Nashco said:
FutureFolly said:
These motors are basically prototypes, so I am positive GM would want any repairs to the motor to be done only after their engineers had inspected it. That means a main motor repair is probably a one month wait or more regardless of where you are.
Do you have any basis for these claims? Can you prove that these motor assemblies have NOT been through extensive development, durability testing, manufacturing process improvements, etc. just like any other part GM brings to production? Have you tried to get your Spark EV motor replaced and been told there's a one month or more wait time?
If you want to keep making stuff up, that's fine...but please don't state your ideas as though they're facts on this forum. It causes bad information to spread, and works against those of us trying to provide accurate information and facts to the public, specifically when it comes to EVs.
Bryce
I never stated any of that as fact nor does "basically" being a prototype require something hasn't been tested properly. During all stages of testing failures teach engineers more than normal operation. Understanding the limitations, irregularities, and potential of equipment like EV drive units and battery packs allows improvements to target weaknesses while at the same exploiting benefits. Unlike an ICE, a properly working EV motor also shouldn't be able to destroy itself, so ALL failures should be at least preventable with the right power mapping.
I will state factually that how a new technology wears and fails is of great interest to the automaker. Years ago I read about Toyota buying a high-mile, first generation Prius just to have engineers tear it apart and see how parts were handling the stress and age. Henry Ford would send engineers to junk yards to inspect old cars so parts could be better engineered. Early anecdotes about Voltec failures mentioned long waiting times for what ended up being multiple rebuilds that each required sending the transaxle back to GM. The real world is just another testing ground for automakers. They utilize it just as much as their own facilities.
My general point was that relatively few problems with the Spark EV would be dependent on access to a certified Spark EV service center.
I have read about the 1ET35 extensively though. The electronics were specifically mounted to a cross bar high in the engine bay to make removal of them and the motor easier. From diagrams, the motor
appears to be easy to lower out of the engine bay as well. I am
assuming the battery pack is removable out the hatch with an engine hoist like I've seen done in other EVs and hybrids. I haven't found the dealer service manual to confirm though.
What makes the 1ET35 "basically" a prototype is its totally unique architecture, and the very limited scale of production. The Bolt is planned at ~30,000 unit per year. In addition, the Karl EV production targets are still unknown. That would put current volumes at around 2-3% of their immediate plans. Before GM has invested extensively in tooling, any design flaws or improvements will be the most cost effective to implement at scale. In addition to the cost savings of early problem solving, all signs point to at least a decent PR push for the Bolt that would be hurt by the kinds of reliability problems the Model S has gone through.
Maybe they would just send a failed drive unit to the factory in Maryland for a quick rebuild, but that would be a missed opportunity on GM's part to save money, credibility, and time.
