVRequestedEnergyTransferType=4, 
	DC_unique_EVRequestedEnergyTransferType=5

};

where there is no corresponding type defined on the vehicle side.

The published standards should explain

 

[TonyWilliams]

Entirely possible, though it would be a tragic error on SAE's part to compete against existing standards with the only advantage being one vs. two plugs on the vehicle.

One of their published intents is to allow bidirectional interfaces via the DC bus, so that car OEMs don't need to add the costly bidirectional feature to the OBC, which is not part of the J1772 protocol. Ergo I feel they would necessarily need the GreenPHY communication always present, at least when DC proximity is detected.

We'll see, the SAE standard is only $50, I'll probably just purchase a copy.

CHAdeMO does bidirectional (ver 1.0) without proprietary GreenPHY PLC communication.

 

[Skullbearer]

Entirely possible, though it would be a tragic error on SAE's part to compete against existing standards with the only advantage being one vs. two plugs on the vehicle.

One of their published intents is to allow bidirectional interfaces via the DC bus, so that car OEMs don't need to add the costly bidirectional feature to the OBC, which is not part of the J1772 protocol. Ergo I feel they would necessarily need the GreenPHY communication always present, at least when DC proximity is detected.

We'll see, the SAE standard is only $50, I'll probably just purchase a copy.

CHAdeMO does bidirectional (ver 1.0) without proprietary GreenPHY PLC communication.

This is good, that just means it can be more effectively integrated into an adapter cable for CHAdeMO to SAE J1772 CCS. GreenPHY looks like it will become the standard for V2G in the U.S., but that could just be hype by SAE and GreenPHY at this time. So CHAdeMO not needing it is not an advantage if you are trying to grid integrate... but it does mean that you can still use your vehicle as a load balancer and storage device for your home 'micro-grid' without having to mess with GreenPHY.

BTW, I found out that the GreenPHY communication standard can be licensed for $199. If the part of it that's used is defined by SAE though, still cheapest to go via the SAE standard.

 

[user 527]

Any further developments on this? I just plugged in to recharge my [new] Spark EV and it's calling for 22+ hours for full charge. :shock:

 

[cwerdna]

Any further developments on this? I just plugged in to recharge my [new] Spark EV and it's calling for 22+ hours for full charge. :shock:

Well, yeah, you're charging at L1 (120 volts), possibly only 8 amps, which can be turned up.

Having a 6.6 kW on-board charger will not help w/120 volt charging. For starters, to charge faster, you need to plug into a 208/240 volt EVSE, but one over 16 amps won't speed up L2 charging any further due to the Spark EV's 3.3 kW OBC being the bottleneck.

 

[user 527]

I know all that, of course, and am only using L1 until the L2 is installed.

But (and it's a big butt), I had expected 15-16 hours charging time for L1, not 22+...that's a surprise.

Get this (and yes, I had a good laugh when I read it), I received a welcome email from
Robert, GM Electric Vehicle Team,
EV Line: 866-754-8100,
Email: [email protected],
Subject: From Your Chevrolet Spark EV Advisor

stating among other things, that...

Your spark comes with a 120V charge cord which will charge your vehicle in approximately 10 hours. You can reduce this charging time to 8 hours by using a 240V charging station.

Gives new meaning to the word "approximately."

 

[cwerdna]

I know all that, of course, and am only using L1 until the L2 is installed.

But (and it's a big butt), I had expected 15-16 hours charging time for L1, not 22+...that's a surprise.
...
stating among other things, that...

Your spark comes with a 120V charge cord which will charge your vehicle in approximately 10 hours. You can reduce this charging time to 8 hours by using a 240V charging station.

Gives new meaning to the word "approximately."

Did you turn up the charging rate to 12 amps from the default of 8 amps (assuming it's safe to do so on that outlet and circuit)?

Obviously his info is way wrong. Even at 12 amps, 120 volts, only 1.44 kW makes it out of the wall and not all of that makes it into the battery. After 10 hours, assuming 80% charging efficiency, only 11.52 kWh would've made it into the battery, which is below the Spark EV's usable battery capacity.

 

[user 527]

Did you turn up the charging rate to 12 amps from the default of 8 amps (assuming it's safe to do so on that outlet and circuit)?

Obviously his info is way wrong. Even at 12 amps, 120 volts, only 1.44 kW makes it out of the wall and not all of that makes it into the battery. After 10 hours, assuming 80% charging efficiency, only 11.52 kWh would've made it into the battery, which is below the Spark EV's usable battery capacity.

Well thanks for that. I've always been the sort to learn through use, but in this case, I think I should spend a day this next weekend reading the damn manual!! (thanks again—you helped me shave off 7 hours from the charging time)

 

[cwerdna]

^^^
Apparently, awhile ago GM started defaulting to 8 amps when charging at 120 volts, presumably for safety/liability reasons, figuring that an 8 amp continuous load is more likely to be safe than a 12 amp one.

I believe early Volts had an 120 L1 EVSE that had a button that let you switch between 8 and 12 amps. But then, I hear they did away with that and defaulted you to 8 amps @ 120 volts every single time, requiring you to drill down thru menus to change it.

Many (most?) other EVs/PHEVs don't give you that choice @ 120 volts. Nissan (I have a '13 Leaf) has always been 12 amps and no option to turn it up/down, other than to replace w/a different max amperage/wattage EVSE. I hear the Model S lets you turn it up/down via their touchscreen.

I've heard of stories of melted plugs on the L1 EVSEs of pre-'13 Leafs and even an outlet fire w/a PiP driver: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=10887. That PiP is done in 3 hours at 120 volts but his wiring wasn't up to snuff for even that! (http://priuschat.com/threads/need-advice-outlet-caught-fire.118751/page-2#post-1696803 is now the correct link for the findings, due to a Priuschat software change.)

 

[ezryder]

Any further developments on this? I just plugged in to recharge my [new] Spark EV and it's calling for 22+ hours for full charge. :shock:

Where did you get this app? My OnStar app looks nothing like this - and I'm also on Verizon. Is this an iPhone? I'm on Android. Jellybean.