GM Teases GM Bolt EV Fans With LG News

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

In a page ripped from the Tesla Motors publicity playbook, General Motors leaked word yesterday that work on its highly anticipated GM Bolt EV is coming along nicely thanks to an “unprecedented” joint development agreement with the Korean battery and electronics leader LG dating back to 2011. Okay, so there doesn’t seem to be much new here except that it demonstrates how electric vehicle technology is transforming the US auto industry from a top-down exercise into a collaborative process that leverages innovation all along the supply chain.

GM Bolt EV preview by Tina Casey

GM Bolt EV Takes The World By Storm

Of course CleanTechnica happened to be stopping by the North American Auto Show last January in Detroit when GM unveiled the new GM Bolt EV as a concept car, which is how we happened to get the exclusive photo above.

By February, GM was promising a full production Bolt EV and our sister site has been following the GM Bolt EV action since then, including last month’s news that the car will go on sale in Europe under the Opel brand.

The Bolt EV has been making waves for a couple of reasons, one being its affordability relative to, say, the Tesla Model S, and another being its impressive 200-mile battery range (more on that in a minute).

The Bolt EV & Global Collaboration

Remember how in school you had to work in teams and groups to get stuff done? The collaborative model is beginning to chip away at the insular corporate model and we know who to blame: your kindergarten teacher (true fact: our class churned butter in a Mason jar, which got passed around to the next guy when your arms got tired).

GM must have had the same teacher for kindergarten because, back in 2011, the company announced a groundbreaking EV partnership with Korea’s LG. The arrangement broke the mold for automakers, which traditionally come up with component designs in-house and job out the production to suppliers.

Here’s then-GM Vice Chair Steve Girsky explaining how the butter gets made:

Many solutions for tomorrow’s transportation needs may be available more quickly by building on our partnership strategy. Consumers benefit by getting the latest fuel-saving technology faster if we work with the best suppliers and we save time and money in the development process.

The new partnership grew out of a successful endeavor for GM’s Volt hybrid EV, which launched back in 2010. The Volt deploys a gas tank to extend the range of its all-electric drive train, providing a cushion of comfort and convenience.

Not for nothing but GM rolled out its 2015 Volt at last January’s auto show in Detroit and we snapped that, too:

GM Volt by Tina Casey


Where were we? Oh, right. The 2011 GM-LG partnership paired teams of engineers from both companies with an eye to developing components for the international market.

And, shades of the VW emissions scandal, the partnership announcement included a prescient statement about the direction in which the auto industry must go:

Accelerating the pace of roadworthy technology is more important than ever with the announcement of a number of more stringent emission and fuel consumption regulations around the world, including the recent agreement calling for a U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) of 54.5 mpg (23.2km/l) by the end of the 2025 model year. Electric vehicles, which have no tailpipe emissions and require no gasoline, are expected to play a major role in reaching the CAFE goal.

Getting back to the here and now, our source for yesterday’s GM Bolt announcement is The Detroit News, which cited GM head of supply chain Mark Reuss to explain why the new EV development relationship is the wave of the future:

Automakers not that long ago acted as dictators in past supplier relationships, said Mark Reuss, GM’s head of global product development, purchasing and supply chain.

“We told them what to do, how to do it and how much we’d pay for it. And what we found is that behavior blows up in your face, frankly,” Reuss told reporters during a media briefing at GM’s Warren Tech Center.

Group Hug For The Bolt EV

Anybody remember the global financial crash of 2008, when GM and other US automakers almost bit the dust? Of course you do! GM was one of the companies that got some big love from us taxpayers (Tesla Motors was another, by the way) after President Obama took office in 2009.

The payoff has been a thriving, job-creating domestic auto industry and a drop in the true cost-of-ownership for electric and hybrid electric vehicles.

We taxpayers can also take some credit for LG’s successful effort to get a toehold in the US market. Back in 2010, LG was part of a “web of battery plants” that were to form a platform for economic revival in Michigan and other rust belt states, helped along by matching funds through the 2009 Recovery Act.

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Photo by Tina Casey.

Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book

Holiday Wish Book Cover

Click to download.

Our Latest EVObsession Video

I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it!! So, we've decided to completely nix paywalls here at CleanTechnica. But...
Like other media companies, we need reader support! If you support us, please chip in a bit monthly to help our team write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech stories a day!
Thank you!

CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.

Tina Casey

Tina specializes in advanced energy technology, military sustainability, emerging materials, biofuels, ESG and related policy and political matters. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on LinkedIn, Threads, or Bluesky.

Tina Casey has 3148 posts and counting. See all posts by Tina Casey

105 thoughts on “GM Teases GM Bolt EV Fans With LG News

  • “The arrangement broke the mold for auto makers, which traditionally come up with component designs in-house and job out the production to suppliers.” Really? Tiremakers like Michelin do their own research, and electronics suppliers like Bosch. I read a story (sorry no link) that Bosch actually developed the emissions cheating software for VW’s diesel engine – and warned VW not to use it for anything but development.

    • Ah, that’s why the code was in there. I had read early into diesel-gate that Bosch had alerted VW about the feature and not to use it but didn’t know why it might have been written in the first place.

    • Do You Want To Make Money Like Google and Facebook? It’s easy you just have a internet connection and a p.c to earn money…Click below link for more details

      =========>>>> Run to my account for more information

  • I’m starting to feel like GM is really bringing a strong EV effort to the market.

    Bits of info are leaking out here and there. LG Chem Power, the division that develops and builds batteries, has a new CEO. Denise Gray who was “Director of Global Battery Systems Engineering at General Motors, where her team successfully developed and launched the lithium-ion battery system used in the Chevrolet Volt, working closely with the LG Chem team”.

    LG Chem is building new battery factors and should be able to supply batteries for 450,000 EVs and PHEVs per year. Tesla is aiming for supplying 500,000 EV per year when the Panasonic/Tesla gigafactory is open.

    Apparently GM has had “hundreds” of its employees in South Korea for a while, working with “hundreds” of LG employees on battery, motor, controller and other parts of the Bolt package.

    It would be interesting to see two American companies dominate the EV market while the Japanese big boys get mired down in fantasyland cars.

    • We have to emphasize that unlike the Tesla-Panasonic partnership, GM is now partnering with the bigger LG at a different level, not just the LG-Chem. So LG Chem partnership is so old news. With a whole line of electronics from flat screens, advanced sensors and cameras, to electric motors and their controllers, including electronic heat pumps, miniaturized appliances for the cars and other gizmos, the GM-LG partnership can save a lot in the joint R&D and even the supply chain for better competition with other EV manufacturers (ie, targeting Nissan and most especially Tesla and keeping it uncompetitive in the mass market), for the benefit of many consumers, and the planet.

      But who’s to say that Tesla’s partnership will not evolve as well?

      • Big companies getting heavily involved. That’s a good sign.

        The more intellectual muscle applied the quicker we get oil out of our lives.

        • I wanted to get rid of OPEC oil in 1975, since then we import twice as much at twice the price. This is not the “energy independence” that Nixon and others talked about.

          • Shall we now sing praises to St. Ronnie who took us from the path of renewable energy and electric cars and steered us back toward the path of fossil fuels? All hail his oily hair.

          • “This ain’t really your life,

            Ain’t really your life,

            Ain’t really ain’t nothing but a movie.”

            — Gil Scott-Heron

    • Toyota is as secretive as Musk is boastful. Just because you don’t get press announcements on a daily basis does not mean things aren’t happening.

      Toyota has sold 8 Million Hybrids that get around double the MPG of the non-hybrid cars. If they accomplished the same saving in un-burned oil, by selling 4 million regular cars and 4 million BEVs they’d be heroes to greenies everywhere. But because they have two parallel developments in batteries and fuel cells, started at the same time, they are denounced.

      I now understand the religious wars of the Reformation period. It is not enough that G*d be worshiped, but She must be worshiped in the right way, saying the right things.

      • Toyota isn’t making a serious EV or PHEV. They’re chasing the hydrogen unicorn.

        I’m not very interested in fleet mpg average, Michael. I’m interested in developments that get us off oil.

        • Toyota has done more to save the planet than Tesla.

          Fleet MPG is all that matters. Getting it down to zero is not the work of a day or lot of press releases.

          • I think Hummer was doing the most to get fleet MPG to zero. 🙂

          • Good one!

          • Thanks! Corrected the error.

          • Tesla’s fleet mpg is infinitely better than Toyota’s. Teslas burn zero fuel.

            Toyota made a feeble attempt with the RAV4 EV. Their plug in Prius is a weak sister. Their non-plug in Prius is efficient, but that’s not the route off oil.

          • Using batteries in as effective a way as possible to reduce oil consumption is a means to the end. In terms of oil not burned because of use of batteries Toyota beats Tesla by several million cars.

            Both Tesla’s top down and Toyota’s bottom up approaches will get to the same goal. Insisting only one way is valid does not help, and might hinder progress.

          • Toyota has not done enough. They need to electrify all their cars. Fuel Cells currently require hydrogen, which is produced mostly by dirty fossil fuels. That must change. Tesla has done much more to advance clean automotive technology than Toyota. Which is better for the environment, the Prius which still uses dirty fossil fuels, or the Tesla electric car, which uses no dirty fossil fuels. Your argument lacks common sense. We need to replace all our dirty ICE cars with electric cars that don’t pollute, so we can get off dirty oil.

          • Of course we need to replace all our ICEs with clean cars. If Tesla can’t make a pure battery car with decent range at the cost of a Corolla or Camry, why do you think Toyota or anyone else can?

            And if no one can, then producing 8 million cars for the average consumer that burn half as much gas as other cars is a good thing and will do more to advance battery production and lower their costs than all of the Teslas yet produced and available only to relatively rich people.

          • There is a volume cost advantage. Even if Toyota and Tesla can purchase battery cells at the same price Toyota, just based on scale, should be able to produce and sell an EV “Corella” for less money than a smaller scale producer.

            Some costs will be spread over more cars. (Advertising, legal department, design cost, ….)

            Some parts will be purchased in larger quantity which often means lower costs.

          • There is also a point of diminishing returns in volume-cost. Buy 100 widgets at $1,000 ($10/ea), buy 1,000 widgets at $8,000 ($8/ea), buy 10,000 widgets at $70,000 ($7/ea)

            The devil is in the data and if you have some data indicating Toyota (or anyone else) could simply make a Tesla-range vehicle at a Corolla price, we are all interested. Toyota (and everyone else) still charges a premium for Hybrid versions of their standard cars like Camrys, and Avalons, and they certainly have the volume for those batteries.

          • Wouldn’t it be something if Toyota surprised everyone and came out with an all-electric 300-mile Tacoma or Tundra, that kicked ass? Oh well, one can fantasize. How’s that Mirai coming along?

          • I heard they made three more today…. ;o)

          • Michael, how about telling us how many months Tesla has been selling cars and how many hybrids Toyota had sold at that point.

            Look that up for us and we can generate which is more successful in terms of cutting oil use.

            You’ve set up an unfair comparison by ignoring how much longer Toyota has been selling the Prius.

            Toyota’s bottom up approach? I see Toyota off pursuing H2 FCEVs. I don’t see any sign that Toyota is going to present an affordable 200 mile EV.

          • I agree with the goal, but not that selling a $57,000 Carolla equivalent is a bottom up approach 🙂

          • Toyota has two parallel R&D developments going on and have since before the first Prius came out. The head of Toyota is a direct descendant of the founder and has said he is content to develop both techs for the next 100 years as they did with cars for the last 100.

          • His Dad(?) started an EV initiative – in the 1950’s.

          • It’s a bottom down approach.

          • The Prius, and other hybrid versions of cars like the Yaris (in Europe) are getting closer to the goal

          • The RAV4 drive train supplied by Tesla?

          • Pretty sure. Tesla used the same type motor which uses no rare earth magnets.

          • The original RAV4 BEV was Toyota, but the second one that used lithium ion batteries was Telsa.

          • They have been complete heroes, planet savers and green drive people. And if they put all their hopes into EV’s they would be celebrating ith chants of we’re number two, or three or four as also rans over night. Promoting FCEVs allows them, along with the Japanese governments desire to exploit methate formations, the chance to relive the glory days of the Prius success.

          • I do not see any indication Toyota cares about being first in anything.

            Honda came out with the much beloved original “Insight” before the Prius and a fat lot of good being first did them.

            Toyota took market share from long established GM and Ford by making the same car they did but smaller, cheaper, and more reliably with better fuel economy. For years every Toyota manager read and re-read “My Years at GM” as their role model.

            They and others will do the same with battery technology. Tesla from the top, Toyota, GM, Ford, etc. from the bottom, BMW from the middle. Everyone will get to the same place on different paths.

            This bashing of anyone trying an approach other than pure BEV is silly. I’m honestly sick of all this Tesla, Tesla, Tesla stuff. It is counterproductive.

          • “Honda came out with the much beloved original “Insight” before the Prius and a fat lot of good being first did them.”

            Good point, Honda came out first with it – to become snubbed, unloved and generally forgotten. While Toyota is the company that “has done more to save the planet than Tesla.”

            Before the Prius Honda was seen as the green car company and Toyota was making waves at building Tundra’s that would eventually out American the largest US truck builders.

          • “I’m honestly sick of all this Tesla, Tesla, Tesla stuff. It is counterproductive.” Sure, that’s not a form of bashing a green automaker at all 🙂

          • I’m just tired of the idea that if you aren’t Tesla you aren’t serious. There are many ways to get to the desired goal of a FF-free world besides Tesla’s way. Tesla is pursuing one way GM, Ford, Nissan, and BMW etc. are pursuing other ways.

          • Yeah, who on earth came up with that idea? Even Tesla says they are in it to spur on others.

          • I am looking for more “is” and less ” has”. The Prius deserves praise, but we need to move forward.

            And no, national fleet mpg is not all that matters. Carbon matters, too. If driving goes up and mpg goes up, no improvement.

          • Michael, I agree that the Toyota Prius showed people a different path than 15 MPG trucks and have saved the planet a large amount of CO2 pollution. I view this as a crawl, walk, run approach. Mass adoption of hybrids is the “crawl” phase. BEVs will be the “walk” phase, and who knows what the “run” phase will be. I can’t find a path where Fuel Cells are the future of personal transportation. Once Fuel Cells become affordable, next gen batteries will be affordable as well. If range and price are similar between Fuel Cell and BEV, the BEV will win every time. There might be a use for Fuel Cells in heavy equipment or ships or ???

          • Certainly heavy equipment and ships are FC candidates, but in the long run it is possible a battery-FC hybrid might be the solution if H2 can be cost-effectively made in a green way. I think this is what Toyota and others are looking at – with a 20-40 year horizon – for the entire globe, not just US suburbs with PVs on their roof.

            We are far away from the promised land of FF-free transport we can’t disregard any possibility.

          • Toyota has also been around for 10 times as long as Tesla.

          • Tesla’s approach wasn’t financially possible when Toyota and Honda were looking at hybrids. The Japanese got there first and are pursuing a bottom-up approach. Given where their large existing customer base is in the financial hierarchy, that makes a lot of sense. Most people are much more likely to be able to afford an approach from Honda or Toyota or GM than from Tesla.

          • Closer to six, “actually”, but who’s counting?
            Toyota: 1937-2015=78 years
            Tesla: 2003-2015 = 12+ years

          • Toyota was started in 1933 as a division of Toyoda Automatic Loom Works devoted to the production of automobiles under the direction of the founder’s son,Kiichiro Toyoda.[24] Its first vehicles were the A1 passenger car and the G1 in 1935. The Toyota Motor Co. was established as an independent company in 1937.

            Toyota had a vehicle produced 2 years before independent founding. Tesla started producing well after founding, in 2008.

            So if counting based on production car making experience, that is 80 years for Toyota, and only 7 years for Tesla.
            But who’s counting.

        • Isn’t “Energy efficiency is the low hanging fruit” in decarbonizing an economy.
          With higher MPG, we are burning less gasoline.
          So lower co2 emissions. At least it what we have been told.

          • Yes. Moving from 25 mpg to 50 mpg is great. It cuts oil use and CO2 by 50%.

            Unfortunately a 50% cut is not sufficient. We need a 100% cut.

          • Agreed – but gotta start somewhere.

          • Sorry, that’s a fallacious argument. There is no point starting down a road that you know ends half way to your destination. Given that we MUST reach the destination, we MUST take the right road.

          • If I understand you, you want a Tesla made by Toyota? Or a Tesla at a Corolla price? Or both? I can’t figure out what you want Toyota to do.

          • Michael, do you get excited by a car which runs on an explosive fuel, for which there is no distribution network. A fuel which burns with an invisible flame and which leaks through solid metal? I don’t. I just can’t see that within 15 years, people will have converted en masse to hydrogen. If you look at the carbon budgets on the table in Paris, 15 years is about how long we have to quit fossil fuels.

            A BEV however, offers a tipping point. A take up so rapid (thanks to the fact that the grid already exists) that in retrospect we’ll wonder why it didn’t happen until 2017.

            Perhaps we did have to wait till technology evolved, however I remember the RAV4 EV and the EV1. I don’t think it was just the technology, I think it was the politics, and the lack of a Tesla to spur them on.

            The politics were driven by big oil. They could not control the distribution network if it came from a powerpoint – especially if that powerpoint is connected to free (marginal cost) solar. That’s why people who’ve been watching for a long time get suspicious of hydrogen – it’s another controllable distribution network.

            The manufacturers were happy to see the ZEV mandate go, because they also stood to lose from parts and servicing – they still do, hence the ‘all ahead slow’ timing of their 200 mile EVs. It’s not a coincidence that suddenly 3 to 6 parties have a 200 mile EV ready to roll at the same moment as Tesla. They know they have to match Tesla’s product to avoid looking recalcitrant, but they lose profit from pre-empting Tesla.

            What they failed to anticipate is that it’s not just about the cars. It’s about the superchargers too. It’s also about the ‘computer on wheels’ side of affairs. Tesla’s ability to do an OTA update and suddenly be in the high resolution mapping game – I mean, who saw that coming? And if it turns out that you need that data to do driverless, and driverless becomes the main game. Well, it will just serve the ICE car manufacturers right, won’t it?

          • “A BEV however, offers a tipping point. A take up so rapid (thanks to the fact that the grid already exists) that in retrospect we’ll wonder why it didn’t happen until 2017.”

            I don’t see the “take up” and it isn’t 2017.

            You might have better luck predicting the World Series. Guaranteed 50% chance of being right.

          • I’m 52 years old, working in IT, and I’ve been watching technologies mature all my life. When production doubles, prices halve and the products get better. TVs, solar panels, memory chips, hard drives, mobile phones. The tipping point is here, now, however because it’s logarithmic, the general public won’t notice till 2017. Those who know what to look for can see it now, 2015. I’m a Leaf driver. I’m part of the ‘take up’.

          • Signs of the Great Tipping.

            Two major corporations, Panasonic and LG Chem, build very large manufacturing for EV batteries.

            Two major vehicle manufacturers, GM and Nissan, announce affordable long range EVs to be marketed within the next two years.

            No need to use Tesla as a sign. Look to the behavior of the big boys.

          • We’ve started. Quit trying to make a more efficient ICEV.

            At the minimum make a PHEV with a decent electric range like the Volt. That will cut CO2 by 75% to 85%. And let cautious people work their way to a full EV.

          • Here’s a complete list of all the PHEVs with decent electric range like the Volt and the overall gas-electric range Americans are accustomed to.

            1. The Volt.

            You’re mad at Toyota for not making a Tesla? Or not making a Volt? Or both? Here’s a list of all the car cos. other than Tesla or GM that don’t make Volts or Teslas.

            1. All of them.

          • There’s probably a point buried underneath that ….

          • Or perhaps there isn’t….

      • Toyota is quite boastful about their Mirai fuel cell car. And they have that great back to the future video out about it. But unfortunately for them, there are very few interested consumers.

    • GM acquired Daewoo Korea.

      GM Korea is south Korea’s second largest auto company according to Wikipedia. There are a lot of GM employees in South Korea! IIRC the Spark was originally designed for the Korean market – the Spark EV is available in limited US markets like California now. The Bolt is based on the GM Gamma platform which the Sonic also rides on a version of. The Bolt is reportedly based on the Sonic. The Sonic also has a large South Korean presence, having a great deal of engineering and design input from GM Korea.

  • For their delivery of Chevy Volt into the hands of customers by November 2016 or earlier, they reported that battery costs used in the Chevy Bolt would be $145/kWh. And within 3-4 years, the joint partnership between GM and LG will produce batteries that are $100/kWh (by 2020). This would be excellent. If GM and LG Chem build residential home storage with power extenders… Will kiss the whole grid goodbye forever!

    What was Tesla’s target price of their batteries by November 2016?

    • $130/kWh. 30% less than last year’s $180/kwh.

      • When did Tesla announce last year’s $180/kwh?

          • Interesting. I wonder if that “Tesla currently pays Panasonic $180/kW for their batteries” statement is correct.

          • Navigant Research is a well regarded organization. I think they’re pretty careful what they say since their business relies on their trustworthiness.

            I’ve read the report. It says $180/kWh.

            There’s also a later statement by someone inside the battery industry who was not identified who said that the price has since dropped to $160/kWh. But since there’s no organization/individual to link that statement to I don’t use it.

          • Well, $160/KWH could be right considering that $145/KWH number that GM allowed to leak. It is really interesting how these numbers are finally getting out there. When things were up around $400/KWH amount, it was very very secretive.

          • Tesla is apparently planning on a 30% cost drop with the Gigafactory. That would take $180 to $126.

            Getting cells prices below $150/kWh is great news.

          • I see (tongue in cheek) a battery price leak war developing.

          • I can see Tesla wanting to leak the price. I believe that Tesla’s main goal is to get us off petroleum as rapidly as possible.

            It must be clear to every other car manufacturer (perhaps not a couple of CEOs, but to some of the people under them) that Tesla intends to drive EV prices down to where EVs will take the market away from ICEVs. Most must know that they will have to change or fade away.

            By signaling game-changing prices it puts pressure on other manufacturers to make sure they are prepared to jump in. They need to have their EVs designed and their suppliers lined up. It takes a couple years to build a new battery plant. Tesla seems to be signalling that it might be getting about time to break ground on those battery plants.

          • Its working. But just in case that didn’t work, Tesla introduced an electric vehicle that is beating the pants off GM luxury brands.

  • 55MPG for cars will be easy.

    Large pickup trucks and large SUVs will be the next frontier. Then long haul trucking after that.

    An all electric pickup truck that is as good as the best American ICE trucks won’t be easy to make. The technology is certainly there though.

    • Everyone will drive a Prius?

      55 MPG is not going to be easy as long as some people want a car larger than a Prius.

        • Those are electric cars.

          • Though you where talking about EVs and PHEVs?

          • Based on Shiggity’s comment I thought we were talking about ICEVs.

            Perhaps he was talking about CAFE standards using EVs and PHEVs mixed in with ICEVs to reach the 54.5 point.

            For every 30 mpg ICEV sold in 2025 a car company would need to sell an EV or two to average 55 mpg.

      • I was a late comer to a Prius – a used one bought as holding action till EV’s hit my price range. It has been one pleasant surprise after another – it’s as big and can carry as much (and same or better rear leg room) as my old VW Passat. So if people want something bigger than a Prius they want something bigger than Passat’s and Camry’s. My concern is Model 3 will be smaller than a Prius – Bolt too.

    • Toyota said we would see a hybrid Tacoma by now…

  • Takes The World By Storm
    In 2007 700,000 people said they were interested in the Volt.
    4 years later they could barely sell 10,000.

    • It is Casey. Unreadable bloated language, no content.

      • Earned error.

        • Normally I bottle my irritation. Apologies to the Mod.

          • Here’s a clue. There are people whose work I don’t read. (Most are right wing blowhards, but my approach could work for you.)

          • I agree. But her articles often attract the most comments and some of the regular commenters on this site are amazing.

          • My impression of Tina is that she reaches out further to find the stuff that might lead to good solutions while other authors stick more with what’s currently being installed.

            I appreciate being given a heads up re: where things might head.

    • I’ll bet 700,000 people are still “interested” in it. I’m interested in it. Doesn’t mean I’ll buy one right this minute.

  • This is cool stuff. I don’t want to get into a this EV is better discussion. They’re all fine. It’s like arguing favorite colors at some point. GM was all but dead six or seven years ago. Midwest materials and parts suppliers were too. I was working at a base steel mill on one of those special projects in 2009. The mill was literally seconds to shutting down before the bailout and subsequent stimulus. Also the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) pretty much is totally responsible for US and much of the world’s clean technology business’ success today. Sure there’s bootstraps and EV broomsticks (i.e. libertarian pluck and technology). But it was a laissez faire business friendly policy that got US into that financial mess. Not to mention the go-go regulation less oil and gas thing. And the more Keynesian policy that got us out.

  • The amount of content in this car from LG is surprising. This is more of an LG EV than a GM EV it would seem. I just hope it is a great car. They REALLY need to figure out a DC-fast-charging strategy. If they were wise, they would take a license from Tesla to use the Superchargers.

    • Just a short time back GM hinted that they were working on a rapid charger solution.

      I have mixed feelings on everyone joining up with Tesla. Everyone using the same chargers would mean better coverage sooner. But with competing brands you get competition.

      • I very much expect the industry to agree to some sort of standard. At least in regards to the plug shape/dimension. It would be like different gas stations and cars having different nozzles. Once EVs actually take off they will agree to something.

        • I thought the american and german auto makers had agreed on an SAE standard?

        • Well, they have largely agreed on fast-charging standards . . . unfortunately three different ones:
          Tesla Supercharger system – The best one but only supported by Tesla. Tesla has claimed to be willing to license it out.
          Chademo – A standard created by TepCo and Japanese auto-makers. It is supported by the Japanese and Korean automakers. It is a bit old not very fast. But there are a lot of them out there.
          SAE-CCS (AKA Combo) – A standard created by the SAE and endorsed by the big 3 USA automakers (Ford, GM, and Fiat/Chrysler) and all the German automakers. It is the latest one and there are very few chargers out there.

          • There are very few Cadmo and SAE compatible cars with the required circuitry needed to charge at level 3 or higher. there are even fewer chargers out there to charge those cars.

            I tried searching for level 3 chargers in California. I only found Tesla supper chargers. Tesla supper chargers exist. Cadmo and SAE only exist on paper.

            Tesla is has stated that they are open to others using Tesla supper charger stations as long as there cars charge as fast or faster then Tesla cars (to avoid a backup caused by one slow charging car). And that they share in the costs to run the supper charging network. Also Keep in mind that Tesla’s supper charger patents open to anyone to use..

  • Bob Wallace is 100% right.Toyota’s position to not pursue the development of electric cars is very short sided. Fuel Cells have many hurdles including tremendous cost and pollution to overcome. We will have to produce hydrogen from clean wind, geothermal, and solar power for them to be a viable alternative to the electric car. Currently most hydrogen is produced by dirty fossil fuels which pollutes our planet. Although the range is much greater with fuel cells than electric cars, the gap is closing with the development of the 200 mile Bolt. Tesla already has electric cars with greater range, but way to expensive at the moment. Toyota should abandon the fuel cell bandwagon, and jump ship to electric cars. Electric cars can be charged at home, eliminating uncomfortable burdensome trips to refuel with hydrogen for fuel cell cars. In addition solar panels on top of roofs in homes can generate and store power to charge the electric cars at night, making the fuel free.

    • The article is about GM Bolt EV and LG. Tina never mention FCV.
      Consumer Reports no longer recommends Tesla Model S.

  • Hi Tina. Nice write-up. The Volt picture is of the 2016 version.

  • This will be nice. I’d like it more if all automakers were forced to make electric cars, instead of dirty ICE cars. With cars like the Bolt, able to go 200 miles to a charge, and the new 2016 Nissan Leaf getting 107 miles to a charge, clearly the time is right to replace all our dirty gas cars with cleaner electric cars. The price could be offset by implementing Norway type incentives, like free parking, no toll charges, and upfront rebates instead of future tax breaks. We should build a nationwide network of fast solar powered electric car charging stations across the country, similar to the Fastned network in Denmark. Electric cars allow us to clean our air, and eliminate our expensive import of dirty oil from other countries. Also we can end all offshore and onshore drilling. I’m hoping used Chevy Bolt’s will drop in price dramatically after 3 years like the Nissan Leaf’s and Mitsubishi I-Meav’s have, so more people can buy them at a low price.

    • I’d rather than automakers being forced to make electric cars, customer demand forced automakers to make electric cars.

      • At least in the US it is highly unlikely that automakers would be forced to make only EVs. At least until it became obvious we were moving far, far to slow on climate change.

        What’s most likely to work is to get buyers demanding EVs because they are cheaper to purchase, cheaper to drive, and provide an overall better riding experience. All we need are cheaper batteries.

        • “At least until it became obvious we were moving far, far to slow on climate change.”

          A lot of climate scientists are saying we need a WWII size effort yesterday. Gas rationing would be a nice start. Along with cutting FF subsidies.

          • I wish the science was a bit tighter. We’ve got a somewhat wide distribution of opinion. Obviously we should assume the more alarmed side of the distribution is correct because there is very little cost in moving faster and a huge penalty for moving too slow.

            There is no “too fast”. We’ve already changed the climate. The goal now is to not change it too much.

  • The Bolt vs Tesla Model 3 race could very well be won by Bolt. Consumer Reports downgrading the Tesla Model S to below average in defects won’t help Tesla, even though they have a 97% favorable (would buy another Tesla) rating with their customers. If GM can surpass Tesla in quality of construction and address the infrastructure issue, they may come out on top.

    • The bolt is kinda homely. The model 3 will likely look like a proper car.

      • Yeah, I know what you mean, our LEAF isn’t as good looking as a Tesla, it’s not even cute like our Mini Cooper, but then beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What surprises me is how few people in parking lots even notice the LEAF, it does not look cool or different than some other economy cars.

        I even think wind generators are beautiful because they are graceful and help the Earth. Thus, I sure there will be those who are attracted to the Bolt.

Comments are closed.