1969 Chevy C10 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chevy Bolt EV's battery shows big improvements over Spark's

Plug-in vehicle battery technology moves fast, and all you need to do to see this in action is to take a look at the new 60-kWh lithium-ion pack inside the 2017 Chevy Bolt EV. Well, you need to do that and then compare it to the battery packs inside of GM's other plug-in vehicles. And you don't even to go as far back as the EV1 to see progress. Let's start with what we know about the new Bolt's pack. It is supposed to drive the Bolt EV over 200 miles on a full charge. It weighs 960 pounds and is made up of 288 cells. Chevy's other all-electric car, the limited-availability Spark EV, had a 19-kWh pack and offered 82 miles of range. It had 192 cells and weighed 474 pounds. So, in the few years since the Spark EV was released, GM engineers have figured out how to get three times the energy capacity and almost two-and-a-half times more range out of a pack that weighs only about twice as much. And that doesn't even get to the price drops. GM has figured out how to get 3x the energy capacity and almost 2.5 times more range out of a pack that weighs only twice as much. Speaking of those 288 cells, that number might sound familiar to regular readers because that's exactly how many are in the new Chevy Volt. But the packs in the Volt and the Bolt are entirely different beasts. For one thing, while the Volt cells are made by LG Chem in Holland, MI, LG Chem will make the Bolt's cells in South Korea. The cell chemistries are also different. We spoke with GM engineer Tim Grewe (again) and while he declined to answer some of our Bolt battery pack questions until more details are unveiled at the SAE World Congress in April, he was able to explain a few things. "The cell inside the Chevy Bolt EV was specifically designed for EV range so it's up on energy," he said. "That's a different cell chemistry than on the extended range Chevy Volt, which is a smaller pack, smaller energy but more power per cell. We work with all of those vehicle requirements and customer demands and we say how do we meet this and we change the chemistry to make it all work." Comparing the 60 kWh in the Bolt and the 18.4-kWh pack in the Volt is really one of those apples to oranges issues, he said. "If you look at the Volt battery pack, how it went from where it was and where it's up to, from 38 miles to 50 miles, that was basic, overall industry improvement. Now, the 18 [kWh] to the 60 [kWh] is extended range vs. EV.

Here are a few of our automotive guilty pleasures

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The world is full of cars, and just about as many of them are bad as are good. It's pretty easy to pick which fall into each category after giving them a thorough walkaround and, more important, driving them. But every once in a while, an automobile straddles the line somehow between good and bad — it may be hideously overpriced and therefore a marketplace failure, it may be stupid quick in a straight line but handles like a drunken noodle, or it may have an interior that looks like it was made of a mess of injection-molded Legos. Heck, maybe all three. Yet there's something special about some bad cars that actually makes them likable. The idea for this list came to me while I was browsing classified ads for cars within a few hundred miles of my house. I ran across a few oddballs and shared them with the rest of the team in our online chat room. It turns out several of us have a few automotive guilty pleasures that we're willing to admit to. We'll call a few of 'em out here. Feel free to share some of your own in the comments below. Dodge Neon SRT4 and Caliber SRT4: The Neon was a passably good and plucky little city car when it debuted for the 1995 model year. The Caliber, which replaced the aging Neon and sought to replace its friendly marketing campaign with something more sinister, was panned from the very outset for its cheap interior furnishings, but at least offered some decent utility with its hatchback shape. What the two little front-wheel-drive Dodge models have in common are their rip-roarin' SRT variants, each powered by turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Known for their propensity to light up their front tires under hard acceleration, the duo were legitimately quick and fun to drive with a fantastic turbo whoosh that called to mind the early days of turbo technology. — Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski  Chevrolet HHR SS: Chevy's HHR SS came out early in my automotive journalism career, and I have fond memories of the press launch (and having dinner with Bob Lutz) that included plenty of tire-smoking hard launches and demonstrations of the manual transmission's no-lift shift feature. The 260-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder was and still is a spunky little engine that makes the retro-inspired HHR a fun little hot rod that works quite well as a fun little daily driver.

Junkyard Gem: 1985 Chevrolet Sprint

For in the 1985 model year, General Motors began selling Chevrolet-badged Suzuki Cultus hatchbacks in California. Sales of the cheap three-cylinder econobox in the rest of North America followed soon after (with the Canadian version known as the Pontiac Firefly), and did pretty well considering the crash in gasoline prices during the middle 1980s. Starting in 1988, the facelifted Sprint became the Geo (and, later on, Chevrolet) Metro. Here's one of the very first Cultuses sold on our shores, found in a San Francisco Bay Area car graveyard. Amazingly, the primitive rear-wheel-drive Chevrolet Chevette remained available all the way through 1987, competing with the thriftier front-wheel-drive Sprint in the same showrooms. For 1988, Pontiac started selling a rebadged Daewoo LeMans, so the Sprint/Metro never lacked for intra-corporate competition. Inside, you'll find the same stuff most mid-1980s Japanese econoboxes got: tough cloth upholstery and long-wearing hard plastics. Suzuki quality in 1985 wasn't quite up to Honda or Toyota levels, but you weren't paying Honda or Toyota prices for the Sprint. MSRP on this car started at $4,949, or about $12,000 in 2020 dollars. The cheapest possible 1985 Chevette cost $5,340, while a new no-frills Ford Escort would set you back $5,620. Subaru, however, could have put you in a punitively unappointed base-model Leone hatchback for just 40 bucks more than the Sprint that year. I think I'd have sprung the extra for a $5,348 Toyota Tercel, a $5,195 Mazda GLC, or— best cheap-commuter deal of all that year— the $5,399 Honda Civic 1300 hatchback. I was 19 years old and driving a Competition Orange 1968 Mercury Cyclone that year, and I recall feeling pity for Chevy Sprint drivers, new-car smell or not. Still, these weren't bad cars for the price, though a Sprint with an automatic transmission was a real character-builder. Got three cylinders and uses 'em all! 48 horsepower from this hemi-headed SOHC 1-liter. The Turbo Sprint — yes, such a car existed — had a howling 70 horsepower. The hood-latch release is a rectangular button that resembles a badge. 1985 Chevy Sprint Commercial The highest-mileage, lowest-priced car you can buy. 1985 holden barina commercial The Australian-market version was the Holden Barina, and the TV ads featured the Road Runner. 1983 SUZUKI CULTUS Ad In its homeland, this car got screaming guitars and a drive through New York City for its TV commercials.