A Look Inside The Tesla Model 3, Chevy Bolt, and BMW i3 

Hah, still I'd rather have grays like yours instead of his weird baldness...

Yes

WeberAuto channel for some amazing Bolt teardown detail. The traction motor deep dive is fantastic.

Just do an engineering degree.

All the designs have very strong points but the only one that truly stands out as superior is the battery pack for the Tesla.

@Daniel Roig not so much the physical design, but rather the chemical composition of the batteries (NCA, or specifically Cobalt Cathodes) that are the most dense in terms of power but slightly less stable.

Critical lol?? Quite the understatement

@@ryccoh No shit, their articles read like they were written by a highschool girl who got dumped by Elon

@@DuckRiceFarmer But the Tesla fan boy stuff on a few outlets is annoying. Like that this one focused on the design rather than boy crushing on Elon.

@@jperksification Marry me Elon!

You might want to have a good think and do some digging about exactly why that is. Munro Associates did a teardown on the Model 3 two years ago that exposed serious safety issues and abysmal build quality. An 'anonymous' company then initiated legal action against Munro. Now there's a video out there showing all Munro's people kissing Tesla's arse. Coincidence? I think not.

Tesla does the drive train well because they have relied and poured investment into motors and battery management since 2005, 2010 since Freemont. I remember when these Munro guys sang their praises for the BMW i3, the only thing they didn't like was the 660cc motorcycle REx, but they were at a loss for words for the 0-emission constructed CFRP body married to an aluminium frame, ol' school.

Too bad the company is run by a con artist.

@@truantray who the hell feeds you these lies? Let me guess Alex Jones or some other right wing maniac.

okleydokley explain

to much fanboy spin....for example they kepr trying to rationalize non-existent flaws with the i3 and Bolt's body, to make the Model 3's well known poorly designed body, to not seem as bad...and yes the Model 3 is superior in other areas just be objective and balanced...

The tech isn't that complicated, and yes, I'm also old and an experienced wrench. Note: the Bolt is rather simple actually, but the BMW & Tesla are overly complex in design. Fortunately I don't have to support a car newer than 1991, as I no longer bleed for a living.

Yes and the rivits and welds are for crampy zone

Rider19Ih Yeah he seems really outgoing and relaxed on camera. Perfect type in front of a camera.

Yep. Time to go with the shaved look. It worked for Picard and Sisko.

Stop telling people how they should look

​@@AM-zn9di "Stop telling people how they should look " aww looks like someone's triggered

@@bluenation3838yoohoo aww looks like someone is triggered by someone who's triggered by someone who's triggered by some guy's hair

Very few things trigger me. Not The sound of nails on chalkboard, not an incessantly screaming child on a long plane ride, not even the sight of my own blood. But that hair... * eye twitch * - Also, this was a really well produced and amazingly informative video that I greatly enjoyed. But that hhh... ghuh.. must control myself.

Autoline today. "Chinese Tesla" stripdown by Munro

@Coraga 1 True. But not as simply done for the masses like jalopnik just did. I forwarded this video to friends because of its simplicity. But you are correct

lankale2009 what killed me is they are the people constantly writing half truth articles for clicks about how Tesla are not great. Then when they finally you know look at in great depth with real professionals not paid by some random investor they come away with shock and amazement. Funny how that works. I have two. They are far from perfect. The service is awful. The car however is something else. The thing flys handles likes a bmw and cost me next to nothing to run. If this is the future well I am already all in. I just wished they would have done this kinda deep dive long ago and couched all the bad things with this as the back drop. Tesla engine designers work hard so do the battery and frame teams. The service side is all a cash flow issue. If they had a spare 2 billion they could buy them selves out of that hole. Traditional automakers will have to spend 10x that to get out of the r and d hole they are in.

@@sziehr The only thing I would like to mention is that Tesla has about $3 billion to spare (cash).

Good thing there are so many experts on youtube and the comment section. what would we do without it..

keep in mind battery chemistry is evolving all the time and so are the processes to make them. i'm excited for solid state battery tech

@@matthewwiemken7293 Chemistry is evolving yes BUT Tesla is NOT. Its still a rolling incendiary device.

Nice!

That flange has nothing to do with strength

A thin sheet metal flange isn't going to protect from side impacts.

It's probably some obscure reason like tuning the resonant frequency of the chassis to damp vibration, I have no doubt it's exactly as wide as it needs to be.

@@suckmybat It's probably something like a robot needed the flange to be that wide, then the robot didn't work right and they were all done by hand. Then it didn't make sense to change the flange width after they were already built.

@@suckmybat its probably much simpler. Tesla has struggled with the tolerances on their chassis from the start (see panel gaps). Larger pieces are easier for a robot with little mechanical sensitivity to hold in place. Not to mention metal likes to warp in one direction when you weld (the direction of your first bead), so having a strong grip is important.

When it's all you have, uh, yeah....

That is why there are so many dead burned out teslas !

@@captlarry-3525 the first 3 words Crusherix typed, were correct. 🤣

@ Tesla outselling any other EV and scares other car manufacturers that even they jump on the bandwagon. Yeah, Tesla is dead.

@@captlarry-3525 Show all the great numbers of fires to me. I'm using the first good data I found -- I have a general rule of not spending a lot of time on idiots. In the years 2006-2010, there were approximately 5 THOUSAND car fires. Internal Combustion (pun intended) cars. Until January 2016 Tesla had SIX car fires. SIX. Conclusion? Meh. BTW, if you do spot a burnt Tesla, PM me. I needs some car parts from a car or two for a project.

Tesla's intention is that you won't be parking or driving anymore lol

Tesla is already planning 10 years ahead, skipped the 360 parking assist camera view, and went strait for a car that parks itself whether you’re paying attention to your surroundings or not, and even when you’re not in the car. It’s like skipping Blockbuster video on your way home to watch Netflix instead.

I think you forgot that Tesla has a large screen for all things rear viewing. It is MUCH larger than a little rear view mirror. By the way, that one part cost GM $120. Tesla saved a lot of money and put all that functionality in one place.

Yeah, not sure how a dinky lcd on a mirror is better than a 15" monitor?!

My advice to you is SELL the Bolt ASAP and buy a Model 3.

If you are referring to the motor shown in this video, they are not switched reluctance...even if I read this in many websites. Eventually can be somehow classified as synchronous reluctance.

Re: motors sliding under the car in a crash, Both Mercedes and Volvo designed this into their cars in the 70's. Please note ESV vehicles. www.caranddriver.com/features/a15123951/five-experimental-safety-car-concepts-feature/

@p jd Sure but designing for an electrical motor is of course different as designing that for an ICE so some things may just look weird to someone who's only ever looked at ICE vehicles. It's not like noone else has thought to do some of these things before but ultimately the Model 3 is the safest car ever tested according to the NHSTA. To have accomplished this they are bound to do things differently from industry.

Meh - they tweaked until their computers told them they were good. It's pretty easy to total a crashed Tesla because of design and construction and few body shops skilled enough to do the repairs....which means high insurance rates

@@vidznstuff1 The crash data is from physical NHSTA crash testing and the Model 3 is the safest car ever tested according to actual wired up dummies placed in these cars not computer models.

@@ryccoh You fail to make any further point here other than flag waving. A car that has stellar crash performance that is not repairable is not as stellar as you fanboys wish it was. The metal used in a Tesla CRACKS when bent, making that spotwelded integral structural piece a writeoff. Now fix it when 95% of repair shops don't have the skills or equipment to repair them. Teslas are written off for minor collisions that would render other cars repairable. A "safe" car for the people that trades a luxury car payment for a lower buy plus insurance premiums is FAIL. Cars are designed an optimized by COMPUTERS now, including crash performance which is a fairly recent tool suite...dummies are only used for validation. If a newly designed platform fails crash testing, it's because bean counters stuck their noses into it. When you charge premium prices, have a poorly staffed customer service organization, and charge outrageous amounts for parts ($500 for a KEY), like Tesla does, the beancounters stay out of it.

I work on the main drive unit floor, it's funny seeing the motor and inverter which i'm well familiar with.

@@Oldbmwr100rs which bearings go bad in the large drive unit "milling sound"? Is it the carbon brushes that ground the rotor that go bad? I need to fix my car. email dawnj6@gmail.com, please? :)

Very cool indeed. Good work!

Edison Motors They don't use brushes. These are AC motors. For those who don't know.

Get insulated gloves and good life insurance first.

@@Xyquest I was an aviation electrician in the Marine Corps and retired from GM, I got it covered like a fat lady on a toilet seat!

@@Xyquest In fact the Bolt is assembled at the plant I spent most of my GM career.

That really bothered me the whole video...Damn man your people need to tell you you look ridiculous. Preadolescence girls wants their bangs back.

Karol Osuchowski What’s your point?

And then BMW promptly sold the carbon fiber capability. I think they had enough.

@@billh2294 This is possibly a good thing. At least steel and aluminium can be endlessly recycled and there is already a big material recovery system in place.

@@billh2294 Worse than that. A lot of the engineers and designers on the i3 project left BMW. The managers had no follow-up EV project for the team on the cards and many of them wanted to continue working in the EV space.

@@cros13 Any idea where they went?

@@billh2294 A lot went to China, a disproportionate number ended up at Byton and BMW's partner there Brilliance. Some went to the american EV startups like Tesla, Rivian and Faraday.

That is my take on the whole video. They should've left the "why" questions to people who actually worked on the designs or have technical expertise in the fields of study being brought up.

Why i pace? Completetly different class.

@@Batvolle it's not a proper SUV but close XD

Doubt it. It takes a lot to reverse engineer an entire car. It's not to say it won't happen though

@@cpufreak101 you make no sense, all 3 of the cars in this video were reverse engineered by the company. They will probably more than likely also teardown those cars too

@@d0peusername the question is though of they'll allow jalopnik back in to see them though

Actually the Bolt has the cheaper motor design to build and the most reliable & durable design as well...

I am very curious, I was trying to figure out where the Hallbach pattern conclusion comes from: is based on hypothesis or measurements? Is there any actual picture or plot of this field produced by these magnets?

And the Bolts motor is more durable, due to it's winding design...

Exactly.....!!! Way to integrated for my liking, how about an open sourced car, all modular designed and easy to replace parts, lets keep more stuff out of land fills !!

Actually the most practical design is the Bolt, the Tesla is designed as a performance car...

Not in China...their major power source is COAL

BMW seems to have been slacking a lot with the i3.

@@MrChadder007 No BMW I3 is way ahead in technology. 8 year 100,000 mile on the battery, 4 years/50,000 on the vehicle, 12 years/ unlimited miles on rust perforation,15years/150,000 on the range extender and emission control, and the only one that the lithium-ion can be repaired.

@@jmwarden1 lol, under what kind of propaganda have you been living?

This is most likely a paid for video ad for Tesla, so I guess they "forgot" about it because it was at least as good as the Tesla.

Only Tesla pretty much. Everyone else is way behind on every aspect.

@@charlech not exactly.....ive seen some crazy tech in non tesla cars

Carbon Fiber might be new to consumer cars like the i3 but is crucual tech for the space and aerospace industries. I dont think Tesla would have the manufacturing might as BMW. Maybe SpaceX but not to mass scale. So maybe ur wrong in BMW being behind in tech in that category.

pauL3gend I don’t think the chassis is the most important part of an EV. Let them build a mid sized EV with 300+ miles and 250kw charging capabilities, then get back to me on that BMW is on par with Tesla nonsense.

@@alphaomega9650 BMW is ahead with the I3 in the use of carbon fiber for the the chassis...although it's completely the wrong car for it and was a waste of time. They are also ahead in manufacturing might. Now as far as the rest of the car, they are mostly behind except maybe a few little things here and there.

Torch really needs to tame that beast.

Jason it's time to let the hair go. 🤣

Jason's hair is the male equivalent to women who Botox themselves because they can't age with grace.

Came to the comments to see if anyone else was talking about his hair.

In this episode we compare 3 hairstyles....

It was an existing bodyshell. Designed to save money. That worked well..... Not.

The GM way is a quickfix way, making EV production possible with a minimal development cost. But the time where that is good enough is fading fast. The only way to be profitable with EVs is to design manufacturing lines from the ground up. The question is whether traditional auto makers (and their investors) are interested in doing that - and whether they dare. Because even though the auto industry is brutally competitive, they're still surviving with doing business as usual - and many of their main assets would become liabilities if they risked it all.

Well, it's GM. They have never had interest in building well designed cars. GM cars have always been designed by accountants.

However, unlike Tesla, GM needs to make money. Tesla just burns money because people keep throwing money at them to burn. Tesla is suffering Betamax syndrome. The better product does not always win the market.

@@truantray But Tesla is still winning on the market share, and Tesla was profitable for 2 quarters in a row. So I don't see your point there. Tesla has significantly better gross margins on their EVs than legacy automakers. Most of them have negative gross margins - but Tesla doesn't.

One thing they failed to touch on is that the Bolt uses a permanent magnet motor while the Tesla, and possibly the i3, use induction motors. This gives the Bolt the edge on torque, regen, and finer control of the motor. Driving the Bolt, I see: 150 kW of motive power (decreases to 140 kW as charge depletes), 10-20 kW of regen during D mode (depends on speed), no-pedal, 50 kW regen L mode, no-pedal (or D-mode and paddle), and 70 kW regen L-mode and paddle. The Bolt is able to hold the car at a complete stop on level or mild inclines (steeper grade facing up than down) using the motor alone. If the car continues creeping forward because the downgrade is too steep when being held by motor torque in L, it will apply the electric parking brake automatically to hold the car still, releasing the instant you press the throttle. Facing uphill, the Bolt can hold brake pressure until you press the throttle (Hill Start Assist), allowing you to release the brake pedal but still keep the brakes (and brake lights) applied. Tesla has a brake hold feature where if you push the brake pedal further than needed to stop the car, it will hold the brakes on until you push either pedal, which is similar to the Bolt's Hill Start Assist, but can do it at any time. With Autopilot engaged, you don't need to do anything. As for battery thermals, I don't know specifics, but I've noticed with ambient temperatures below 34 F, the Bolt will heat the battery if the car sat outside all night. It'll either do this while charging if plugged in, or during driving. The colder the battery is, the more limited regen braking is (indicated by a line on the power gauge on the dash, enhanced layout). During the summer, it will cool the pack using the A/C, and can do it with or without cabin A/C running, even though they share the compressor. It's taken a couple days above 90 F for mine to activate cooling without quick charging. The battery has a separate 2 kW heater, and all thermal management is done through a glycol loop. The Bolt only cools when necessary during quick charge, which so far has only happened once for me. The Bolt has three glycol loops. One is dedicated to the battery, another dedicated to cabin heating, and the third used for inverter/charger/drive motor cooling. The electronics/motor loop is the only loop to utilize a radiator, meaning that any thermal management of the battery is active (heater or A/C) when passive airflow cooling of the case isn't enough (air flowing under the car during driving). Fortunately, the battery balances pretty well between being insulated from the weather and being able to dump or absorb heat from ambient air. The radiator is equipped with Chevy's active shutters, which close at higher speed unless they need to be open, reducing aero drag. The Bolt uses an electromechanical coupling for the shifter. The actual shifter inside is purely electronic and commands a servo attached to the drive unit. The servo moves an electrical switch inside the drive unit and engages or releases the parking pawl (Tesla does not use any of this and relies solely on the electric parking brakes for Park). The switch in the drive unit confirms the shift. I believe this is done to prevent damage to the park pawl. Park, Reverse, Neutral, and Drive all cause the servo to move. Only switching between Drive and Low is done purely by wire, and all this really does is re-map the throttle pedal in software to enable one-pedal driving. One last thing. One-pedal driving in L is only active with the driver seat belt engaged. Without the seat belt, the car creeps forward, but slower than in D. If you are stopped while in L, and unclick the seatbelt, the parking brake will apply. With the seatbelt fastened in Drive mode, the paddle on the steering wheel will completely stop the car using only regen. Once stopped, the car will sit there until you press the throttle pedal, at which point creep will be re-enabled. If you are creeping forward and push Park, the Bolt will pump the hydraulic brakes to stop the car, apply the electric parking brake, and then shift to Park. You can even simply press the power button at a standstill and the Bolt will automatically put the car in Park and selectively apply the parking brake (still trying to figure out if this is location, terrain, or behavior based, as it still appears random) and then power down.

@@MrTsolar holy information batman, I'm copy pasting this to a notepad ASAP thanks!

I don't mind someone having an opinion so long as they are willing to correct themselves when faced with opposing facts. :)

@@billyjack70 that's a good point

When did they shit all over tesla? I thought they criticized some of the manufacturing decisions, but praised the tech. Seems like they were just objective.

@@SOSLICK22 In their initial tear down when all they had done was evaluate the body, they were not at all impressed. That was a separate video and not apparent in this one. It just turned out to be the weakest component, and the only one that they didn't see Tesla ahead on. Now that they've taken the whole thing apart their overall stance is that more balanced and they rate the Model 3 very highly.

Right, many of the engineering solutions look like they were made by a precursor alien civilization or something. They're that crazy.

It's first principles design: 1. what's the best way to make this; 2. how do we make it that way at a price that can be profitable.

Thats all well and good, but in the real world LOTS of Model S owners have had to deal with replacement motors, steering racks and of course door handles amognst others. In the real world Tesla's don't rank very high on the reliability index.

@@YouNeedToCalmDown76 unlike most other manufacturers though, as Tesla is so young I'd suggest - and anecdotally it seems to be true - that most of the issues are in the early models. Everyone knows they had issues, and yet even most people who had those issues say they wouldn't drive anything else. Of course, it's a predominantly early adopter demographic, so that also influences those decisions.

Pogo I guess they were too busy being impressed by Tesla's clearly superior design.

@@j.kevinmcnary9561 Ouch!

@@j.kevinmcnary9561 Easy to be impressed by vajazzle. There are pro and con's with Tesla's "superior" design. Are some of them more effective, yes, downside, it adds more complexity, more cost in both manufacturing, assembly and maintenance. These are things that any manufacturers that expect to stay in business take into account when building a car. Companies that don't end up like BMC.

Pogo Some folks are clearly willing to pay more for the safest passenger sedan in the world. And if Munro considers the design and efficiency of the battery and drivetain to be superior, I will defer to that expertise.

@@j.kevinmcnary9561 Yes, he did, now will you also defer to him when said that the chassis was over built, over weight and over complicated and had for the rigidity it had? Translation another company can build the same body, just as safely and build lighter, simpler and for less. The customers are paying for the illusion.

I have driven an i3 for 2 years and as an experiment I have never washed it, Still as new, It's perfect where I live in Norway with salty winter roads.

BMW is similar to Tesla only in costs and powertrain layout. Tesla has the best range, performance, space, efficiency, charging network and safety. With over 500 km range it's rather not a commuter car... (Yes, I'm a Tesla fan)

Brian Hendrickson yes I think the presenters have made the car look bad because it is not beautiful but is made very smart

What's your point? It was still a smart move...

aussiepyro That was my point. They didn’t just jump in. My son is an engineer at Tesla and he goes down to the Gigafactory pretty often. He is one of the lead designers of the rear power unit of the model III.

@@dwightbrown2808 Ahh... OK then. Often when someone states a fact like that on here they're doing it as a rebuttal, and it was hard to see what you were trying to convey. My apologies for misinterpreting it. Sounds like your son would have some interesting insights then.

@@aussiepyro No problem! He very much likes working there and he even got to work on the new Roadster. The only downer is the Bay area is a crazy place to live as far as housing. $1000 per square foot give or take.

"Hands up who wants a sturdy car?" (That'll be *everyone* )

They missed the point on that, like with every other topic. The chassis is too complicated to produce. Using more material is not a problem. Having 3 different methods to weld and bolt the parts together is stupid. You need to have 3 different robots work on the same part of the chassis, which makes the production line expensive and slow. Same with the electronics, there is no compromise to save production cost and time. The only compromises are building quality (paint job, gaps, substandard interior), work-life balance for the worker and battery design. Other automakers ruled several designs out over the decades and something like the Tesla packaging was ruled out as unsafe and complicated to control. Tesla solved the latter. There is a reason for so many Teslas going up in flames and it comes to their "great" battery packaging. Sadly, that is giving EVs a bad reputation. To get EVs to the masses, they need to be safe and simple. They need to get to a price point that fits average and subaverage consumer pockets. Traditional automakers are on it, VW is going to produce a Golf seized EV that is just slightly more expensive than a midrange combustion engine model.

@@rogerstarkey5390 "Sturdy" is not an engineering term. A car body only has keep structural integrity at collision speeds up to 45 mph. At higher speed than that, death and injury is ensured even if padded in full body bubble wrap. Weight however is to be avoided as much as possible = lower energy use, shorter braking, and lower manufacturing costs.

​@@Agent-000-0 "there is a reason for so many Teslas going up in flames" ... "sadly, that is giving EVs a bad reputation". I'm not sure what "bad reputation" you speak of. I can only think of all the headlines that come when a Tesla fire occurs. Sometimes with falsified allegations, likely to be softball throws from shortsellers. First of all, there's not "so many Teslas going up in flames". What is your source for that? And what is the source you have that says that Tesla's packaging specifically is unsafe? The numbers I've seen (from 2007-2014) showed a ratio of 1 fire per 25 billion miles, with ICE fires being 90 fires per billion miles. Tesla uses a _battery chemistry_ that is _more_ prone to going up in flames than some of its competitors (NiMH) but it's still safer than ICEVs (and has lots of other benefits). The publicity around their fires is not Tesla's fault. EV fires can be a lot harder to extinguish (especially without training), and some battery chemistry failures can be dangerous _if_ the cooling and packaging isn't done right. EV development is still in its infancy, so perhaps safety might improve further (possibly together with battery chemistry). I really hope VW will be able to produce their I.D. series in the way their marketing claimed. I liked the VW e-Up and e-Golf in many ways. But I exercise caution because traditional manufacturers don't have a history of living up to their claims, where as Tesla has historically done so (albeit rarely on time). VW's plan seems good on the surface, and they have the potential to take advantage of their knowledge of building bodies that Tesla doesn't. What we have yet to see is if they can make cheap EVs at a profit. And whether they can compete with Tesla's software and infrastructure advantages. But most of all, I just hope that they actually manage to produce them in serious enough numbers for them to be sustainable.

@@Agent-000-0 Claims of Tesla being fire prone and the packaging is to blame is pure FUD. There is no statistical data showing they are above or even at the average of car fires in the industry. The media just gets to fan the flames easier because they clickbait articles about accidents. In fact, most manufacturers are copying Tesla's battery pack, the difference is that they keep using pouch cells or prismatic cells so they can reduce costs because less of them will be needed to be welded and connected compared to smaller cells like Tesla uses. However, larger cells are notoriously more difficult to control in terms of temperature because there is less surface area for a given amount of active material to interface the cooling or heating on the outside. It also requires compromises in chemistry being required to use less energy dense cells to counter their less effective cooling and heating of the cells in order to gain more passive stability. Regardless they pay the penalty in weight and efficiency. It's why cars like eTron or I Pace get worse range for the same capacity battery pack.

Crap built by amatuers.

@@captlarry-3525 Well it's a new company.

@JF F Theyre legitimately not well built, and the claims of overbuilding have nothing to do with strength but just things that add cost and complexity while significantly lowering QC. Thats from the several reports of that company that actually tore down several teslas.

Tom l I’m sure their build quality will get better. But come on man. You gotta give it to them though. They are the only ones on the market with a electric car that can do over 300 miles. It’s been that way for awhile too. Also the highest safety rating possible. Not to mention they all go 0-60 in under 6 seconds. Unfortunately their QC could use some improvement, let them hire some guys that know what they are doing, problem solved. How many costumers are going to tear down their car and see it is over engineered?? Nah maybe 1 in 100k.

@@alphaomega9650 they're also funded by my tax dollars and are still grossly expensive when they were supposed to provide an affordable long range ev YEARS ago. But instead have spent our money elsewhere