Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

GM had TWO auto factories in India.

Now they sold 1 and have 1 for export only.

They were not paying a Whopping tariff on very many of their cars sold in India.

With a 24% or 100% tariff it's challenging to sell anything other than vehicles they make there. Can't even try to establish a brand as near-premium off the back of a luxury brand when the luxury tariff is so high. With the barriers to imports, they don't have time to turn that market around.

This is all relevant to the Bolt since tariffs have the largest impact on low-volume products.

100% tariff is for luxury cars only.

Defined as anything above _$40k_, which is pretty much everything that Jaguar/Landrover sells, including the iPace.

If the iPace started at $120k in the USA it'd be a laughing stock.

I don't mind protectionism as long as the country isn't an exporter, including by acquisition.
I don't mind favoritism as long as it's consistent, open, positive and mutual.
I don't mind free trade, as long as it's _really_ free.

 

[Jeff N]

The cells in the Chevy Bolt EV are not the same size as the ones you found listed on Alibaba.

Yes, I think they are. The 300 mm length in one of the cell specifications in the article doesn’t count the power tabs extending out of the sides whereas GM’s 338 mm counts that. The other specification in the article says 330 mm. That’s a difference of 8 mm out 338 mm and the tabs have an extra extension piece welded to them where they connect into a module. I think that can account for part of the difference. The other distance is also variously described as 110 mm or 100 mm sometimes. Everything else about the cell specs and appearance seems compelling to me. These online guys are traders, not original oem battery experts.

Here is a description of the Bolt EV battery by Gregory Smith, Bolt EV battery pack engineering group manager.
"With this cell design and chemistry we were able to deliver a battery system with 160 kilowatts of peak power and 60 kilowatts hours of energy .... The cells are arranged in a “landscape” format and each measures in at only 3.9 ins. (100 mms) high and 13.1 ins. (338 mms) wide..."

Also.... I suspect rounding or conversion errors in the values stated by GM. 338 mm actually converts to 13.3 inches, not 13.1 (13.1 converts to 332.7 mm).

Here’s a picture I didn’t publish that was taken by the reporter of an Engadget article showing a GM employee holding a Bolt EV cell versus some pictures I grabbed from some of the e-commerce sites selling “Bolt EV cells”.

Engadget/GM:

Domestic Chinese Alibaba site:

Another Chinese e-commerce site:

Length measurements depicted in yet another Chinese e-commerce listing photo:

Of course, it’s not certain that these e-commerce cell specifications are truthful and honest, that they actually deliver the cells depicted on the offer pages, or that the cells aren’t somehow counterfeit. But, given the multiple sellers, limited volume available, and positive feedback reputation needed by apparent long-term sellers on EBay-like marketplaces, I think on balance that these are intended to be legitimate specs and LG cells.

 

[techmaven]

FYI, I just posted a deep-dive article comparing the I-PACE and Bolt EV battery packs on my new EV news blog.

Jaguar and Chevy have LG in common

Nice article.

I do want to note that the Model 3 battery pack has a slew of additional components on it. It isn't just cooling structure and pack structure:

Tesla Model 3: Exclusive first look at Tesla’s new battery pack architecture

All of this stuff is part of the pack:

1. Charge port connector 2. Fast charge contactor assembly 3. Coolant line to PCS 4. PCS – Power Conversion System 5. HVC – High Voltage Controller 6. Low voltage connector to HVC from the vehicle 7. 12V output from PCS 8. Positive HV power switch 9. Coolant line to PCS 10. HV connector to cabin heater and compressor 11. Cabin heater, compressor and PCS DC output fuse 12. HV connector to rear drive unit 13. HV pyro fuse 15. HV connector to front drive unit 16.Negative HV power switch 17. Connector for 3 phase AC charging

As a result, equivalent pack level specific energy is difficult to ascertain from the EPA documentation.

 

[RobStark]

With a 24% or 100% tariff it's challenging to sell anything other than vehicles they make there. Can't even try to establish a brand as near-premium off the back of a luxury brand when the luxury tariff is so high. With the barriers to imports, they don't have time to turn that market around.

This is all relevant to the Bolt since tariffs have the largest impact on low-volume products.


Defined as anything above _$40k_, which is pretty much everything that Jaguar/Landrover sells, including the iPace.

If the iPace started at $120k in the USA it'd be a laughing stock.

I don't mind protectionism as long as the country isn't an exporter, including by acquisition.
I don't mind favoritism as long as it's consistent, open, positive and mutual.
I don't mind free trade, as long as it's _really_ free.

Below $40k includes Bolt and most of Chevy lineup.

GM India started in 1995.

Couldn't make it a go in 22 years.

China had higher barriers and GM did just fine in China.

 

[Jeff N]

I do want to note that the Model 3 battery pack has a slew of additional components on it. It isn't just cooling structure and pack structure:

Good point. I forgot that the 12V DC to DC conversion electronics was moved into the battery pack on the Model 3. It’s just a fraction of the overall weight of the pack but I probably should have mentioned it as an example of possible differences in pack weight beyond just holding and thermally managing the cells.

 

[miimura]

Good point. I forgot that the 12V DC to DC conversion electronics was moved into the battery pack on the Model 3. It’s just a fraction of the overall weight of the pack but I probably should have mentioned it as an example of possible differences in pack weight beyond just holding and thermally managing the cells.

I believe the on-board charger is in there too.

 

[scaesare]

I believe the on-board charger is in there too.

Correct. And those suckers are heavy. HJB equivalent is in there also. Some control electronics and additional fusing.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's 100 lbs of stuff there.

 

[miimura]

Correct. And those suckers are heavy. HJB equivalent is in there also. Some control electronics and additional fusing.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's 100 lbs of stuff there.

They definitely replaced more than 100 lbs of Model S components with the integrated Model 3 pack, but it remains to be seen what the actual non-battery, non-enclosure portion of the Model 3 pack weighs. I'm sure this is one of the areas that is being studied closely by the teardown people that got their hands on Model 3's.

 

[vgrinshpun]

The pack energy density of 150 Wh/kg is indeed used in the Tesla application for the Model 3 EPA Certificate of conformity (link at the bottom), but it is derivative number and is not consistent with the primary battery pack data. From the same document, page 14 of 15, Model 3 LR battery weighs 480kg. Based on the EPA Certification Summary report (also linked below), End of SOC is 78.72kWh. So the usable energy density is 78720 / 480=164 Wh/kg, not 150 Wh/kg listed by Tesla.

It is known, however, that the Model 3 battery pack included additional equipment which was not part of the Model S battery pack (as noted above). So assuming roughly 50kg for this additional equipment will yield 78720/430=183 Wh/kg, which is about 14.4% improvement over the pack level density of 100kWh Model S battery. So the 150 Wh/kg energy density for Model 3 pack used in the article is not accurate. The actual energy density is around 183 Wh/kg.

Bolt has listed its energy density in EPA documents as 140 Wh/kg, which is consistent with their battery data: battery pack weighs 436kg, which at 140 Wh/kg yields total battery capacity of 61 kWh.

Model 3 therefore has approximately 31% higher energy density than the Bolt.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=40001&flag=1

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=39792&flag=1

 

[Jeff N]

I believe the on-board charger is in there too.

I think you are probably correct.

They definitely replaced more than 100 lbs of Model S components with the integrated Model 3 pack, but it remains to be seen what the actual non-battery, non-enclosure portion of the Model 3 pack weighs.

Right, but typically newer generations of this kind of equipment becomes lighter and smaller with the use of newer components.

It is known, however, that the Model 3 battery pack included additional equipment which was not part of the Model S battery pack (as noted above). So assuming roughly 50kg for this additional equipment will yield 78720/430=183 Wh/kg

I think these calculations are usually done with nominal kWh rather than usable which makes the number slightly higher — maybe 187 Wh per kg. But, we don’t actually know how much this equipment weighs and some other packs also include equipment that isn’t strictly part of energy storage such as battery heaters although these are relatively small.

I agree with the general point, however. I will update the story to mention the additional integrated equipment. I got so caught up in researching the other aspects of the article that I forgot about this aspect of the Model 3 pack.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I think these calculations are usually done with nominal kWh rather than usable which makes the number slightly higher — maybe 187 Wh per kg. But, we don’t actually know how much this equipment weighs and some other packs also include equipment that isn’t strictly part of energy storage such as battery heaters although these are relatively small.

I agree with the general point, however. I will update the story to mention the additional integrated equipment. I got so caught up in researching the other aspects of the article that I forgot about this aspect of the Model 3 pack.

The equipment I referred to is additive to the equipment used in Tesla 100D battery. I contacted some sellers on eBay and was told that the charger alone weighs around 20kg. I believe that 50kg estimate I came up with is conservative. The bottom line is that it is certain that Model 3 battery pack level energy density is much higher than the Bolt's

 

[diamond.g]

Is the Bolt battery pack limited to 160kW output? (Deep Dive: Chevrolet Bolt Battery Pack, Motor And More) Seems like they should be able to draw more power, or is the Model 3's purported 1200A pack limit really optimistic?

 

[bro1999]

Is the Bolt battery pack limited to 160kW output? (Deep Dive: Chevrolet Bolt Battery Pack, Motor And More) Seems like they should be able to draw more power, or is the Model 3's purported 1200A pack limit really optimistic?

Knowing GM and its tendencies to err on the side of caution, the pack can probably handle more than 160 kW out. But the Bolt itself definitely limits output of the pack to a peak of 160 kW (that's the max I've seen on the energy display).

 

[Jeff N]

Is the Bolt battery pack limited to 160kW output? (Deep Dive: Chevrolet Bolt Battery Pack, Motor And More) Seems like they should be able to draw more power, or is the Model 3's purported 1200A pack limit really optimistic?

The Bolt doesn’t draw more than 160 kW perhaps because of limitations in the inverter (or motor) driven by cost targets.

It’s quite possible/likely that the cells could put out more than 160 kW peak during a short acceleration. That’s an implicit topic in my article on the I-PACE vs Bolt battery tech over on electricrevs.com. At the pack level, I think there is a fuse design in that prevents output over 450A which would be near 180 kW at 400V on a full pack (but that’s from memory and I would have to go digging to find the original source).

 

[mtndrew1]

The Bolt doesn’t draw more than 160 kW perhaps because of limitations in the inverter (or motor) driven by cost targets.

It’s quite possible/likely that the cells could put out more than 160 kW peak during a short acceleration. That’s an implicit topic in my article on the I-PACE vs Bolt battery tech over on electricrevs.com. At the pack level, I think there is a fuse design in that prevents output over 450A which would be near 180 kW at 400V on a full pack (but that’s from memory and I would have to go digging to find the original source).

I don’t know what the Bolt could do with more than 160 kW on tap. It’s already a little rocket ship with substantial torque steer; I don’t think there’s any desire or advantage to go over the current power cap in a FWD hatch.

 

[vgrinshpun]

Note that according to EPA data Bolt motor rating of 150kW is, unlike Tesla’s motors, a peak 10 second rating, i.e. can be sustained at this level for only 10 seconds.

All Tesla motors, on another hand, are rated as “max net power” according to ECE R85 standard, which means that power level specified by Tesla can be sustained for 30 minutes. This is very significant difference. I am amazed that GM is getting away with advertising their Bolt at 150 kW when this power level can't be sustained for more than 10 seconds.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=38567&flag=1

 

[Saghost]

Note that according to EPA data Bolt motor rating of 150kW is, unlike Tesla’s motors, a peak 10 second rating, i.e. can be sustained at this level for only 10 seconds.

All Tesla motors, on another hand, are rated as “max net power” according to ECE R85 standard, which means that power level specified by Tesla can be sustained for 30 minutes. This is very significant difference. I am amazed that GM is getting away with advertising their Bolt at 150 kW when this power level can't be sustained for more than 10 seconds.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=38567&flag=1


View attachment 285973

I think you're carrying the data too far. Just because it's a ten second rating, doesn't mean it can't be sustained for more than 10 seconds - it only means that it can be sustained for at least ten seconds. Without further data, I don't know how much longer it can be sustained.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much effect a 10 second limitation would have in real driving anyway. On the track it might be an issue, but in real world traffic it's rare to have a chance to be WOT for even ten seconds these days in my experience.

 

[McRat]

Note that according to EPA data Bolt motor rating of 150kW is, unlike Tesla’s motors, a peak 10 second rating, i.e. can be sustained at this level for only 10 seconds.

All Tesla motors, on another hand, are rated as “max net power” according to ECE R85 standard, which means that power level specified by Tesla can be sustained for 30 minutes. This is very significant difference. I am amazed that GM is getting away with advertising their Bolt at 150 kW when this power level can't be sustained for more than 10 seconds.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=38567&flag=1


View attachment 285973

You realize a Bolt runs ~15.0 @ 94 mph in the 1/4 mile at WOT full 150kW output correct?

Perhaps the clock in the Bolt is busted?

I think this clock is busted also:

This Video Reminds Us That the Tesla Model S Is an Awful Track Car

Understand roadracing is NOT WOT 100% duty cycle like drag racing is. It's anywhere from 100%-0%-100% at each corner.

 

[bro1999]

Note that according to EPA data Bolt motor rating of 150kW is, unlike Tesla’s motors, a peak 10 second rating, i.e. can be sustained at this level for only 10 seconds.

All Tesla motors, on another hand, are rated as “max net power” according to ECE R85 standard, which means that power level specified by Tesla can be sustained for 30 minutes. This is very significant difference. I am amazed that GM is getting away with advertising their Bolt at 150 kW when this power level can't be sustained for more than 10 seconds.

https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=38567&flag=1


View attachment 285973

In the REFUEL events at Laguna Seca last year, the Bolt that broke the production record didn't become thermally limited until the 3rd lap or so. The Tesla owner that was chasing the Bolt said his S got thermally limited in half a lap. Doesn't sound like a Tesla could hold WOT at its max output rating for 30 minutes at all. If you think about it, that's an insane amount of time to be running WOT anyways.

 

[Jeff N]

All Tesla motors, on another hand, are rated as “max net power” according to ECE R85 standard, which means that power level specified by Tesla can be sustained for 30 minutes. This is very significant difference. I am amazed that GM is getting away with advertising their Bolt at 150 kW when this power level can't be sustained for more than 10 seconds.

As others have mentioned, the Model S is well-known for entering reduced power mode on race tracks.

Last year, at the 2017 REFUEL EV race at the Laguna Seca track a Bolt EV got a better lap time than any Tesla had in the 2016 race. It did so by not entering a reduced power mode during the single race lap. It did enter a reduced power mode while running several trial laps back to back earlier in the day.

Some Model S entries got better times than the Bolt EV in the 2017 race itself. The winning Model S actually got the lowest lap time in spite of going into reduced power mode during its single official lap.

A single lap at Laguna Seca is 2.2 miles.

See:
2017 REFUEL EV Race Sees New Track Records - HybridCars.com