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

[wdolson]

I agree that the smaller size of the non-Tesla EVs requires the necessary equipment to take up a larger percentage of the space in the car. Tesla does a good job of hiding this from the consumer making the car look futuristic and clean. The ICE makers are still in ICE car mindset and believe you should see a jumble of stuff when you open the hood.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's a small car and the stuff has to go somewhere. The i3 motor is in the rear. The Bolt EV motor is in the front.

Right, but the decision to put the motor in the front versus the rear is another example of having the "ICE mindset" or suggests platform sharing (allowing them to keep a similar FWD architecture to their ICE lineup and share suspension components). Not really a clean slate design. Also while the i3 is RWD, the drive inverter is below the wheel footprint, while for the Bolt it is above (just like the Leaf's).

 

[Saghost]

Right, but the decision to put the motor in the front versus the rear is another example of having the "ICE mindset" or suggests platform sharing (allowing them to keep a similar FWD architecture to their ICE lineup and share suspension components). Not really a clean slate design. Also while the i3 is RWD, the drive inverter is below the wheel footprint, while for the Bolt it is above (just like the Leaf's).

I've read that a key part of good performance in the small offset front impact testing is to have something very rigid near the front of the car to transfer load across into the full crumple zone, and that many FWD/transverse engine cars hook the engine block into the crash structure for that reason.

GM may have decided to take the same approach with the Bolt - either because it's the method they know works or because they are borrowing structures from other established designs.

(Who does true clean sheet design when they have parts that mostly do what they need? No one I know - including some big Aerospace folks. The Volt drivetrain is built on GM's past history, and the Bolt builds on that and the Spark EV. The Leaf was closer to clean sheet than most anything else - but still borrows a lot of structure and design from the Versa. Re-inventing the wheel is a good way to drive up costs without gaining anything. Of course, slavishly sticking to obsolete design elements limits performance and drives up cost, too. Finding the right amount of old and new is very much a part of the Engineer's Art.)

 

[James Anders]

I agree that the smaller size of the non-Tesla EVs requires the necessary equipment to take up a larger percentage of the space in the car. Tesla does a good job of hiding this from the consumer making the car look futuristic and clean. The ICE makers are still in ICE car mindset and believe you should see a jumble of stuff when you open the hood.

I don't think that's the case. Once they decided to go FWD and established the basic size of the vehicle there's just not many options for packaging.

The attempt to cast ineptitude or old-world ICE thinking is misplaced I think.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I've read that a key part of good performance in the small offset front impact testing is to have something very rigid near the front of the car to transfer load across into the full crumple zone, and that many FWD/transverse engine cars hook the engine block into the crash structure for that reason.

GM may have decided to take the same approach with the Bolt - either because it's the method they know works or because they are borrowing structures from other established designs.

(Who does true clean sheet design when they have parts that mostly do what they need? No one I know - including some big Aerospace folks. The Volt drivetrain is built on GM's past history, and the Bolt builds on that and the Spark EV. The Leaf was closer to clean sheet than most anything else - but still borrows a lot of structure and design from the Versa. Re-inventing the wheel is a good way to drive up costs without gaining anything. Of course, slavishly sticking to obsolete design elements limits performance and drives up cost, too. Finding the right amount of old and new is very much a part of the Engineer's Art.)

I'm not saying it is necessarily bad to use old design or to do platform sharing (that obviously saves money and engineering effort, which is a positive). However, you have people here claiming they are not being constrained by such and that the Bolt was designed as it is purely out of necessity (not enough space otherwise).

The best example of clean sheet (other than the Model S) is the i3. As you point out, the Leaf was heavily based on the Versa (plus I already pointed out that Nissan said they explicitly laid out the "engine compartment" so it looks like a typical ICE car's).

 

[Saghost]

The best example of clean sheet (other than the Model S) is the i3. As you point out, the Leaf was heavily based on the Versa (plus I already pointed out that Nissan said they explicitly laid out the "engine compartment" so it looks like a typical ICE car's).

Yeah, off the top of my head I can't think of much BMW brought over to the i3. The powertrain is of course evolved from their ActiveE experience, but the rest is pretty much clean sheet AFAIK.

Of course, I'm not actually that impressed with what they did with it - they seem to have focused too rigidly on some design goals and ignored usability both in terms of ergonomics (long front doors, which block rear suicide doors) and in terms of utility for the REx version (I know they had to do it to meet the special category they convinced CARB to create for them - but it crippled what could have been the only serious competition for the Volt in what I describe as the "mostly electric" category.)

 

[Breezy]

Right, but the decision to put the motor in the front versus the rear is another example of having the "ICE mindset"...

Then a Porsche 911 must be an example of an "EV mindset."

If it was an "ICE mindset" that led them to choose a front-drive layout, then I'm happy they had one. It allowed them to have more usable space in the rear cargo area, which is what I want.

 

[ecarfan]

Sigh. You are aware that we don't have specs on EITHER car, right?

The "Sigh" was unnecessary. Yes I am aware that we don't have full technical specs, but we do have some basic information, which is why in my post that you were responding to I included this statement:

...based on the data I have so far, my experience with Tesla over the past 3+ years, but without ever having driven either car

 

[ggies07]

Look, all I know is

2017 Chevrolet Bolt - Prototype Drive

During the conceptual stages of the Bolt’s design and development, GM asked potential customers what sort of vehicle they’d prefer. The near-universal vote was “crossover,” which set the tone for this electric’s general configuration.

All I know is, Tesla won't make their Model Y combat SUV look like a plastic toy car.......

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I don't think that's the case. Once they decided to go FWD and established the basic size of the vehicle there's just not many options for packaging.

The attempt to cast ineptitude or old-world ICE thinking is misplaced I think.

I think that pretty much exemplifies the old-world mentality right there. Why did they decide to go FWD without considering the merits (and drawbacks) of an electric motor? Torque is abundant with electric motors, and torque steer is notorious with over-powered FWD configurations. WHY would you choose FWD with an electric motor then?!?!

So to correct for torque steer, they've power limited the motor, even though that much battery can support a more powerful motor (doesn't even need to be a bigger one). Plus with an electric motor, your motor controller software can compensate for any tendencies to oversteer, thereby alleviating a major drawback of RWD.

The original model S showed that a RWD electric car is just as drivable in low-traction situations as FWD ICE ... because of software.

 

[wdolson]

I don't think that's the case. Once they decided to go FWD and established the basic size of the vehicle there's just not many options for packaging.

The attempt to cast ineptitude or old-world ICE thinking is misplaced I think.

GM could have packaged off all the gear under the hood in a similar manner to the way Tesla boxed off the gear in front of the instrument panel.

 

[Jeff N]

It's a small car and the stuff has to go somewhere. The i3 motor is in the rear. The Bolt EV motor is in the front.

Small to modest power non-AWD motors are sensibly placed in the front because FWD has better inherent traction. Large power motors are sensibly placed in the rear because RWD can better deliver power to the road without torque steer issues.

 

[renim]

GM bolt does not remind me of a conversion car or a dedicated model, but of a dual design car.
Dual design cars are cars designed for both PH/EV and ICE used from the start, irrespective of which propulsion gets to market first.

examples include
Renault Fluence ZE
Mitsubishi iMiev
Outlander PHEV

The Bolt should be a surprising good package for what it is. The GM Trax /Sonic have likely been in design iterations for an EV variant since 2008.

this is different to GM Volt or Nissan LEAFs, the Volt and the LEAF are essentially specific models based upon a conversion (particularly the floorpan) of a base vehicle (Cruze sedan and Pulsar hatch respectively)

Is the Bolt an intercity car? no.
but globally most cars of the Bolt's ICE peers are not intercity either. Particularly for the new car buyer.

 

[scottf200]

I think that pretty much exemplifies the old-world mentality right there. Why did they decide to go FWD without considering the merits (and drawbacks) of an electric motor? Torque is abundant with electric motors, and torque steer is notorious with over-powered FWD configurations. WHY would you choose FWD with an electric motor then?!?!

You realize they have several years of experience with electric motors driving the Volt Gen 1 and 2, right? I have both generations and they are excellent in the Chicago winters and other seasons.

 

[PRJIM]

LG designed most of the components for the Bolt (off the shelf parts-bin). All GM did was integrate most of those parts that LG provided. Only so many ways you can package parts that are off the shelf. Tesla is vertically integrated and their design goals determine the packaging of components not vice versa. The benefit of using a partner like LG is that you get massive economies of scale when other brands use the same components. Pretty common in the auto industry.

 

[Jeff N]

LG designed most of the components for the Bolt (off the shelf parts-bin). All GM did was integrate most of those parts that LG provided. Only so many ways you can package parts that are off the shelf. Tesla is vertically integrated and their design goals determine the packaging of components not vice versa. The benefit of using a partner like LG is that you get massive economies of scale when other brands use the same components. Pretty common in the auto industry.

That's probably mostly true for some parts like climate controls, LCD panels, CCS data channel controller, etc.

Other components are somewhat specific to the Bolt like the exact battery pack configuration and structural pack support designed together with GM. Other components are being built by LG but were designed by GM like the electric motor and gear train.

Don't discount the work that goes into integrating all of the components into a car, testing them separately and together, and designing and building the car body and overall interior. The reality is that carmakers typically outsource many of the ordinary components in a car.

The main difference with GM, LG, and the Bolt is not that they are outsourcing these components but rather that they are mostly being outsourced to a single conglomerate rather than to a variety of different 3rd party suppliers.

LG was hot to get into the automotive parts business and was already making consumer goods with many of the requisite technologies (air conditioning, LCD panels, electric motors, etc). GM was hot to buy high quality energy-dense battery cells at a good price.

They did a business deal.

 

[PRJIM]

That's probably mostly true for some parts like climate controls, LCD panels, CCS data channel controller, etc.

Other components are somewhat specific to the Bolt like the exact battery pack configuration and structural pack support designed together with GM. Other components are being built by LG but were designed by GM like the electric motor and gear train.

Don't discount the work that goes into integrating all of the components into a car, testing them separately and together, and designing and building the car body and overall interior. The reality is that carmakers typically outsource many of the ordinary components in a car.

The main difference with GM, LG, and the Bolt is not that they are outsourcing these components but rather that they are mostly being outsourced to a single conglomerate rather than to a variety of different 3rd party suppliers.

LG was hot to get into the automotive parts business and was already making consumer goods with many of the requisite technologies (air conditioning, LCD panels, electric motors, etc). GM was hot to buy high quality energy-dense battery cells at a good price.

They did a business deal.

LG supplies a lot of these components to other OEM's. Namely LCD panels, DC/DC Converters, HVAC, PTC Heater, Telematics, Infotainment, On-Board Chargers etc. They had all these products in their portfolio previously and are what is considered in the auto industry a "Tier-1" meaning they provide these parts en-masse to other manufcaturers.

The parts still have to meet GM's specifications but they are all auto-grade to begin with. The build to print components were the motor and the inverter, which is a combined assembly. Most of the unique enclosure tooling is specific to the Bolt as well. Reason why the car was able to be launch so quickly is that LG has a vast product portfolio that is proven in millions of cars. The tooling for the enclosures will be different and they will have to meet some very specific EMC requirements set-forth by GM.

LG developed the pack in an ED&D engagement model with GM utilizing GM's BMS. Most every OEM outside Tesla, Kia & BMW are using LG chem.

I can PM you with more direct information if you would like.

My experience- 30 years as an auto engineer

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

You realize they have several years of experience with electric motors driving the Volt Gen 1 and 2, right? I have both generations and they are excellent in the Chicago winters and other seasons.

That's the part that bugs me! They should be VERY familiar with the intricacies of an electric motor, why did they cripple it other than to fit in an existing chassis. That's very much old-world thinking, which was why my comment was in reply to James Anders.

With a battery over 3x that of the volt's, the bolt has access to much more power than the volt, but the 0-60 time is only slightly faster than the volt's. The bolt motor was deliberately detuned to work in a FWD arrangement, instead of being permitted to be a selling point as an RWD. You can read C&D's prototype drive review to see this: 2017 Chevrolet Bolt - Prototype Drive

 

[scottf200]

That's the part that bugs me! They should be VERY familiar with the intricacies of an electric motor, why did they cripple it other than to fit in an existing chassis. That's very much old-world thinking, which was why my comment was in reply to James Anders.

With a battery over 3x that of the volt's, the bolt has access to much more power than the volt, but the 0-60 time is only slightly faster than the volt's. The bolt motor was deliberately detuned to work in a FWD arrangement, instead of being permitted to be a selling point as an RWD. You can read C&D's prototype drive review to see this: 2017 Chevrolet Bolt - Prototype Drive

Haha. Seriously the Volt Gen 2 is plenty fast in various situations I've been it. It 'feels' fast to to all passengers. Why-o-why do you need dragstrip speeds for a functional car. It will be plenty fast!

 

[Alketi]

With a battery over 3x that of the volt's, the bolt has access to much more power than the volt, but the 0-60 time is only slightly faster than the volt's.

GM's Chief Engineer explained why:

During the conceptual stages of the Bolt’s design and development, GM asked potential customers what sort of vehicle they’d prefer. The near-universal vote was “crossover”

To big auto, crossover means utility. And like every non-Tesla EV before them, they created the vehicle almost entirely based on utility, right down to the design lines and large cargo opening. Performance is an after-thought in that market.

However, sub-7 seconds is actually very good, considering, and likely faster than anyone in that Prius/Leaf market would expect or need. If GM is taking this vehicle world-wide, you'd have to think there are 30K utility-minded folks interested in an EV with a longer range than any other offering at its price point. I'm thinking they'll sell out their initial run, perhaps easily. It'll be interesting to see what the car's gross margins are, considering the outsourcing effort.