Gen 1 GM Volt Plug-In Hybrid (2011-2015)

[Volt3939]

...
Cheap Volt lease offers meant to drive more customers to Chevy showrooms this summer may have pushed that loss even higher. There are some Americans paying just $5,050 to drive around for two years in a vehicle that cost as much as $89,000 to produce.

No question that someone who gets a low cost lease on one of these is doing quite well but I wonder how long they can keep this up ...

As long as it takes?

Further down, past most peoples attention span apparently:

"Spread out over the 21,500 Volts that GM has sold since the car's introduction in December 2010, the development and tooling costs average just under $56,000 per car. That figure will, of course, come down as more Volts are sold.

The actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants."

So actual cost to build is 20K-32K. Development costs have dropped drastically from the 250K each propaganda of last year to 56K now? Impressive... Still the propaganda is at the top of the story, and the facts are at the bottom.

 

[DaveEV]

So actual cost to build is 20K-32K. Development costs have dropped drastically from the 250K each propaganda of last year to 56K now? Impressive... Still the propaganda is at the top of the story, and the facts are at the bottom.

No kidding. The authors of the story had an agenda to push first and lack basic business accounting skills.

The first model year of any new vehicle is going to show a net loss per vehicle. But R&D typically is amortized over multiple model years and even vehicles depending on the area of R&D.

Decent rebuttal of the story from static on Inside EVs: Reuters: GM Is Still Losing As Much As $49,000 On Each Volt It Builds

If you enjoy being frustrated at poor journalism, might I suggest reading Reuters original story here, there is lots more good stuff.

 

[eHelmholtz]

GM takes Issue with Reuters' estimate.

“Reuters’ estimate of the current loss per unit for each Volt sold is grossly wrong, in part because they allocated product development costs across units sold instead of across the lifetime volume of the program, which is how business operates."

 

[GRA]

GM takes Issue with Reuters' estimate.

“Reuters’ estimate of the current loss per unit for each Volt sold is grossly wrong, in part because they allocated product development costs across units sold instead of across the lifetime volume of the program, which is how business operates."

Yeah, pretty dumb article. That being said, GM Volt people were saying even before the car went on sale that they probably wouldn't make a profit on it until Gen 2 - they considered that the buy-in cost of developing the technology.

 

[SanDust]

From the article: "The actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants."

How you can lose money by making a vehicle for $20,000 and selling it for $40,000 is beyond my simple minded ability to add and subtract. Must be high finance.

 

[scottf200]

From the article: "The actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants."
How you can lose money by making a vehicle for $20,000 and selling it for $40,000 is beyond my simple minded ability to add and subtract. Must be high finance.

Nice 12K spread they had. How much is that percentage wise. Statistically crazy.

the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs - Bob Lutz (hmm... do you think he has some real insight/knowledge being where he came from)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Volt “variable cost” (labor and materials, without revealing any confidential GM information), looks very roughly like this: A Li-Ion battery today runs about $350 per KWh. The Volt’s is 16KWh, so that’s roughly $6000. Add $4,000 for the battery pack structure, the cooling, the high-voltage wiring, the motor and the power electronics. So, that’s the electric portion. Add about 20 hours of assembly labor which we’ll round to a very generous $1000. The dealer net price is, say, $37,000. We now have $26,000 left for the rest of the car, which, cost-wise, is about equal to a Chevy “Cruze” which sells for around $22,000 retail! (And the Volt has no costly conventional transmission.) Thus, the “Volt”, by my estimate, is either close to “variable break-even” or may be on the cusp of a positive gross margin. Deduct the per-unit allocation for all fixed cost, depreciation and amortization and it is, surely, still “under water”….but not by much, and less and less so as the volume builds and other, higher-margin GM cars, like the Cadillac ELR, piggy-back off of the Volt’s initial investment.

Maybe the Volt, a first-generation technology masterpiece and the most-awarded car in automotive history, will never make a really decent profit.

But succeeding generations of the same technology will. Meanwhile, the happy Volt buyers (most satisfied owners of any nameplate in the market) are getting more that they paid for. (Is that so bad?)

Also GMs response:
GM Response to Reuters Story on Chevrolet Volt Development Costs
http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Sep/0910_volt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DETROIT – Reuters’ estimate of the current loss per unit for each Volt sold is grossly wrong, in part because the reporters allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime volume of the program, which is how business operates. The Reuters’ numbers become more wrong with each Volt sold.

In addition, our core research into battery cells, battery packs, controls, electric motors, regenerative braking and other technologies has applications across multiple current and future products, which will help spread costs over a much higher volume, thereby reducing manufacturing and purchasing costs. This will eventually lead to profitability for the Volt and future electrified vehicles.

Every investment in technology that GM makes is designed to have a payoff for our customers, to meet future regulatory requirements and add to the bottom line. The Volt is no different, even if it takes longer to become profitable.

GM is at the forefront of the electrification of the automobile because we are developing innovative technologies and building an enthusiastic – and growing – customer base for vehicles like the Volt.

 

[GRA]

From the article: "The actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants."

How you can lose money by making a vehicle for $20,000 and selling it for $40,000 is beyond my simple minded ability to add and subtract. Must be high finance.

Bob Lutz' response to the article gives an excellent idea of how costs work out. FWIW, I've got a cost breakdown for a typical ICE, and 'Manufacturing' typically accounts for only 50% of the MSRP. Warranty (5% IIRR), marketing (distribution and sales), amortization and depreciation, corporate overhead, health care & pensions, and profit (typically 2.5%- 5%) make up the rest of what goes into the MSRP. Profit was often much higher on big SUVs because their development costs were/are so low, as they're essentially just pickup trucks using body on frame construction, with more windows and an extended roofline.

 

[evnow]

The problem is - journalists don't get finance or they are flat out misleading.

The bottomline is - is Volt contributing any margin. If it is, then every extra volt sold is better for GM. But the headline makes it seem that every extra Volt sold is worse for GM.

 

[GRA]

For those who are interested, here's the generic cost breakdown for an ICE. This was compiled for a study by the authors after talking to a variety of industry insiders, so consider it representative but not applying to any particular vehicle.

........................................................ Share of MSRP (%)
Cost Category/Subcategory.............. By Cost Category....By Subcategory

Production..........................................67.0

• Manufacturing.......................................................50.0

• Warranty...............................................................5.0

• R&D and Engineering.................................................6.5

• Depreciation/Amortization..........................................5.5

Selling...............................................23.5

• Distribution..........................................................20.0

• Advertising and Dealer Support.....................................3.5

Administration and Profit..........................9.5

• Corporate Overhead..................................................5.0

• Retirement and Health Benefits.....................................2.5

• Profit...................................................................2.0

Total...............................................100.0...............100.0

Source: Vyas, Cuenca and Gaines, 1998

I think it's reasonable to assume that R&D and manufacturing (materiel) costs for the Volt were considerably higher than for a typical ICE. GM may have also set aside more for warranty, given the unknowns.

 

[edatoakrun]

From the article: "The actual cost to build the Volt is estimated to be an additional $20,000 to $32,000 per vehicle, according to Munro and the other industry consultants."
How you can lose money by making a vehicle for $20,000 and selling it for $40,000 is beyond my simple minded ability to add and subtract. Must be high finance.

Nice 12K spread they had. How much is that percentage wise. Statistically crazy.

the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs - Bob Lutz (hmm... do you think he has some real insight/knowledge being where he came from)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Volt “variable cost” (labor and materials, without revealing any confidential GM information), looks very roughly like this: A Li-Ion battery today runs about $350 per KWh. The Volt’s is 16KWh, so that’s roughly $6000. Add $4,000 for the battery pack structure, the cooling, the high-voltage wiring, the motor and the power electronics. So, that’s the electric portion. Add about 20 hours of assembly labor which we’ll round to a very generous $1000. The dealer net price is, say, $37,000. We now have $26,000 left for the rest of the car, which, cost-wise, is about equal to a Chevy “Cruze” which sells for around $22,000 retail! (And the Volt has no costly conventional transmission.) Thus, the “Volt”, by my estimate, is either close to “variable break-even” or may be on the cusp of a positive gross margin. Deduct the per-unit allocation for all fixed cost, depreciation and amortization and it is, surely, still “under water”….but not by much, and less and less so as the volume builds and other, higher-margin GM cars, like the Cadillac ELR, piggy-back off of the Volt’s initial investment.

Maybe the Volt, a first-generation technology masterpiece and the most-awarded car in automotive history, will never make a really decent profit.

But succeeding generations of the same technology will. Meanwhile, the happy Volt buyers (most satisfied owners of any nameplate in the market) are getting more that they paid for. (Is that so bad?)

...

What Lutz and many other's don't seem to understand, it that the high volumes of PHEV sales required to amortize GM's sunken costs in Volt development, are extremely unlikely to ever occur.

About the time battery costs actually do decline to "$350 per KWh.", it will probably be cheaper to build a 44 kWh BEV than a 11 kWh (usable) ATM-equipped PHEV like the Volt.

Of course, the reduced fuel and maintenance costs of those 44 kWh BEVs, will be further market advantages rendering PHEVs like the Volt, unsalable.

And despite GM's efforts obstruct the development of the fast-charge infrastructure, there will also soon be opportunities for BEV buyers to fast-charge those 44 kWh Batteries when necessary, which is only on long trips, after every ~150 freeway miles.

Nissan has spent more on the LEAF than GM has on the volt, so it has probably "lost" even more money on each LEAF than GM has on each Volt sale, to date.

But unlike GM, Nissan has invested in the BEV, a vehicle type that has a future.

 

[CarZin]

You battery purists crack me up. As you think it's ridiculous to haul around an engine, I think it's even more stupid to haul around a ton of extra battery capacity that costs a fortune. The Volt is most certainly a bridge technology. But it is a bridge technology that provides a future for pure electrics. Obviously it is the better design philosophy. The sales comparisons make that fairly obvious.

 

[edatoakrun]

You battery purists crack me up. As you think it's ridiculous to haul around an engine, I think it's even more stupid to haul around a ton of extra battery capacity that costs a fortune.The Volt is most certainly a bridge technology. But it is a bridge technology that provides a future for pure electrics. Obviously it is the better design philosophy. The sales comparisons make that fairly obvious.

The additional cost and the additional weight of the LEAF's 24 kW battery over the 16 kWh battery in a Volt is $2,800 (according to Mr. Lutz) and about 200Lbs.

I'ts that obsolescent ICE in the Volt that makes it both so much more expensive, and about 400 lbs heavier, than the LEAF.

I think your definition of the future is also flawed.

I drive a BEV, and last time I checked, It still was the present...

 

[scottf200]

Hopefully some of the future BEVs will have a little more sophistication in the trans. Transmissions in all new cars virtually are very sophisticated AND very reliable. My maintenance on my Volt in the past 1.5 year (20k miles) has literally been tire rotations.

Here is an example of a LEAF owner who also has a Volt for comparisons of real highway speeds. My post at the end shows the two speed and more efficient electric only drive.

Volt vs LEAF highway efficencies: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UPDATE: Watching some Telsa Model X again. Their front and rear motors are geared differently for different efficiencies vs power (ie. front highway perhaps and rear for speed/accel). At least that was in one video I watched.

 

[Stoaty]

What Lutz and many other's don't seem to understand, it that the high volumes of PHEV sales required to amortize GM's sunken costs in Volt development, are extremely unlikely to ever occur.

About the time battery costs actually do decline to "$350 per KWh.", it will probably be cheaper to build a 44 kWh BEV than a 11 kWh (usable) ATM-equipped PHEV like the Volt.

I think that it is more likely that the Volt (and other PHEV) will outsell BEV for a long time. You aren't going to change the ICE culture quickly. Most people will want the ability to travel very long distances and fill up with gasoline in 5 minutes--even if they don't really need it, or only need it 3-4 times a year. While I love driving my Leaf, a 150 mile range wouldn't be sufficient for me to buy a BEV as my sole car unless there was a great network of very quick charge stations. That is going to take a lot of time. The average person is much less likely to want to do this, when a car like the Volt will give 80% of the benefits in fuel saving (or more or less, depending on your driving pattern) without the inconveniences of charging a BEV on long trips. That's why I still have my ICE vehicle for long trips 5-6 times per year.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

 

[edatoakrun]

Hopefully some of the future BEVs will have a little more sophistication in the trans. Transmissions in all new cars virtually are very sophisticated AND very reliable. My maintenance on my Volt in the past 1.5 year (20k miles) has literally been tire rotations.

Here is an example of a LEAF owner who also has a Volt for comparisons of real highway speeds. My post at the end shows the two speed and more efficient electric only drive.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This MNL thread from a year and a half ago explains why BEVs, unlike PHEVs, do not benefit from variable final drive ratios for freeway legal speeds.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3536" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As you can see from the efficiency chart posted, The LEAF has over ~93% drive train efficiency when torque is applied at between 25-75 mph.

I expect that is above the Volt's drive train efficiency throughout this entire speed range, as it is not hampered by the efficiency losses imposed by the Volt's "sophisticated" transmission, the Rube Goldberg-inspired-design of which, is described by Scott, at the thread he referenced above.

Direct link to the SAE article on the LEAF drive train is here:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.electricauto.org/resource/resmgr/media/nissan_leaf_sae_2_11.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[DaveEV]

As you can see from the efficiency chart posted, The LEAF has over ~93% drive train efficiency when torque is applied at between 25-75 mph.

I expect that is above the Volt's drive train efficiency throughout this entire speed range, as it is not hampered by the efficiency losses imposed by the Volt's "sophisticated" transmission, the Rube Goldberg-inspired-design of which, is described by Scott, at the thread he referenced above.

As a LEAF owner... I think you're more than a bit biased towards the LEAF without having any actual data from the Volt to compare. Your claim of 93%+ motor efficiency is also optimistic and I highly doubt it includes any transmission losses.

Besides - the 2012/2013 Volt just beats the LEAF in highway MPGe economy (93 vs 92 MPGe) - hard to claim that it's efficiency has been significantly affected by it's "sophisticated transmission".

 

[edatoakrun]

As you can see from the efficiency chart posted, The LEAF has over ~93% drive train efficiency when torque is applied at between 25-75 mph.

I expect that is above the Volt's drive train efficiency throughout this entire speed range, as it is not hampered by the efficiency losses imposed by the Volt's "sophisticated" transmission, the Rube Goldberg-inspired-design of which, is described by Scott, at the thread he referenced above.

As a LEAF owner... I think you're more than a bit biased towards the LEAF without having any actual data from the Volt to compare. Your claim of 93%+ motor efficiency is also optimistic and I highly doubt it includes any transmission losses.

Besides - the 2012/2013 Volt just beats the LEAF in highway MPGe economy (93 vs 92 MPGe) - hard to claim that it's efficiency has been significantly affected by it's "sophisticated transmission".

You are correct that the Volt's transmission probably does not significantly reduce total drive train efficiency, and it probably will be very difficult to find authoritative battery to wheel drive train efficiency figures for either car.

But there is no question that any mechanical transmission between the motor and the wheel will cause efficiency loss.

And that (along with cost, weight, and additional maintenance and repair costs, is why variable final drive ratios, produced by mechanical transmissions, have no net benefits for BEVs.

I think the complex mechanical transmission of the Volt, has about as much relevance to future PHEVs or BEVs, as the mechanical difference engines of a century ago had to the future of computers.

It will just be much cheaper and more efficient to move the energy by wire, and place the motors as close to the wheels as is possible (if not in them) and simply build the motors to meet the optimum RPM/torque efficiency ranges, variable by selection of the optimum energy use by the individual motors.


The Nissan TeRRA concept is nearly there already:

...Nissan will unveil the Nissan TeRRA SUV fuel cell electric vehicle concept at the 2012 Paris Motor Show on 27 September. TeRRA, with a 3-motor, 4x4 powertrain, builds on Nissan’s success with what it calls “urban-relevant” SUVs and crossovers such as the Murano and Qashqai.

Powering the front wheels is the electric propulsion system currently featured in the battery-electric Nissan LEAF. In each back wheel, providing all-wheel power as needed, is an in-wheel electric motor, based on the working prototypes featured in three successive PIVO concepts. (Earlier post.)

As no drive shafts are required to power the rear wheels, there is no hump in the cabin floor or on the underbody. This allows for the flat cabin deck and the underside bodypan.

Under the hood is ample space for Nissan’s proprietary hydrogen fuel cell stack: a flat, highly compact unit that features power density of 2.5 kW/L. The latest in a series of Nissan fuel cells since 1996, the stack costs one-sixth of its 2005 progenitor as the need for expensive precious metals has been cut to one-quarter of the previous level...


http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/09" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 20912.html

Back to the present, If you go to the thread I referenced, you will see I mentioned both the theoretical advantages of a two speed transmission for high-performance BEVs, and also the reasons (primarily lower wind resistance, but a variable final drive ratio might also produces very slight benefits) a car like the Volt, could have a higher m/kWh in freeway use than a LEAF, despite having a less efficient drive train and higher vehicle weight.

The LEAF is consuming much more than 9/4 times the electricity on the road running at 9,000 vs 4,000 rpm, but this is primarily due to the effects of wind resistance at greater speed.

Looking at the Tesla power consumption chart, you can see that each rotation of the wheels on the dyno actually takes less power, at higher engine rpms, corresponding to road speeds up to at least 70 mph. Given the LEAF drive train efficiency chart, it would also appear to be true, up to dyno (wheel speed w/o wind resistance) speeds of about 70 mph.

Interestingly, Tesla originally planned a 2 speed, but later decided it was easier just to rev the damn thing to 14,000 RPM, according to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[edatoakrun]

What Lutz and many other's don't seem to understand, it that the high volumes of PHEV sales required to amortize GM's sunken costs in Volt development, are extremely unlikely to ever occur.

About the time battery costs actually do decline to "$350 per KWh.", it will probably be cheaper to build a 44 kWh BEV than a 11 kWh (usable) ATM-equipped PHEV like the Volt.

I think that it is more likely that the Volt (and other PHEV) will outsell BEV for a long time. You aren't going to change the ICE culture quickly. Most people will want the ability to travel very long distances and fill up with gasoline in 5 minutes--even if they don't really need it, or only need it 3-4 times a year. While I love driving my Leaf, a 150 mile range wouldn't be sufficient for me to buy a BEV as my sole car unless there was a great network of very quick charge stations. That is going to take a lot of time. The average person is much less likely to want to do this, when a car like the Volt will give 80% of the benefits in fuel saving (or more or less, depending on your driving pattern) without the inconveniences of charging a BEV on long trips. That's why I still have my ICE vehicle for long trips 5-6 times per year.

"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

I agree with you...mostly.

In fact, I expect that almost every ICEV will be a PHEV in the relatively near future.

So I also think that it is more likely that the PHEVs will outsell BEVs for a long time, but those PHEVs will probably not be similar to the Volt, or other vehicles with similar designs which attempt to utilize existing ICEV platforms and re-purpose existing ICE power trains.

I don't blame GM and other ICEV manufactures for trying to recover their sunken costs of over a century investments in ICEV development.

Nissan did the same thing (albeit to a far lesser extent than GM) in going to the ICEV parts bin for many components for the LEAF.

And the manufactures are also under pressure from consumers, to produce vehicle that seem like those they're accustomed to.

Even the Tesla S with no prior investment in ICEVs that it must try to wring the last buck out of, has mimicked ICEV architecture with a long hood, useless but for the "frunk" space it provides. Tesla S design, is this regard, is reminiscent of the early "horseless carriages" which looked much like carriages (minus the horses) to appeal to the buying public at the time.

An earlier discussion of the possible future of PHEVs is at this thread, The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6847&hilit=range+extended&start=200" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[SanDust]

You are correct that the Volt's transmission probably does not significantly reduce total drive train efficiency, and it probably will be very difficult to find authoritative battery to wheel drive train efficiency figures for either car.

GM engineering says it's 10% more efficient at constant speeds. Unless you think it's more efficient to turn a larger gear with a smaller one as opposed to a smaller gear with a larger one, I'd to with that. My guess is that they'd have a decent handle on this.

Manufacturers aren't putting motors in the wheels because the unsprung mass hurts performance and ride.

 

[edatoakrun]

You are correct that the Volt's transmission probably does not significantly reduce total drive train efficiency, and it probably will be very difficult to find authoritative battery to wheel drive train efficiency figures for either car.

GM engineering says it's 10% more efficient at constant speeds. Unless you think it's more efficient to turn a larger gear with a smaller one as opposed to a smaller gear with a larger one, I'd to with that. My guess is that they'd have a decent handle on this....

Were those the same GM employees that claimed the Volt would get 250 MPG?

Your Volt transmission description sure sounds a lot simpler than the one below, posted buy a Volt owner:

unattributed:

Mode 1: Low-speed EV Propulsion (Engine Off). In this mode, the ring gear is held (locked) by clutch C1. With clutch C2 and C3 disengaged, the generator-motor is decoupled from the engine as well as the planetary gearset. As the traction motor is permanently coupled to the sun gear, the planetary carriers must rotate when the traction motor rotates. Since the planetary carriers are permanently coupled to the final drive, the traction motor propels the vehicle. The generator-motor and the engine are idle during this mode, although the engine is free to start if necessary (example: engine maintenance mode).

Virtually all of the vehicle’s motive power is therefore delivered by the traction motor in this mode, including hard accelerations, using power supplied by the battery pack. With this configuration, the traction motor can produce up to 111 kW (149 hp) and deliver up to 370 N·m (273 ft-lb) of torque.

Mode 2: High-Speed EV Propulsion (Engine Off). As vehicle speed increases, motor speed and losses also increase. To engage both motors and preserve motor efficiency, clutch C1 is disengaged, allowing the ring gear to rotate. At the same time, clutch C2 is engaged, connecting the ring gear to the generator-motor. The generator-motor is then fed current from the inverter, and runs as a motor. The engine remains disengaged from the generator-motor.

This mode allows the two electric machines to operate in tandem at a lower speed than if the traction motor alone was providing torque. The speed of the traction motor in this mode drops to about 3250 rpm from 6500 rpm in the 1 motor mode, according to Fletcher.

This strategy allows the Volt to wring out as much as two extra miles of all-electric operation out of its battery pack, depending on operating conditions. However, switching from low-speed to high-speed EV mode requires the simultaneous operation of two clutches. GM’s experience with simultaneous clutch operation in their two-mode transmissions and transaxles was key to the development of the Volt’s transaxle control strategy...

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9970&start=20" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure sounds like a lot of cost and weight to carry around, and to pay to repair when it breaks, and which is only needed in a Volt-type PHEV which requires the ICEV to provide traction power to the wheels.

="SanDust"
...Manufacturers aren't putting motors in the wheels because the unsprung mass hurts performance and ride...

Not yet, but I expect they will pretty soon. In wheel motors enable BEV/PHEV designers to lower the total weight, a critical factor in reducing vehicle cost and performance.

The added unsprung weight of the motor, is offset by the portion of that drive axle's weight that is "unsprung", so any effects on performance depend on how light the motor can be.

The first uses of in-wheel motors will probably be in a SUV like the Nissan TeRRA SUV, as I mentioned earlier:

...Powering the front wheels is the electric propulsion system currently featured in the battery-electric Nissan LEAF. In each back wheel, providing all-wheel power as needed, is an in-wheel electric motor, based on the working prototypes featured in three successive PIVO concepts...

Where the motors are relatively small, and located only the rear axle, where unsprung weight is far less critical.

Think of all the vehicles that have been built with much heavier live axle rear suspensions.