-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I knew the Bolt was a POS for $37,500 but did not expect discounting til the 2nd half of 2017.
4% off in its first full month on sale? Well, in CA and OR.
And despite being first to market there is at least a 50% chance Tesla delivers more Model 3s than GM sells Bolts in the USA for 2017.
hacer
Active Member
Since designing motor controls has been a part of my job for years, I'm certain that I have manually spun many more different PM motors than you have. Perhaps you were playing with a cheap two pole motor or stepper motor which often are designed explicitly to have high cogging torque so that they can resist small torques while unpowered. Most permanent magnet motors are designed with multiple poles (and other techniques) for minimal cogging torque. The vast majority of all permanent magnet motors are brushed DC motors that usually have small cogging torque except for cheap ones that have few poles (and therefore less efficiency). Brushless PM motors are also usually designed for minimal cogging torque in order to reduce torque ripple. In the absence of cogging torque only the bearing torque and friction in the brushes (for brushed motors) provides static torque. As speed goes up from zero there is a tiny bit more resistance due to Eddy current losses and air friction. This of course is for an open circuit motor. If you short the motor it still provides no static torque but will resist strongly as speed goes up. Applying DC power to multiphase PM motors results in strong static holding torques.
Regarding the bolt, I highly doubt they would continuously apply power to hold it in a parked position. Besides a latch, pawl, or brake to hold it still they could conceivably rely on a high gear ratio from the wheels to motor to amplify the cogging torque and gear friction to hold it still but I seriously doubt they would be willing to rely on that for a vehicle.
I drove a borrowed Signature P85 for a week-long road trip to and around Las Vegas for CES earlier this month. I think I have a pretty good feel for what a Tesla Model S is like (sans AutoPilot). Very nice.
I bought a new Bolt EV 2 days ago. In my opinion it is an awesome car for the MSRP today. No doubt other new cars such as the Model 3 will be awesome in the future.
If GM immediately distributed the Bolt to all 50 states during the initial inventory ramp up period there certainly would be no discounting today and instead there would be heavy dealer markups for many months. Somehow I doubt that you would see those big markups and thus declare the Bolt to be a huge success.
The Model X in many ways was a disaster... and it affected Tesla tremendously. Tesla didn't need the Model X in many ways as it turns out. Even Andrea James asked Elon Musk why he was even building it. And it turned out ok now, a year later. But the Model 3 is a very different situation, as it has to work in a certain way for Tesla to succeed. Literally the company has been bet on the Model 3, while it was not bet on the Model X.
With GM, they are not betting the company on the Bolt. And its clearly a major advantage that GM doesn't need to do that, a luxury that Tesla doesn't have and therefore the planning is completely different. GM, being one the biggest automakers on the planet, has the resources, experience, and the cost efficiencies to do so much more. It would make sense that they can lead the electrification effort with the highest R&D investments, the highest production rates, and the best technologies as well as the most investment in the charging infrastructure. Did GM use all their inherent advantages and lead the electrification effort? No. Clearly not.
Tesla is a small, piss-ant little company in comparison with very meager resources and experience. It bet its life on the Model S, no so much on the Model X, and then bet its life again on the Model 3, and then doubled down and ramped the Model 3 production preparations even higher. Tesla cannot release a vehicle that can't make reasonable use its Supercharger infrastructure. GM can release a vehicle that is 1 year shy of a decent DC charging standard, skimp on AC charging, skimp on long distance cadence, and skimp on price competitiveness with in-segment ICE competition. Tesla cannot have the battery crippling issues of the Leaf or the Kia Soul EV. It would be the death of the company. We have yet to see how the Bolt's battery pack holds up as we have yet to see a 200+ Wh/kg specific energy NMC chemistry hold up well. The only one that is out with any data is the Kia Soul EV and thus far, it looks as bad as the original Leaf's packs. Tesla cannot sell a car at the volumes they expect for the Model 3 that really isn't designed for a complete replacement of ICE vehicles... Tesla doesn't sell any ICE vehicles and is out there to prove that BEVs can do it all. GM, not so much, as they can point you to an ICE vehicle or a hybrid, or a small pack PHEV, or a big pack PHEV, or the Bolt. Again, that's an advantage the GM possesses that Tesla doesn't. But from the perspective of leading the electrification effort, that also means that GM hasn't been leading.
So while GM can afford to ship the Bolt in its current state, Tesla really cannot. Certainly, Tesla cannot plan on shipping a Model 3 effort as poor as GM's effort with the Bolt. And it's not just the car design itself. If Tesla doesn't make enough Model 3's, they can't get the cost low enough. They have no pickup trucks or SUVs to help fund itself otherwise. So GM can order up only a production run of 30k or so Bolts and bear the platform development cost across a small volume. They can avoid ordering up 35 GWh of cells, either by placing that order with LG, going into a JV, or just outright building its own battery plants. It can build a few Bolts intermixed with Cruzes, leveraging an existing volume production facility and can cost account for a much higher dollar value for each ZEV credit. Further, in order to get their costs down by shipping so many vehicles, they have to then plan on making that many vehicles and selling that many vehicles. GM can avoid investing in electrification infrastructure, both destination AC charging and high speed DC charging. If it is terrible, they can wait for others to fix it. If they sell a few less Bolts, then ok, they can sell Volts instead. Its one thing to go after volumes that are roughly in line with existing EV sales or even double. But to go after 10x? That's completely different. The logistical planning and the vehicle design itself has to be something that can be built and sold in the 100,000's to a 1,000,000. And the 2017 Bolt isn't that. And luckily for GM, it doesn't have to be, and disappointingly, because it didn't have to be, it isn't.
Fair point, but then why did GM discount their Bolts instead of distributing to all the other states first? Or maybe they will once enough feedback has returned to show that they need to do a better job of advertising the Bolt?
brucet999
Active Member
My local Chevrolet dealer can't keep Bolts on the lot. As soon as one comes in it gets sold and they have only one demo car for test drives.
I wonder if base trim models are being discounted by some dealers because buyers want the Premier trim versions instead?
GM isn't discounting the Bolt, selective individual high-volume dealers are. It's a business strategy for them. The large majority of dealers in OR and CA are still selling at MSRP as far as I can tell.
There is a month-by-month national distribution plan marked out for the next 6 months based on initial estimates. That plan is presumably coordinated with other plans such as service technician training, sales training, dealer service shop tool upgrades, etc. They won't want to mess with the plan as long as its roughly working.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
So ... bottom line you are stating that GM can get away with building less competent vehicles and Tesla cannot
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
You may believe in Chevrolet's engineering talent, but what about LG's? Because, that's what you're betting on for the whole drivetrain - LG motor, LG inverter, LG battery, and all LG electronics.
Ever own any LG appliances? I have. No thanks.
It'll be interesting to compare the Made in the USA content of the Bolt to the Model 3.
We shall see about LG drive and powertrain.
But comparing such to LG's appliances would be like judging a Tesla's powertrain by the quality of Tesla-made seating. Irrelevant and inaccurate.
I keep hearing about some issues with batteries in Kia Soul EV but haven't yet found a single article describing it.
Do you have one at hand, please? Or a forum posts or whatever.
I bet if the Model X had never happened, Tesla would have been right on the heels of GM with the Model 3....maybe they could have even released it first. But the X did happen, and the rest is history.
Krugerrand
Meow
LG has an excellent record of making automotive battery cells during the last 6 years. As far as I know, they also have a very good record of making LCD display screens and related electronics.
The Bolt's drivetrain (motor, gearing, differential) was engineered by GM although it is being manufactured by LG. GM has a very good record on transmissions and related drivetrain components. My guess is that GM was deeply involved in engineering the motor inverter as well but I'm less sure about that.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Some people on the Kia Soul forums are reporting 10% deterioration, one thread
Battery Ageing Model - Page 18 - Kia Soul EV Forum
Does the Soul EV have liquid cooling? Sounds like it doesn't if its HV battery can wilt just like a Leaf.
I think you are underestimating the Halo effect of the Tesla brand and the strength of the promise that is Model 3. Tesla could certainly ship a Model 3 that doesn't meet all the talking points and still have a smash success. Most notably, if it turns out that the first 100 000 Model 3s that Tesla sells are actually 50k cars after incentives, they will still sell them as hotcakes. Or alternatively if it turns out that those first 100k cars are sold at a loss due to a slower ramp, they will have no problem finding bridge capital to finance that shortfall. The Tesla promise for the $30k Model 3 and the history of Tesla eventually delivering is strong enough that it won't be the stumbling block at all that you paint it.
No, but it does have quasi-active cooling. It pumps cabin air into the battery compartment. So if you get AC or heat, then the batteries get them too. Does NOTHING for when the car's parked overnight or in the hot sun though.
So basically more or less the same TMS setup as the Ford Energi products (air cooling via cabin air).
As we've seen reports of Energis degrading 40%+ in less than 3 years, seems obvious that liquid cooling is the only way to go at the moment. Some manufacturers seem to go the cheap route though, and just leave customers hanging with degraded batteries and hide behind nebulous warranty language to dodge replacements, like Ford.
Similar threads
