Note: Thanks to kdawg for the data charts, and actually noticing the story idea itself. I concluded the Volt was in fact over 200 million EV miles, not just approaching it, but the data GM tracks is based on what cars they have to monitor. You can see kdawg’s charts also at his Web site.
Basing info from only some participating Volt owners’ OnStar data feed, General Motors has kept a running tally of total EV miles driven, and the number rapidly ticking forward is nearly 200 million miles.
In actuality, the total cumulative Volts have already crossed 200 million miles given that not all Volts on the road are contributing to the total shown at Chevrolet’s Web site.
To date GM has delivered over 38,600 Volts in the U.S. out of over 100,000 plug-in cars, and this is the highest number for a single model with the Nissan Leaf being second at over 27,000. We’re unsure however the number of Volts participating in GM’s data feed.
Gasoline saved by the cars that are being tracked to date, Chevrolet says, is in excess of 10.42 million gallons. At today’s national average premium gasoline price of $3.95 per gallon, this is in excess of $41.2 million in fuel Volt drivers did not have to spend.
Or, as GM whimsically puts it to drive the point home, this is enough money to buy 80 acres of a private desert island.
However you slice it, the money and gas savings speak to environmental savings as well. Not burning 10.42 million gallons of gas prevented hydrocarbons from being spewed into the atmosphere. And, this is also that much less gasoline needed to be refined from petroleum imported from foreign sources, which means the Volt contributes a modest step toward energy independence.
Those are some of the positives, and naysayers continue to pour on the negatives to the degree that they can, with points varying in their degree of validity.
It is a controversial subject, and not one we want to tackle here. Since the launch of the new breed of U.S.-market electrified plug-in cars, and at this point with over 100,000 sold, advocates hope now that the proverbial horses have been let free from the stable, there will be no calling them home – or later extinction.
The Volt and other electric cars are seen as a small, if halting step, toward curtailing or even ending one day the “addiction to oil” – something the last eight U.S. presidents have predicted would come not long after their term ended, but which still has no certain end in sight.
The 2014 Chevrolet Spark EV’s efficiency ratings are out. General Motors’ new EV is rated at an EPA-estimated combined city/highway 119 MPGe fuel economy equivalent and a combined city/highway EPA estimated range of 82 miles when fully charged.
This means that when compared to the average new vehicle, the Spark EV can potentially save its owners up to $9,000 in fuel cost over five years.
The Spark EV goes on sale this summer in California and Oregon.
“Being able to provide our customers with the best overall efficiency of any retail EV has always been a key target for the Spark EV engineering team,” said Pam Fletcher, GM executive chief engineer for electrified vehicles. “We’re poised to deliver to the market an EV that’s not just efficient, but also thrilling to drive thanks to the 400 pound-feet torque output of its electric motor.
The company said the Spark EV’s 21 kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery pack will continue Chevrolet’s tradition of offering industry-leading limited warranty protection – eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first.
The Spark EV will be the first vehicle on the market to offer as an available option the recently approved SAE combo charger for DC Fast Charging. The capability, available shortly after launch, will enable the Spark EV to recharge up to 80 percent of its capacity in approximately 20 minutes.
According to Chevrolet, the battery system is capable of handling multiple DC Fast Charges daily.
Charging can also be completed in less than seven hours using a dedicated 240V charge. A 120V charge cord set comes standard.
Charging of the Spark EV can be managed and monitored remotely using the Spark EV’s smart phone application, provided by OnStar, which is standard for three years.
“The Chevrolet Spark EV is a great city car which blends technology, functionality and style in an unexpected package” said Cristi Landy, director of Chevrolet small and electrified vehicle marketing. “We built on the success of the Volt and the gas-powered Spark to offer an affordable, fun and efficient mini car our customers will love to drive.”
Chevrolet also said the Spark EV will set an acceleration benchmark for an urban city electric vehicle – 0-60 mph in under eight seconds due to the mating of a permanent magnet electric motor, which produces more than 100 kilowatt (130 horsepower), with the coaxial drive unit.
The GM designed oil-cooled, permanent magnet motor is the heart of the Spark EV’s propulsion system.
Per General Motors, putting more than half a million road miles on development versions of the Spark EV enabled engineers to make the performance of the electric motor the best it could be by using a bar wound copper stator and unique rotor configuration.
The motor and drive unit are assembled at GM’s Baltimore operations plant in White Marsh, Md.
Last week, the plant celebrated the Spark EV motor production in Baltimore, marking the first time a major U.S. auto manufacturer has designed and built both a complete electric motor and drive unit for a modern electric vehicle in the United States.
Chevrolet’s Volt and Fisker’s Karma couldn’t be any more different yet alike at the same time. The Volt is techy, but otherwise a sensible compact family car. The Karma is a high-line chariot for those wanting something much splashier than a Volt.
On any other day they’d have little reason to be compared except for one thing. For now, they’re America’s only extended-range electric vehicles capable of driving 25-50 miles solely on electric power but with gasoline backup when needed. This is within limits of what studies say a majority of Americans travel each day. Thus, if kept within their recommended daily allowance of prescribed electric range, the Karma and Volt can blissfully bypass gasoline stations for months on end. This means they could cost far less to operate than regular hybrids let alone ordinary cars, all the while saving petroleum and emitting next to nothing.
We’re highlighting these attributes front and center as they’ve been known to be under-emphasized by some assessing these cars according to different priorities. While everyone is entitled to determine what’s important to them, it is these cars’ EV capability with “no range anxiety” that enables proponents to look past other critiques including their relatively high prices, and just-OK gas-only mileage.
About Those Plug-in Powertrains
The rear-wheel-drive Karma is the only pure series hybrid passenger car available. Unlike a parallel hybrid – such as a Toyota Prius which uses its engine to mechanically drive the wheels along with its electric motors – the Karma’s engine never mechanically drives its wheels. Its GM direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder turbocharged engine instead energizes matched twin electric motors offering combined output of 403 horsepower and 959 pound-feet of torque. This power is channeled via a single-speed transmission and the gas engine can augment the electric supply in Sport mode, or the car can run in battery only Stealth mode assuming its 20.1-kwh A123 Systems lithium-ion pack has more than 15-percent charge remaining.
Fisker Karma Powertrain
The front-wheel-drive Volt uses a naturally aspirated 1.4-liter four cylinder feeding a 16.5-kwh LG Chem li-ion battery to send current to its two differently sized electric traction motors. It is a series hybrid most of the time, but its planetary gearset transmission under certain conditions does mechanically assist the front wheels. GM decided to occasionally use the engine in parallel hybrid mode because it proved more efficient under certain conditions. Unlike the Karma, the Volt’s engine cannot be used to augment electrical current to its traction motors beyond standard EV power settings.
Chevy Volt powertrain
In attempting to live up to its extroverted exterior, the Fisker is faster, but it’s no pavement shredder. Its 0-60 mph time of 7.9 seconds in Stealth mode, and 5.9 seconds and high-14-second quarter mile in Sport doesn’t crush many lower priced sporty cars let alone the elites for which it presents a green alternative. It does outpace the Volt though which can run to 60 in around 8 seconds.
The Volt’s top speed is governed to 100 mph. The Karma is limited to 95 mph in Stealth mode, and 125 mph in Sport.
Both cars are portly, having dual drivetrains and dual energy storage merged into one. Both place their batteries in a center tunnel inboard from crash zones. This mass centralization self-compensates to a degree by augmenting handling along with suspension calibrations that help conceal the Volt’s nearly 3,800 pounds, and the Karma’s over 5,300 pounds.
Suspension and Brakes
The Volt’s suspenders are comprised of front control arms, struts, coil springs, and anti-roll bar, and a rear torsion beam with coil springs.
Managing the Karma’s extremely rigid alloy frame are front and rear control arms designed and calibrated with input from engineers that set up the Ford GT.
Set stiffer and using sticky Goodyear F1 sport tires, the Karma’s lateral acceleration figures average 0.92g. The Volt, ever the more sensible, is set softer, equipped with less-grippy, but more fuel-saving low rolling resistance Goodyear Assurance tires, and averages 0.78g on a skidpad.
Both use ABS-equipped regenerative braking. The Karma’s Brembo monobloc calipers – six piston in front, four in rear gripping 14-plus inch rotors – are world class overachievers and the Volt’s brakes work well also, stopping on good pavement from 60 mph in under 120 feet, compared to the Karma’s 110.
Interior Space
Up front, both cars offer enough legroom, headroom and adjustability for most full-size Americans. The Volt saves weight with manually adjustable seats, and the deluxe Karma adds to its body mass index with electrically adjusted seats.
Fisker says it copied a military powertrain design, but where it mirrors the Volt further is its battery tunnel separating front and rear occupants also eliminates the middle rear seat. What’s more, both cars only provide so-so rear seat space.
The Karma’s rear legroom is a bit shorter, and both cars can trap larger feet attempting to squeeze under the front seats. This is not unusual for cars of the semi-practical crowd to which the Karma belongs. It may be less excusable for the Volt which cannot plea the usual alibis only supermodels get away with, and compared to the Prius it was supposed to beat, it comes up short in this area.
The Volt offers more storage space than the Karma being actually a hatchback disguised as a sedan. Its 10.2 cubic foot rear cargo capacity exceeds the Karma’s 6.9-cubic foot trunk and lack of fold-down rear seats.
Controls and Interface
These cars are represented as the new vanguard of an electric future. Alternately, one could contend they are only now catching up with art as old as members of the AARP. Their gee-whiz factor mimics imagery prophesied by movies, stories, cartoons and pictures since before the 1950s. With technology now able to bring fantasy to reality, their design and operational controls are a step closer to satisfying expectations that long lay dormant within society’s collective unconscious.
To wit, from the Volt driver’s seat you’re faced with connectivity plus a plethora of buttons, and two digital LCD screens – one in the instrument location, the other on the center stack. Look up and there are more buttons for OnStar and more in the ceiling. The gizmos are all pretty user friendly too. There is learning curve dependent on how technically literate you are, but it’s reasonably intuitive.
The Volt is a humble family car but the family can feel more like the Jetsons family in a cooler ride than the Volt’s platform-sharing cousin, the Cruze.
Now contrast that to the “timeless” design in the concept car turned production reality, the Karma. Far fewer buttons are visible for its personal command center, and what’s more, all interior materials are decidedly upscale. Where are the swaths of decent-grade plastic, rubberized materials and serviceable cloth as found in the Volt?
Plastic, smashtik. Our Karma was the mid-level EcoSport – not the base-level EcoStandard or environmentally super-sensitive top-shelf EcoChic which opts for only tasteful synthetic and recycled materials.
Nope ours had sacrificed cows for leather, but it at least is tanned with a 100-percent environmentally friendly process. It covers the dash top, seats in an asymmetric mix of leather and suede, and parts of the battery tunnel where you rest your elbow. Beyond that is recycled hardwood, alcantara, metal and acrylic.
As for the Karma’s unapparent controls for HVAC, entertainment, navigation, backup camera and more, this simplicity is in keeping with the discrete theme. They’re actually all integrated into a single 10.2-inch haptic feedback touch screen in the center stack.
Point-Counterpoint
Both cars provide satisfying experiences albeit of two very different flavors. Of the two, the Volt is probably more suitable to take the dog to the vet, or bring home the medium-large haul from the store.
Its is designed to satisfy mainstream America and grandmom may ingress and egress somewhat more easily than she would for the low and long Karma.
Both cars get started with a pushbutton. Both deactivate their electric parking brake with a similarly designed pull switch. The Volt uses a traditional gear selector whereas the Karma has an avante garde backlit, pyramid-shaped pushbutton gear selector.
Keeping to the futuristic theme, from 0 to 25 mph the Karma emits a pedestrian warning sound that is reminiscent of an extraterrestrial’s landing vessel that came to earth and sprouted wheels. It’s actually kind of cool, and fits with the Karma’s stage presence.
The Volt also warns pedestrians when needed by commandeering the horn, emitting a friendly chirp, not an impolite “get out of my way” tone.
Outward visibility is somewhat better in the Volt with exception of the A-pillars which impede view a bit more than the Karma’s. The Karma is easy enough to see out of, but does have that long hood up front with “muscular” fenders concealing its 22-inch wheels.
Punch the accelerator in all-electric mode, and the Karma is quicker but not amazingly so. With torque available off the line, both hit 30-45 mph quickly, and highway speeds acceptably also. Above 70, the rate of acceleration drops off.
Physics 101: Wind resistance increases exponentially at speed meaning the faster you rip toward “the ton,” the more drag must be overcome by the limited energy supply. This saps efficiency and while both cars have slippery aerodynamics, they’re set to perform best at ordinary speeds.
Contrast that to Tesla’s 85-kwh Model S which out drag races a 560-horsepower BMW M5 to 100. Do that a lot, and we suspect it won’t get near the EPA’s efficiency numbers.
As for steering the Volt and Karma, feel is much different also. In the Karma you know you are in a big machine and its fat tires – 255/35WR-22 front; 285/35WR-22 rear – need plenty of help from the electro-hydraulically assisted steering at parking lot speeds. At a walking pace, the Volt is nimbler with a tighter turning radius. Once rolling, either car goes where it’s pointed with minimal fuss and their weight helps each provide a comparatively complaint ride.
As the road gets twisty the Karma is arguably more rewarding. Even though it weighs as much as the Volt plus four 375-pound occupants, its chassis, suspension and tires make up the difference. But the Volt is agile too and would be even more so if its suspension were stiffer with perhaps beefier anti-roll bars or spring rates and given stickier tires too.
But the Volt is not pretending to be a sports car and balances suspension settings toward comfort which means more body roll. It is sporty though, and 85th percentile cornering antics at extra-legal, but not insane speeds are rewarded by crisp handling.
The Karma is set up like a grand touring car, and its grippy rubber slightly compromises mpg and all-electric range in favor of maximizing traction offered by its flat-cornering suspension.
One does wonder what would happen if the big car let loose if pitched too hard into a corner. All that mass sliding sideways might not be pretty. But it’s not really concerning, and it actually encourages you to push the corners. In sharp, slow bends, mashing the accelerator can induce rear sliding oversteer for some tire- and mpg-ruining fun.
Speaking of which, these are ecomobiles and while sneak previews of what it’s like to play with them are fine, what about that all important green factor?
As U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers already reveal, the Volt blows the Karma away. To a point. The lighter weight Volt relies on a 16.5-kwh battery, and uses only 65 percent of its capacity until the battery management system switches to charge-sustaining gas mode. The Karma uses 85-percent capacity from its 20.1-kwh battery. Thus their all-electric range (AER) is within a stone’s throw of each other.
Drive it sedately, and the Karma can do the whole 38 miles the EPA says the Volt’s battery provides. Actually the Karma is EPA-rated for 33 miles, and we’ve seen that and more. Both cars can hit 50 miles AER, but the Volt requires less nursing.
With finite battery reserves, you are encouraged to drive these cars “responsibly” (read: not like sports cars). If you do drive them hard with jackrabbit starts, speeding on the highway and anywhere else, expect AER to suffer.
This said, the EPA rates the Volt as 76-percent more efficient. That is, it’s MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent – see sidebar) is 98, whereas the Karma’s is 54. This means Karma electric costs are higher assuming the EPA cycle is correct. The German TÜV’s more lenient test says the Karma is good for 112 MPGe. You can take this for what it’s worth but it at least suggests easy going will mean better efficiency than the EPA estimates.
In gas-only mode the Volt again outscores the Karma with an EPA-rated 37 mpg vs. 20. Twenty is about what a comparably heavy Cadillac Escalade Hybrid musters but it cannot touch the Karma’s electric-only capabilities.
Again, efficiency numbers are dependent on how you drive. If you keep a cool hand, you can exceed estimates. Drive aggressively and you might think this energy saving talk is mixed with green wash.
What is the Right Choice?
Four possible answers: 1) The Volt. 2) The Karma. 3) Both. 4) Neither.
Of the two, the Volt obviously costs less, is cheaper to operate, thus promises a better return on investment.
Both cars are full EV subsidy eligible, and the Volt’s MSRP including $860 destination charge starts at $39,995. The Karma’s MSRP including $1,000 destination charge starts at $103,000.
The Karma – compared to an exotic V8 or V12 powered luxury car – is also inexpensive to purchase and operate. It’s half the price of an Aston Martin Rapide, for example.
Though not exactly affordable, the Fisker Karma is a bargain compared to many luxury cars.
But without a doubt the Volt has had far fewer quality issues – as in almost none. Actually, it has topped Consumer Reports’ owner satisfaction survey the last two years since its launch, displacing the Porsche 911 from that spot in the process.
The Karma has been recalled a couple times and has had reports of poorly fitted body panels, interior work, and electronic controls. However, its Finnish boutique maker Valmet also produces Porsches and Mercedes among other first-class cars, so we suspect it can get the quality control in line, and may have already.
Aside from this, both cars have been politicized, represent new technology, and there are plenty of fence sitters and detractors bandying various viewpoints.
Our take? If the cars really are viable – and many say they are – the market will vote its pocketbook, and veto unwarranted critical observations, real and imagined. Equally true is neither is perfect, both are first-generation examples and due to be followed by improved versions – but then that is always true of technology and both have their fans who say jump in, the water is fine.
The bottom line? The Volt and Karma are not right for everyone, but are meeting needs now. So, the only right answer is the one you decide.
What is MPGe in layman’s terms?
Simply put, it is how to compare the efficiency of electric vehicles. The Volt has a MPGe of 98, and the Karma gets 54 MPGe. So the Volt is 1.76 times more efficient, or the Karma will go 54 miles on the same electricity the Volt goes 98 miles. Efficiency is nice to know, but what about cost?
Without a little more information this MPGe number doesn’t give us what we can quickly equate when we see the MPG of a typical car; cost of the “fuel” we will be using. This MPGe number is based on 33.7 kilowatt-hours of energy usage. Why? Because the EPA has determined the energy in one gallon of gas is “equivalent” (the e in MPGe) to 33.7 kWh of electricity. So if we know what 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity costs, we could calculate the electric vehicle “fuel” cost.
If you know the cost of a kilowatt-hour at your home, the above information is enough to compare the fuel cost between a gas versus an electric vehicle, but for most consumers, the information in the tables below will paint a clear enough picture:
General Motors, through its OnStar division, showcased two new apps it says will address the possible range anxiety of electric vehicles and the cost of public charging.
Since the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle launched in late 2010, drivers have been able to manage vehicle charging through the OnStar RemoteLink Mobile App.
GM expands its electric vehicle line-up next year with the 2014 Chevy Spark EV and will offer more drivers the possibility to manage and control electric-only functions from their phone.
With this in mind, the following two will be offered: the Spark EV Waypoint tab and the Park-Tap-Charge Prototype App.
Spark EV Waypoint tab
Because the Spark EV operates exclusively on electricity, drivers will need to know if they can reach their destination on a single charge.
GM says the Spark EV Waypoint tab, which will be integrated into the RemoteLink app, can quickly determine that answer and plot a waypoint route with recommended charging stations if the route is beyond a single charge’s range.
“The Spark EV Waypoint tab aims to instill confidence in drivers who are not sure if they’ll be able to reach their destination on a single charge,” said Paul Pebbles, global manager, OnStar Electric Vehicle and Smart Grid Services. “It’s also for drivers who know they’ll be traveling beyond a single charge range.”
GM explained that once the destination is selected, based on the distance and battery life, the app will use the distance and remaining battery life to tell the driver one of four things:
• Destination is within the range of a single charge
• Destination is within a single charge range, but the vehicle needs to be charged more before the driver begins traveling
• Destination is further than a single charge range and requires a waypoint route
• No waypoint route is available and destination is beyond vehicle range. Due to a lack of charging stations a waypoint route may not always be possible
According to GM, the app tells a driver how long a drive will be and how long it will take to charge the Spark at each stop, combining the two for total trip duration. In addition to mobile, the waypoint routing function will be available on GM Owner Center allowing directions to be sent online to a vehicle. Destinations will be stored in OnStar’s Virtual Advisor service.
OnStar plans to make the Waypoint App available for the launch of the 2014 Spark EV.
Park-Tap-Charge Prototype App
GM says that with more electric vehicles on the market, the demand for public charging will grow as will the need to know how much charging away from home will cost.
Where cost is tied to public charging, GM says its new prototype app will allow EV owners to simply tap their smartphone against a charging station, which will automatically show payment options that, once accepted, will initiate the flow of electricity.
GM says the current name for this prototype app is Park-Tap-Charge.
“It’s all about transacting through the app to create a very connected vehicle experience,” said Pebbles. “This type of functionality contributes to an end-to-end solution for owners of the infrastructure and drivers.”
GM says prior to accepting payment, the app will show the hourly rate of charging, the estimated time for a full charge and the estimated cost of a full charge.
OnStar designed the app to leverage Near Field Communication technology, a way of contactless payment being implemented in smartphones today.
The theory is that using a signal sent from an NFC-enabled phone to a charge station with an embedded NFC tag, drivers will be able to automatically initiate payment from a previously connected account by tapping their smartphone to the station.
The current version of the application is still at the concept level and provides engineers the base for driving a scalable and viable solution as more EVs hit the road.
Toward the end of last week, General Motors released details of its pending pure electric vehicle, the Chevrolet Spark EV.
The electric car will be based on the small gas-engine Spark already offered.
Its propulsion will delivered by an oil-cooled, permanent magnet motor that produces at least 100 kilowatts (130 horsepower) and instantaneous torque of about 400 pound-feet with the coaxial drive unit.
GM says the resulting acceleration for the 0-60 mph sprint will take less than eight seconds.
The Spark EV will come with an industry-first, a SAE combo charger. This will allow DC fast charging of up to 80 percent of battery capacity in approximately 20 minutes.
That capability will be available shortly after market launch, GM says, adding it will assist with effective daily EV range.
“When our team set out to develop the propulsion system for Spark EV, we knew we had to provide surprising fun-to-drive acceleration with maximum efficiency,” said Spark EV Chief Engineer Chuck Russell. “What we think customers will enjoy most is how fun Spark EV is to drive; it’s seamless and power is available at every stage of the drive. This will help us to provide an exciting option for those customers who are looking for an EV that’s as much fun to drive as it is environmentally responsible.”
The Spark EV’s more than 20-kwh lithium-ion battery pack will be protected by Chevrolet’s eight year /100,000 mile warranty, and is said by GM to be capable of handling multiple DC fast charges daily.
Charging will also be possible in less than seven hours using a dedicated 240-volt charger. A 120-volt charge cord set will be standard.
Owners will be able to manage and monitor charging remotely using the Spark EV’s smart phone application, provided by OnStar.
“Spark EV’s battery has undergone more than 200,000 hours of testing in our global battery systems labs,” said Larry Nitz, executive director of GM’s global electrification engineering team. “This testing paved the way to allow our customers to do multiple DC fast charges daily to help alleviate range anxiety and improve convenience.”
Yes, the company that brought you the Chevy Volt partially justifying its sophisticated “range-extended” powertrain as a cure for range anxiety in the face of such alternatives as the 24-kwh Nissan Leaf is not a little mindful of “range anxiety” for its little roller skate to be launched in California next summer.
We’ve seen speculation by skeptics figuring if GM allows 80-percent usage of a 20-kwh battery’s total – assuming it is only 20 kwh – the Spark might get somewhere little more than 50 miles real-world range but this is mere conjecture, and not something GM is prepared to shed light upon.
An email to GM’s Kevin Kelly, manager, Electric Vehicle and Hybrid Communications probing about range netted the following reply:
“We are still in the final stages of development and are working on the final range numbers,” said Kelly. “All we are saying is that it will be among the best in its segment.”
So what car is best in its segment? Is that the Nissan Leaf? By 2013 Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn has said a better battery will be in place, but we’ve not seen confirmation this will be 25 percent more as some have speculated based on Japanese reports.
Further, GM may not even be thinking of the Leaf, which is a mid-size car. “Small” EVs – and the Spark is definitely small – include the Coda sedan, Ford Focus Electric, and perhaps closest in size may be the Mitsubishi i-MiEV (yes, they’re back to calling it the “i-MiEV” having called it the “i” for a while). The Mitsu is EPA rated at 62 miles EV range, the Ford gets 76, and while reports of the Coda going over 120 miles are common, EPA says it’s 88.
Perhaps quick charging capability for the BEV with the Bowtie badge will be a welcome thing.
In any case, GM says the Spark EV team was able to leverage expertise gained from the Volt program and uses many of the same components and systems. More than 75 percent of the propulsion system components are sourced either from the Volt or GM’s hybrid truck programs.
The Spark EV motor and drive unit will be manufactured early 2013 at GM’s transmission plant in White Marsh, Md., near Baltimore. GM says this will make the first time a U.S. auto manufacturer has built both a complete electric motor and drive unit for a modern electric vehicle in the United States.
“Spark EV is the latest demonstration of our growing expertise in electric motor and battery technologies – expertise we will need as we grow our portfolio of electric vehicles to address the needs of our global customers,” Nitz said.
