This family of electric motors will drive GM’s new electric vehicles

GM will have 22 new EVs on sale by 2023, and they'll all use these motors.

Read the whole story

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

 

[traumadog]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

We already gave up our supersize fries, don’t ask us to downsize any further!

I’m curious how well GM might support the crate market. It would be nice to have some (near) drop in replacements for older vehicles. Yes, I’m the type of person who would happily drive around an EV 70’s Cutlass.

GM did tease a crate electric setup based on (I think) the Bolt drivetrain a while back at one of the SEMA shows. This lineup does look interesting for making that real.

Shame how they already used the "E-Rod" moniker on a crate small block - but if they can rebrand a Blazer into a soft-roader, then why not "E-Rod"?

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

Well, apart from the fact that burning kilowatts is a terribly mixed metaphor, the peak power available from a lithium battery is to a degree capacity dependent, since a bigger active area in the cells is needed to provide more peak current and the easiest way to get that is to have more cells.
As you say, range has little to do with it since, other things being equal, accelerating from 0-60 in 3, 6 or 9 seconds makes little difference if any to the energy needed.

Sure, but my point was adding a second motor (e.g retrofit comment) wouldn't cause the battery to somehow become inadequate for regular use.

Unless people are normally driving around at WOT (or is that "wide open rheostat"?) all the time.

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. I wonder how many of the 22 new models will be ground up designed for electric? The referenced electric Hummer sounds like an ICU conversion. Another thing, has GM published any numbers on BEV sales ambitions?

Well, it does look like these motors are meant for both bespoke and hybrid vehicles.

But given how vehicle platforms work, arguably the only needed modification to a vehicle unibody is to make space for the battery under the floor - so a "ground up" redesign might not be needed.

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

I have a 200hp motor in a small Bolt. I add 100hp in the back of a larger Bolt that's heavier (in part the bigger battery). I use more power than the basic Bolt because it's bigger and heavier (and more fun, being AWD). I need the bigger battery to feed both motors and still get 250+ miles range. Of course, the maximum power of the current drivetrain is seldom used, as is true of most non-racing vehicles, which is why it averages 4 mi/kwh (competitive with Tesla). Bigger, heavier, and more power, though, will inevitably require more battery (perhaps not linearly more) to service it.

Going to the limit, I really doubt the full-size EV pickups will even break 3 miles/kwh by much; the big Europeans (SUVs) are mostly in the 2's or low 3's. A EV pickup is a different use case than a Long Range Model 3 or S, and can tolerate higher energy consumption as long as the range is reasonable.

I think the bigger battery argument holds because of the bigger vehicle.

But by itself, a 2-motor vehicle doesn't require a bigger battery.

Example:
Tesla Model S 75: 249 mi range
Tesla Model S 75 259 mi range

 

[traumadog]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

Your resignation on the issue is predictable, but worrying.

Change is needed no matter if you or "Americans" agree with it or not. And the price for change is going one way only: up!

I guess I just don't understand the reluctance to even discuss change, when it is so obviously needed. It is a stance so naive and conservative I struggle to understand why a place like Ars Technica chooses to support it.

I would think that electrification of the largest ICE vehicles in the US fleet counts as a significant change.

Unless you're really saying everyone in the world should resort to bikes, or walking.

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

I have a 200hp motor in a small Bolt. I add 100hp in the back of a larger Bolt that's heavier (in part the bigger battery). I use more power than the basic Bolt because it's bigger and heavier (and more fun, being AWD). I need the bigger battery to feed both motors and still get 250+ miles range. Of course, the maximum power of the current drivetrain is seldom used, as is true of most non-racing vehicles, which is why it averages 4 mi/kwh (competitive with Tesla). Bigger, heavier, and more power, though, will inevitably require more battery (perhaps not linearly more) to service it.

Going to the limit, I really doubt the full-size EV pickups will even break 3 miles/kwh by much; the big Europeans (SUVs) are mostly in the 2's or low 3's. A EV pickup is a different use case than a Long Range Model 3 or S, and can tolerate higher energy consumption as long as the range is reasonable.

I think the bigger battery argument holds because of the bigger vehicle.

But by itself, a 2-motor vehicle doesn't require a bigger battery.

Example:
Tesla Model S 75: 249 mi range
Tesla Model S 75 259 mi range

If we suppose the total power output stays the same, but it's worth noting that most times a dual-motor setup is done for more power output, which usually means a bigger battery is needed to support that discharge rate.

Sure... but I also asked how many folks are driving at full discharge all the time. As long as the current sized battery can manage the peak flow, having two motors doesn't automatically mean "must need bigger battery".

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

Energy consumption and efficiency is hugely affected by acceleration and weight.

When you build a big and heavy EV to accelerate better, customers will use it. It will increase real-world consumed energy, while laving range almost unchanged because range is calculated with carefully controlled (and often ideal) parameters.

"If you make it accelerate better, then customers will use it, so you need a bigger battery"???

By that rationale, Ford should have then doubled the size of the gas tank on the GT500 vs the base EcoBoost Mustang.

 

[traumadog]

GM’s wireless battery management system is expected to drive the company’s Ultium-powered EVs to market faster, as time won’t be needed to develop specific communications systems or redesign complex wiring schemes for each new vehicle. The wBMS helps to ensure the scalability of Ultium batteries across GM’s future lineup, encompassing different brands and vehicle segments.

I don't know about other people, but when I read 'wireless", I immediately think of "attack vector"...

Can I trust a car company to properly secure their wireless protocol/system...?

Also worried about interference -- wireless is unreliable as hell and I'm not seeing the benefit in this scenario.

That said, I wouldn't expect the data telemetry for individual batteries to match the bit volume (or need the consistent connection quality) of a 4k Netflix stream.

And remember, we're only talking battery-to-controller, which might mean a foot or two - similar to the data transmission sent now from your TPMS.

 

[traumadog]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

We already gave up our supersize fries, don’t ask us to downsize any further!

I’m curious how well GM might support the crate market. It would be nice to have some (near) drop in replacements for older vehicles. Yes, I’m the type of person who would happily drive around an EV 70’s Cutlass.

Make the battery 442 volts, and you have a winner!

Heck, given how GM has justified "442" in the past (the 4-cylinder, 4-valve, 2-cam "HO" Quad4-powered Calais), then having 42 400V cell packs would justify the moniker too.

 

[traumadog]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If you are arguing that a large EV is bad for the environment, then by extension, you can argue all individually owned vehicles are bad.

It seems like an extremely problematic stance to take that the majority of humans won't accept.

 

[traumadog]

So the Hummer H2 had a 32 gallon tank to allow to skip to every other gas station. How big of a battery is this un-aerodynamic beast going to take? Although with regenerative breaking, it might end up with some extreme mileage rating (100 mpge city, 10 mpge highway)

Aside from their particular size, I'd say the OEM's have had decent success with aerodynamics for these trucks.

I mean, when you have the diesel half-tonners pushing low 30's MPG for their diesels, I'd think that the efficiency isn't that bad.

 

[traumadog]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If you are arguing that a large EV is bad for the environment, then by extension, you can argue all individually owned vehicles are bad.

It seems like an extremely problematic stance to take that the majority of humans won't accept.

Basically I am arguing that ANY big-ass inefficient vehicle is bad, regardless of it's engine technology.

You are right that individually owned vehicles are also bad, but they serve a practical purpose so we might seek a way to make their continued use feasible. One way to do that is to make them efficient.

Except there are some of us in this world who actually do use a vehicle the size of the "standard US half-ton pickup" for actual work.

Forcing everyone to downsize means that such a person would need several cars for the same job. Which is arguably just as inefficient.

 

[traumadog]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

Regen is all in the software controller and battery capacity to take a charge, not specifically the motor hardware.

I mean, both the Volt and Bolt up their regen level when in "low" vs. "drive", and even have a "regen-on-demand" paddle for the steering wheel.

 

[traumadog]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If GM stops building gas and diesel powered light trucks entirely, all those people will go buy the F-series or the Ram instead.
If GM, Ford, and whatever corprate entity owns Ram this month all stop selling gas & diesel light trucks, those customers will go jack up Tundras and Titans instead.
If American politicians try to ban the sale of gas & diesel light trucks for non-commercial purposes, or restrict their use in urban areas, those politicans will be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and then voted out in favour of someone who says "Rahhhh FREEDOM!"

So the only good near-term option, for America, is to build & sell EVs that appeal to the people who buy the most environmentally-evil vehicles. To do that, you need trucks that are big, boxy, flashy, in-your-face, and take off like a bat outta hell when you press the pedal. Which is exactly what's happening here.

Arguably, being a "big, flashy EV" is what made Tesla so successful in the first place, even though initial production lagged cars like the Nissan Leaf.

 

[traumadog]

Except there are some of us in this world who actually do use a vehicle the size of the "standard US half-ton pickup" for actual work.

That's great. Then you're not using it just for personal transport, so you should not feel that you're a target of this criticism.

But there are also people who drive to parties in a Hummer. Or go to the shopping mall in an F150 to get milk and eggs. Or use a Silverado for their daily commute.

You're a working man, and that's great. I am a white-collar idiot, and I can't exist in this world without help from people like you. Use your heavy car for work all you want... and all you need to.

It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Shopping for groceries in an F150 is liking using a spike maul to crack nuts.

So wait, if I use my Hummer EV to get groceries on the way home from work, I'm "killing the planet"?

Or are you saying I need to own multiple cars for the things I need to do?

 

[traumadog]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If GM stops building gas and diesel powered light trucks entirely, all those people will go buy the F-series or the Ram instead.
If GM, Ford, and whatever corprate entity owns Ram this month all stop selling gas & diesel light trucks, those customers will go jack up Tundras and Titans instead.
If American politicians try to ban the sale of gas & diesel light trucks for non-commercial purposes, or restrict their use in urban areas, those politicans will be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and then voted out in favour of someone who says "Rahhhh FREEDOM!"

So the only good near-term option, for America, is to build & sell EVs that appeal to the people who buy the most environmentally-evil vehicles. To do that, you need trucks that are big, boxy, flashy, in-your-face, and take off like a bat outta hell when you press the pedal. Which is exactly what's happening here.

Arguably, being a "big, flashy EV" is what made Tesla so successful in the first place, even though initial production lagged cars like the Nissan Leaf.

I don't think the model S was flashy when I first saw one.

It was more like....."Holy crap.... how did that car move that fast & make no noise....." & then I had a chance to see one & look inside & I know that would be my dream car someday........

I agree the model X is flashy etc, but the rest of the cars barring the X & Roadster are practical cars that don't look like weird like the leaf or prius & that is why people are buying them

Compared to the "it's a glorified golf cart" mentality of what people thought of EV's at the time, I'd argue that "holy crap how did that car go so fast and so quiet" is relatively flashy, especially compared to a contemporary Leaf...

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

Not he didn't say "burn more kwH" If you have more motor available to draw current, you need more batteries to supply that KW demand, which has nothing to do with range or efficiency. Which is why tesla's next roadster will have such a huge range, to supply that huge current draw for a good amount of time. I think the next step would be capacitors for short acceleration surges instead of unnecessary battery capacity.

Uh...what?

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc.

And I never said "burn more kWh" either. Point is, battery output current wise (e.g peak discharge amperage) has NOTHING to do with its overall capacity (e.g. kWh).

Heck, this site explicitly sang the praises of an EV conversion that uses a Tesla motor and a Chevy Volt's battery pack. All 16 kWh of it.

A Volt battery pack costs less while still delivering enough peak power, and as it was originally developed to fit into an existing chassis, its smaller size also benefits garage tinkerers fitting it into project cars.

 

[traumadog]

The people that may use an F150 to go to the grocery store typically use it also for “truck uses”, it’s just not all the time.

That's an interesting claim but not one I have seen supported by raw facts. Off course it can quickly turn into a discussion about "how much truck use" one can reasonably say justifies the constant use of a truck.

For example, one of my white-collar coworkers commutes in an F150, but he also goes dear hunting, he tows a boat to different lakes where he goes on vacations with his family, he uses it for home projects, wood for his fireplace etc. That’s typical use for non-commercial owners.

Commuting in an F150 is a problem even if he occasionally uses it for hunting trips. The F150 is around 19-21 MPG, so in rough numbers that's 338 g CO2 / km. That's a really really high number for personal transport.

I also don't understand why an F150 is required for hunting trips to begin with. It seems to be possible for people in other parts of the world to go on hunting trips in significantly smaller cars. But I suppose that's a different debate (where we can also debate what the shared subsidy/cost of other peoples deer hunting should be - if any).

Someone mentioned that 900.000 new F150's are registered in the US each year. That's a LOT of new F150s - and it's just one model. Looking at the whole class of vehicles, how many new is that per year? Two or three million? More? I just can't believe that so many people are hauling boats or deer hunting.

Since housing is a big industry in the US, many work in contracting - as well as lawn maintenance, landscaping, snow plowing, etc...

Never mind that a large part of the population of the center of the country includes farmers.

 

[traumadog]

It does have to do with overall capacity. Each battery module at the system's nominal voltage level can only supply a given amount of current(depends on cell size and chemistry). If you want to draw more current, you need to add more modules in parallel. This adds to overall capacity as well as peak discharge amperage. I'm not sure a Bolt with two motors would be able to draw more power than the original battery could supply, but if they could, then a larger battery would result in a faster vehicle. You could not give a Tesla a small battery with only 25miles of range(great, lightweight!) and still get max performance out of the motors.

Thing is, even if the current pack can't provide the current both motors would use "at peak", it still would provide comparable acceleration to the single motor. It's not like that much energy is lost in the conversion to kinetic energy with a second motor (as long as internal motor friction is nominal). Acceleration may even be better due to improved traction/less wheelspin.

Yes, the system would be current-limited, but it wouldn't necessarily "need more kWh" to function similar to a single-motor vehicle.

And FWIW, you CAN make a battery pack max out a Tesla motor - as long as it's rewired in parallel.

That was the whole point behind the eCOPO drag Camaro. Lots of acceleration, but only 1-2 runs per charge.