Print 68 comment(s) - last by Maiyr.. on Jan 19 at 5:54 PM

  (Source: The Car Connection)

  (Source: The Car Connection)

  (Source: The Car Connection)
Cadillac's Converj adds some spice to the Volt platform

The Chevrolet Volt has been the talk of the town at General Motors for the past two years. The vehicle was first unveiled as a concept two years ago at the Detroit Auto Show. After over a year and a half of development, GM finally unveiled the production Volt to an anxious public.

The Volt, which is likely to be priced north of $40,000 before applicable government tax credits, can travel forty miles on battery power alone. After the initial 40-mile battery range is depleted, the car turns on its gasoline engine/generator to boost the total driving range to 360 miles.

GM is now looking to spread the wealth by giving one of its more upscale brands a vehicle based on the already impressive Volt platform. The lucky recipient this time around is Cadillac and the car is called the Converj. The Converj uses the same powertrain as the Volt, so the performance and economy ratings of the vehicles should be identical -- the Converj, however, does have a much more attractive exterior design.

Whereas the production Volt is considered by most to be rather plebian in design, the Converj is definitely more dynamic with its low-slung shape. The two-door, four-seat coupe seems to borrow from both the Cadillac Cien Concept from seven years ago and the Cadillac CTS Coupe Concept which was unveiled last year.

This is how Cadillac describes the design of the Converj:

Cadillac’s extended-range electric vehicle (E-REV) concept has a new body style that is an evolution of the brand’s traditional Art and Science design theme. An aggressive, forward-leaning arc profile is the foundation for the sporting stance. And more than a Cadillac in form, Converj is also intended to be a Cadillac in substance, with the premium materials, technology and driving dynamics that are hallmarks of the brand.

In keeping with the concept nature of the vehicle, the Converj features large 21" wheels in the front and slightly larger 22" wheels in the back. An all-glass roof is littered with solar panels which help to power the vehicle's many accessories, while OLEDs are used to light the Converj's instrument panel. The Converj also makes use of LED headlights.

"Vertical lamps are Cadillac signatures and the Converj builds on the brand’s light pipe technology with bolder light emitting diode (LED) and high-intensity discharge elements front and rear," adds Cadillac global design director Clay Dean. "There is also a unique daylight light ‘spear’ at the top of the headlamps."

"It’s a logical extension of our plan to reinvent the automobile," said GM's Bob Lutz. "It clearly shows what a Cadillac electric vehicle could look like, and clearly indicates that global luxury customers can have a car that has both strong design and electric propulsion with a total range of hundreds of anxiety-free miles."

It remains to be seen whether a vehicle like the Converj will end up being in the Cadillac family, but one thing is certain -- if the vehicle does make it to production, it will be priced much higher than the $40,000+ cost of entry for the Volt.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

22's in the rear, heh
By CiaccioJ on 1/11/2009 3:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Who here has ever put big rims on their car and noticed that their gas mileage goes to hell?

They must have some bad ass, light weight, 22's. Cuz there is no way that that type of rotational mass, coupled with heavy luxury equipment, will ever get 50mpg (the amount of "greenness" needed to push an eco-friendly luxury car).

Just my two cents

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By TSS on 1/11/2009 6:48:02 PM , Rating: 1
actually you raise an interesting point. what would be the mileage, or rather the cost of driving the volt?

if you can go 40 miles on a charge of 16 KW/h (afterall that's the capacity of the battery pack right?), and the average electricity cost in the US is 11.94 cents per KW/h (
it'll cost you $1.9404 for 40 miles.
(on average. idaho costs 7,3 cents and hawaii 37 cents per KW/h).

gas is currently on an average of $1.684 per gallon.

this would mean that if you can get a car with 40 miles to the gallon, it's cheaper to drive. hell a civic would do the job, and it'll be $20,000 cheaper. and refueling takes alot less time.

if that isn't bad enough, obama has big plans to go wind and solar so you already know that electricity isn't gonna come down any time soon. new coal/nuclear plants might do that, but not wind and a bit o sunlight.

yes, it *is* all better for the enviroment. if energy is generated at a single place instead of all over the place, it's easyer to contain the emissions. plus, no more gas is used for getting the gas to the pumps. however the battery's are less enviromental friendly, the grid will have to be upgraded + additional power lines to gas stations + additional electiricty will need to be generated driving up cost.

i wanna save the world too, preferably today. but right now the US economy is in shambles, *last years* deficit already was 500 billion, and obama is planning huge spending on *solar and wind* power.

it's a good thing to leave to our children, a nice and clean world. however they will be so swamped in work to pay off their debt that they won't even notice it. or freezing without a home (yes freezing, since global warming didn't happen. not enough emissions or something).

just my 3 cents (damn you, inflation!)

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Hoser McMoose on 1/11/2009 10:19:25 PM , Rating: 4
if you can go 40 miles on a charge of 16 KW/h (afterall that's the capacity of the battery pack right?)

For reliability reasons the Volt only uses 8kWh worth of energy from it's 16kWh battery pack (30% to 80% charge), so cut your cost in half.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Tsuwamono on 1/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By taber on 1/12/2009 2:57:29 AM , Rating: 4
It's good the Discovery channel has given you the ability to definitively predict the future. I'm not debating global warming with you, but you should learn how to properly use "its" before you go around calling people stupid:

I believe you were looking for:

Just because a word makes it through the spell check doesn't mean it's right, that part takes personal intelligence.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By superflex on 1/12/2009 1:22:23 PM , Rating: 1
The discovery Channel is a great source of unbiased news, especially when it comes to gasp... global warming. /sarcasm

Next try referencing wikipedia or quoting Julia Louis Dryfus


RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Guyver on 1/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Maiyr on 1/19/2009 5:54:29 PM , Rating: 1
I almost spewed my drink when I read this ! The guy basing his knowledge on the Discovery Channel is calling someone stupid ? ROFLMAO at you !

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Jimbo1234 on 1/12/2009 1:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
"just my 3 cents (damn you, inflation!)"

After that long of a post you're lucky inflation didn't get you up to 5 cents.

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 1/13/2009 11:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, $500M USD national debt. Those were the good old days. In fact, the debt for 2007 was $9B USD, and for 2008, $10B USD.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By FITCamaro on 1/11/2009 9:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
Putting big wheels on a car doesn't necessarily equal lower mpg. Putting them on a car that they weren't ever meant to be on yes. A car that is capable of handling them, no.

I'd be more worried about your brakes working.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By theapparition on 1/12/2009 9:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but it absolutely does make a difference. Increasing the rotational mass and unsprung weight has the unfortunate effect of reducing economy. Even if it is a small difference.

Many throw "cheap" big wheels with tons of chrome that end up weighing twice what the stock wheels weigh.

That's one of the reasons I only run super light wheels from CCW.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2009 11:04:08 AM , Rating: 3
Remember though that larger wheels have to be turned less times to go as far. It would affect city mileage more than highway. Of course that also depends on the design of the wheel.

Yes many buy extremely heavy wheels. But when interested in performance, you might be able to buy a larger wheel thats still lighter than the stock one.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By theapparition on 1/12/2009 1:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
Remember though that larger wheels have to be turned less times to go as far.


That only works if the tire diameter is changed, which in most cases isn't. Generally, when people upsize wheels, they use lower profile tires to keep overall diameter the same. You never want to drastically change diameter of the overall tire.

Unless your seriously talking about "Donks", in which case I'll lose complete respect for you as a car guy.

But when interested in performance, you might be able to buy a larger wheel thats still lighter than the stock one.

That's why I specifically mentioned CCW. Larger diameter wheel rim (and wider) yet lighter than the forged stock rims.
BTW, you're completely screwed when it comes to GTO wheel options. They use a 5 x 120mm bolt pattern (same as BMW), but have wierd offsets that makes finding a cheap upgrade virtually impossible. CCW or some of the other high quality brands (HRE, iForged) sell great designs, but be prepared to fork over $$$$.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Jimbo1234 on 1/12/2009 1:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. This is the idea, but in reverse, with snow tires. You drop the rim size (only a bit, see below) and increase the tire sidewall. The taller sidewall flexes more during cornering, but also reduced the rim damage when you hit a pothole under the slush.

Rims on cars are getting larger and larger every year it seems. However, larger rims are required for larger brakes. And why do we need larger brakes? Well, because cars are getting fatter and fatter.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Jimbo1234 on 1/12/2009 1:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
...reduces... Damn it, where's the edit button?

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By othercents on 1/12/2009 3:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well, because PEOPLE are getting fatter and fatter.

Sorry I had to make a correction for you. :D

Anyways you are both right for the most part. The diameter of my tire/wheel is way less than 22, but that doesn't mean I have better fuel mileage. Also you can get 22s with rubber to weigh less than 10s with rubber at the same diameter.

Larger diameter tire/wheel combo produces better fuel mileage than smaller tire/wheel combo for freeway driving. Heavy large diameter rims produces worse fuel mileage when driving short distances. Electric vehicles also have more torque than gas ones which will offset most of the fuel mileage issue. On average for stop and go traffic the unsprung weight won't make as much of a difference.

The moral of the story. The engineer knows best and if you want it changed go apply for an engineering job. :D

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Jimbo1234 on 1/13/2009 3:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
I had the engineering job when I worked for a mining truck OEM. I quit after I got tired of the ISO 9001 BS.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By MadMan007 on 1/11/2009 10:53:58 PM , Rating: 5
Depending upon how the odo reads mileage it may just be that the new tire size changes the miles part of the MPG equation.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2009 1:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
Ummm that's because when you put huge rims on your car you just changed your final drive ratio in effect. It's not the weight of the rims that's effecting your gas mileage.

This is vastly different than a car which is designed with those rims in mind.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Jimbo1234 on 1/12/2009 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
Not if you put lower profile tires on. The width may need to be adjusted a bit as well.

205/55R16 = 0.55*205*2/25.4+16 = 24.88 inch diameter.
225/45R17 = 0.45*225*2/25.4+17 = 24.97 inch diameter.
205/35R19 = 0.35*205*2/25.4+19 = 24.64 inch diameter.
205/25R20 = 0.25*205*2/25.4+20 = 24.43 inch diameter.

So the tire on the 16" rim has a 1.85% larger diameter / circumference than the tire on the 20" rim. Hardly any difference in final drive ratio.

If you know anything about tire nomenclature, it's not that hard to figure out.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 3:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you know anything about tire nomenclature, it's not that hard to figure out.
You could also go to the tire manufacturers website and look up the diameter of the tire.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Reclaimer77 on 1/13/2009 11:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm well aware of +1,+2, +3 rim sizing, thank you. But some people are using rims so freaking huge that even with low profiles its a larger diameter than stock.

You know, the guys who get lift kits put on the vehicle so the rims fit on it.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By NINaudio on 1/12/2009 3:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Let's not froget that this is a concept car. When they make production versions of concept cars the wheel sizes are usually reduced.

Yes, unsprung weight is the enemy of just about everything you'd want in a car. Increasing unsprung weight decreases your mileage, increases stopping distances, and generally makes the car handle worse and ride harsher than it did before. Maybe the price increase won't be only because of the Cadillac name being on it but because they go with some sweet magnesium/carbon fiber/titanium wheels to keep unsprung mass down! :-)

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Guyver on 1/12/2009 4:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the bigger wheels are possibly due to bigger motors are being put in the wheel wells? Just a guess.

RE: 22's in the rear, heh
By Alexvrb on 1/12/2009 7:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
We lack detailed information on the wheels of this concept model. I'm certain the final model will have wheels of a reasonable size and/or weight, however they want to accomplish this. I'm quite confident their engineers have this covered.

You Know it's GM
By Ryanman on 1/11/2009 1:36:28 PM , Rating: 1
When they'll sell a re-branded vehicle with slightly different exterior. And you wonder why they can't keep costs low.

And you know it's America when people actually purchase said vehicles, paying 10-20k extra for different headlight angles/grille badges.

RE: You Know it's GM
By rudolphna on 1/11/2009 2:09:24 PM , Rating: 5
they pay extra because its a CADILLAC. Its a status symbol. And im sure the interior is much superior to the Volt, and to some people it may look better. Correct me if im mistaken, but arent Acura models just Hondas with different fascia, and interiors? Same with toyota and lexus, only lexus generally uses a RWD or AWD configuration.

RE: You Know it's GM
By Hoser McMoose on 1/11/2009 10:28:59 PM , Rating: 3
Correct me if im mistaken, but arent Acura models just Hondas with different fascia, and interiors?

I drive an Acura RSX. Great car but it's HEAVILY based off the Honda Civic. Same chassis, similar drivetrain (more specifically the new Civic uses a modified version of the old RSX drivetrain). The Acura CSX is virtually identical to the new Honda Civic, the TSX is extremely similar to the Japanese/European Honda Accord, the TL is heavily based off the American Accord, etc.

Sharing parts only makes sense, all successful car makers do it. The problem with GM is not that they've got a Chevy and a Cadillac that share some common parts, it's that they'll have a Chevy, a Pontiac, a Saturn, a Buick and a Cadillac all being nearly identical.

GM really needs to cut their product line down to just Chevy and Cadillac worldwide and then one regional brand per market. In Europe that would be Opel. In Australia they can keep Holden. Buick for China. For North America we can keep GMC for it's trucks and SUVs.

RE: You Know it's GM
By rudolphna on 1/12/2009 1:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I think for North America they should have Chevy, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac. I would really like to see them keep Saturn, as I do love how they look. For Europe, definetely opel, and australia can keep holden. China, I dont know. Buick, and maybe Pontiac.

RE: You Know it's GM
By Raidin on 1/13/2009 2:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure China will be ok with losing the Hummer brand.

RE: You Know it's GM
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 1:50:26 PM , Rating: 2
I drive an Acura RSX. Great car but it's HEAVILY based off the Honda Civic.
Actually the RSX is its own platform but does share engines/transmissions with the Civic.

RE: You Know it's GM
By Brandon Hill on 1/11/2009 2:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
Are you blind? How is that exterior and interior "slightly different" than from the Volt?

This isn't the same thing as a Chevy Cobalt/Pontiac G5 rebadge or a Sierra/Silverado rebadge. This is platform sharing a la Toyota Camry/Toyota Avalon/Lexus ES 350/etc.

RE: You Know it's GM
By Ryanman on 1/14/2009 11:05:15 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that it looks radical is going to change, since it's a concept.

Like the other "rebadge" jobs you've mentioned, Cadillac is showing off a decent looking concept and is then going to tone it down till it's extremely similar to the old, decent looking volt.

Platform sharing I understand. But re-badging just drives up costs. Like someone else said, it's a "status symbol" Hope you enjoy the status that comes with a caddy.

By MadMan007 on 1/11/2009 10:55:41 PM , Rating: 3
"Cadillac Unveils Volt-based Concept Car with an utterly rediculous name that no one is sure how to pronounce "

Seriously, wtf is up with that name? I thought it was a typo at first.

RE: wtfname?
By Alphafox78 on 1/12/2009 9:13:35 AM , Rating: 2
pronounced converge. right?

RE: wtfname?
By MadMan007 on 1/12/2009 1:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yea for some reason I was reading it without the I was reading 'Coverj'..."Cover Jay?" "Cohver Jay?" "Coverge?" all of which are silly :p Converj is still dumb for it's dumbass phoenetic spelling but it's not a total nonsense word like I thought.

By GeorgeH on 1/11/2009 5:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
Is GM still using DOS?

RE: Converj?
By Darkskypoet on 1/12/2009 1:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually.. No.

See you have to surpass 8.3 before you see that sort of file name... As Converge is 8 chars, it would still be, even with DOS' 8.3 limitations... Sigh...

At least try and make a good joke.

RE: Converj?
By GeorgeH on 1/12/2009 4:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not arguing the total lameness of the "humor", but my nerd feathers are all ruffled by the 8.3 bit.

Name a file, and DOS will call the file (8.3). Marketing then transforms the ~1 into a J, and you've got Converj. Simple. Enormously lame, but sort of appropriate for this site's clientele.

In summary, Admiral Smartypants, nobody said it was originally Making a good point really helps when you're attempting condescension. ;)

Hopefully th eprices will come down..
By Hiawa23 on 1/11/2009 6:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
$40k even with the discount, is beyond many. I was just thinking my home was only $68k, noway in hell would I pay that for a car. The technology does seem impressive but seems like initially only the rich will be able to buy these. We know the final design will probably not look like that.

By JediJeb on 1/12/2009 4:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I only paid $42k for my house and 3 acres. I think anything over $20k is rediculous for a car. I also don't understand electric vehicles with electric windows, seems if you used crank windows it would give you better milage and reliability. Every car I ever owned with electric windows I had to fix them, never once had a problem with manual windows.

Stop Making Concept Car
By SpaceJumper on 1/12/2009 9:12:38 AM , Rating: 2
GM should be making real EV car.

Wait a minute
By omgwtf8888 on 1/12/2009 3:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
This looks like the design of what the Volt was supposed to look like. The Volt slated to roll out now looks anemic. So, to get the "real" Volt you will have to pay, what? $60K!!! This is what is wrong with American cars, give us this Caddy Volt for $25K and you will sell a ton of them.

Converj??? "Attractive"???
By androticus on 1/13/2009 1:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
OMG, what kind of name is that? I stared at it for 10 seconds just trying to figure out what it was, and if I could even say it as a word. And you think this is "more attractive"???? OMG! It is butt ugly!

Nice design, GM
By armagedon on 1/11/2009 2:23:37 PM , Rating: 1
It's a good move from GM. To put fashion back in otherwise plain electric car design. Its a beautiful car and sure to turn heads if it ever make it on the street. That will make people think that now electric is cool and "chic", fuel is dirty and obsolete. That's fine with me. We need people to change their mind about green vehicles to move on, once for all.

zomfg glass roof
By Murloc on 1/11/09, Rating: 0
By Ben on 1/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By MrX8503 on 1/11/2009 12:34:51 PM , Rating: 5
"But they won't, cause their GM. They'll F it up somehow."

I guess you've never heard of a concept.

Cause they're GM? I'm sorry but almost all, if not all car manufacturers change their final production car from their concept. That's why its a concept.

And GM doesn't mess up all their concept designs. Have you seen the Camaro? The production car still looks as good as when the concept was first introduced.

RE: Nice
By Solandri on 1/11/2009 6:07:37 PM , Rating: 5
A concept car is what you get when the designing artist makes whatever strikes his fancy.

A production car is what you get after the concept car has run the gamut of engineers, test drivers, and government regulations saying you have to have an A pillar or the occupants won't survive a rollover without an roll bar, the lack of interior space will put it in the subcompact category where its fuel mileage will make it look inferior to the competition, you need to put a cup holder here, you need to beef up the sides and change the angles like so to improve the impact survivability of the passenger cage, the thing will fishtail like a trout unless you tweak the engine placement and wheelbase like so, and the street surveys say too many people think it's too far out to buy.

RE: Nice
By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 10:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
I want to see a Hollywood movie use a hybrid car in a thrilling car chase sequence with really fast speeds and distances all over europe... recreate the only good scene in Ronin... with hybrids.

Then after the movie comes out everyone hails the hybrid (becuase of high performing chase scene) -- then it gets leaked that actually gas powered Honda Civic Si's were used with hybrid bodies.

RE: Nice
By bjacobson on 1/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By theapparition on 1/12/2009 9:32:31 AM , Rating: 4
Which car company was it that just received a government loan because they messed up so many cars nobody wanted to buy their crap anymore?

They've already proven they don't have the forward looking insight to make a vehicle anybody wants in this day and age.

Suggest you check your facts. Fully 1/2 of every car sold in america are from the domestic "Big three". GM domestically and worldwide still sells more cars than anyone else.

So your stupid "They make cars no one wants" rant is way of base. But don't let facts get in your way.

RE: Nice
By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 10:15:58 AM , Rating: 1
I would actually tend to agree they make cars "no one wants" when it comes to design taste. They may still sell quite a few cars due to pricing and convience - but it wasn't until recent few years I started liking Chevy car designs again. Especially the malibu. Before the Malibu redesign, I had no inclination of buying Chevy for their designs.

And believe it or not (my dad incl), there are many Americans who refuse to buy anything but American (even if the "American" product is pretty much made with overseas parts.

RE: Nice
By omnicronx on 1/12/2009 1:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
GM domestically and worldwide still sells more cars than anyone else.
I'm pretty sure toyota now has the lead in worldwide sales and is now #2 in US domestic sales.. They first passed GM in worldwide sales as of April 2007.

Toyota also makes a hell of a lot more money than GM while only slightly besting their sales totals. Toyota was on pace to outsell GM by around 50000 cars in 2008, I am not sure how that ended up.

People are still buying GM cars, but they are not even close to making a profit, which is the number that really counts.

RE: Nice
By theapparition on 1/12/2009 1:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
People are still buying GM cars, but they are not even close to making a profit, which is the number that really counts.

If you re-read my post, I didn't attempt to come to any conclusions about profitability or business case. I merely refuted the accusation that no one wants domestic cars. Apparently, 50% of the population does.

I was incorrect on the worldwide sales though, as Toyota currently has more sales.

RE: Nice
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2009 1:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
And GM doesn't mess up all their concept designs. Have you seen the Camaro?

Butt ugly retro styling pig of a "muscle car" ? Yeah, I've seen it.

RE: Nice
By JediJeb on 1/12/2009 5:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
Guess it comes down to taste, I for one like the looks of cars from the 40's to the late 60's far more than anything made today. Most of the time when I see a car coming down the highway today I can't even tell what company made it, they all look alike until you are right up on them. Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chevy, BMW ect, all about the same size and shape, similar curves, similar trim on all the mid and small sized cars.

RE: Nice
By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2009 6:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
I can't even tell what company made it, they all look alike until you are right up on them. Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chevy, BMW ect, all about the same size and shape, similar curves, similar trim on all the mid and small sized cars.

Yeah amazingly we have discovered that huge square cars aren't the most streamlined design.

You sound like my dad. Always going on and on and on about every car he see's. " Thats a Malibu !!?? It sure doesn't look like the Malibu I remember ". bla bla bla shut up you freaking fossil.

RE: Nice
By Spuke on 1/13/2009 5:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
bla bla bla shut up you freaking fossil.
You say that about your dad? Sounds like you have some problems. LOL!

RE: Nice
By amanojaku on 1/11/2009 1:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's a little too angular. I'd prefer if the edges were rounded just a bit. Not too much, though. I think that would be bad @$$.

RE: Nice
By Brandon Hill on 1/11/2009 1:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Then it wouldn't be a Cadillac...

RE: Nice
By Bubbacub on 1/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By austinag on 1/12/2009 12:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think it looks great. Especially the interior. Hopefully the final design will be a little more faithful to the concept then the volt, which ended up looking like a prius themed suppository.

RE: Nice
By Rodney McNaggerton on 1/11/2009 5:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
And on this day, Jesus took the bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples and said, "That Cadillac looks dayme fine."

RE: Nice
By Hoser McMoose on 1/11/2009 10:30:52 PM , Rating: 3
Jesus would put better rims on his Caddy.

RE: Nice
By dice1111 on 1/12/2009 10:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Nice
By Mr Perfect on 1/12/2009 9:58:41 AM , Rating: 3
After the radical change to the Volt concept, it's not worth holding your breath. The Volt design went from mean machine to snugly earth saver in no time flat.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller
Related Articles
GM's New Electric Concept Car
January 7, 2007, 4:55 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki