backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by ThePooBurner.. on Apr 22 at 5:42 PM


Interior and exterior views of the Cadillac Converj concept-- according to a new report, the Converj has received the go-ahead for production and will hit the streets in 2011. It could be GM's first profitable electric vehicle and is expected to have more power than the Chevy Volt.  (Source: Motor Trend)
GM gets the second entry in its electric armada ready as it faces troubling times

When it comes to GM, it’s hard to remove its financial predicament from news of its tech developments.  However, assuming that it can survive, GM has approved production of the Cadillac Converj according to a recent report.

Though some have poked fun at the name, the Converj has been quite popular ever since it was introduced as a Volt-derivative plug-in Cadillac concept at the North American International Auto Show 2009 in January.  The model seemed a logical move -- the Volt's production price is well above that of an average Chevy, but closer to that of a luxury brand model -- like a Cadillac.  By essentially re-releasing the Volt with luxury styling, the cost of deploying the Volt could be offset somewhat with an even pricier model under the Cadillac umbrella.

The vehicle has received official go-ahead from GM according a report from Motor Trend.  GM reportedly plans to unleash it on the roads in 2011 making it a 2012 model year vehicle.  Sources say that the Converj could even be the first profitable electric vehicle -- a major victory for GM, and a big boost in getting federal approval of their revised restructuring/bailout proposal, due June 1.

The source at GM says that the Converj will be followed up by a people-mover/crossover utility based on the Voltec (Volt) architecture. 

A GM spokesperson denied both comments, saying that no changes had been made with the Converj or other models.  However, Motor Trend stands by its source, stating.  The publication points out that the drivetrain (lithium-ion battery pack and 1.4L four-cylinder engine) could be largely reused from the Volt, with more battery mass added to give it more power.  The main work would be working an all-new sheetmetal and interior.

The new production model will reportedly be a two-door coupe, like the concept.  This is different from the 4-door with hidden handles version that retiring product chief Bob Lutz suggested.  The height of the production vehicle will also have to be tweaked to make production financially feasible.

The source says that they believe the Buick brand is a likely target for the people-mover.  GMC is another branding possibility.  The Voltec CUV would have two to three rows of seats

GM is continuing to make efforts to grow its profitable brands as it reluctantly agrees to kill other ones, as part of its restructuring -- including Saturn, Saab, and Hummer, according current expectations and reports.  GM has also entered into a partnership with Segway to release new light electric two-wheelers for urban streets.



Comments     Threshold


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

Killer design
By KnightBreed on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Killer design
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 1:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
Given that the 1.4L engine doesn't drive the wheels, adding a turbo would be pointless.


RE: Killer design
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/15/2009 1:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, just like a diesel electric locomotive. Old tech.


RE: Killer design
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 2:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think locomotives had that design? Because it was the most efficient.

It also is the most flexible design. The car doesn't depend on the gasoline engine. They could remove it if they wanted to and the car could still work. But they can also replace it with a diesel engine or a fuel cell with minimal rework.


RE: Killer design
By yomamafor1 on 4/16/2009 11:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually its not because its most efficient, but rather the most suitable design for locomotives. Train pullers usually require massive torque in order to start the entire train, while speed is the secondary concern. Therefore locomotives use electric motor's advantage of constant and maximum torque for its power strains.

Putting the same technology onto a car renders the car to have excellent acceleration, but poor top speed. Just like the Tesla Roadster, where it can beat a lotus from the stop, it can only reach 125Mph top speed.


RE: Killer design
By djc208 on 4/17/2009 7:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
There is also the issue of size and weight. The transmission on a car is a fairly large component with clutches, gears, controls, and drive shafts. Given the amount of power and torque required to move a train how much larger would that gearbox have to be? Plus the extra maintenance and complexity.

The diesel/electric drive is simpler and more compact than a direct drive setup would be.


RE: Killer design
By Steele on 4/15/2009 3:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
I know a guy who built a diesel-electric hybrid truck. He gutted a Ford F-250 flatbed, put a Yanmar (I think) diesel and some batteries in front, more batteries in back, and a couple of electric motors on each axle. He gets about 50mpg. In a 8,000 pound truck.

If a retired sailor can do it, surely GM can?


RE: Killer design
By Spuke on 4/15/2009 4:12:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If a retired sailor can do it, surely GM can?
Your retired sailor doesn't have to worry about warranties, safety requirements, or even reliability. How does that truck fare in -20 degree temperatures? Or going up the hill outside of Baker in 115 degree heat with the A/C on and a trailer out back? Not the same thing dude. Do you people really think that's it's easy to design and build a car that millions of different people will drive in various conditions with low maintenance, comfort, and high reliability?


RE: Killer design
By RamarC on 4/15/2009 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 4
everyone forgets the gm ev-1. regardless of whether or not you believe who killed the electric car, gm has known how to make a production line electric car that meets highway standards for more than a decade.


RE: Killer design
By Keeir on 4/15/2009 4:58:06 PM , Rating: 2
Does that truck pass current 50 state emissions?
How about regulation on safety, let alone how it performs on crash safety?
What is the reliablility testing that has been performed? Think it will last 100,000-200,000 miles if its getting the stuffing beat out of it by careless owners?
Is the fire and electrical safety acceptable?
Hows the performance? Comparable to the latest gas cars?
Sounds like lots of batteries... still get the same amount of cargo/bed space?
What was the end cost of this conversion?
How much time did this take?

Let alone marketing and infrastructure costs...

A hobbiest (free labour) willing to treat thier car with kid gloves and not meet certain safety/regulation standards should be able to outperform a company bounded with all the above restrictions AND the need to make a profit on a car sold...


RE: Killer design
By RandallMoore on 4/15/2009 5:13:54 PM , Rating: 5
I think what he was getting at is... "If this one man can do it, than surely a dedicated engineer team can find a way also"

It's their JOB to do theses things, and if they can't then there is no need to call themselves engineers. Everyone should know that cars should be able to get 200 mpg by now. It CAN be done within legit safety and quality standards. Furthermore, the whole point should be made that we could have been long since migrated to hydrogen fuel cell cars. That would be a dream come true. There are 1,000,000 reasons why hydrogen cars are better than gasoline.


RE: Killer design
By Spuke on 4/15/2009 5:56:15 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If this one man can do it, than surely a dedicated engineer team can find a way also
They CAN do it. They ALL can!!! But are you willing to PAY for it? I sure as hell am not. Look at the Volt. The closest thing to an all-electric car and look at its projected cost. Look at the cost of the Tesla roadster. Look at the projected cost of the Tesla sedan. This tech costs MONEY!!!! Not dreams and hopes, but MONEY!!! And, once again, to all of the people demanding these cars, are you going to buy one when it's available? If you really want this tech to come to fruition, then you should go out and buy one regardless of cost. An argument that many Prius owners make is that they'll pay the extra cost to use a little less oil.

I can respect the Prius owners. I do NOT respect people making demands on the auto industry and have no intention of supporting those demands with THEIR own cash. I have no intentions of buying a hybrid nor an all-electric car. And I will support that by not buying ANY of those cars. I like noise and I like the individual character of combustion engines. Driving a car that sounds like a case fan with a bad bearing is extremely unappealing. Will I ever own one? If something catches my eye in the far future, possibly. I never say never but as long as I have a choice, it will be combustion tech all day long.


RE: Killer design
By RandallMoore on 4/16/2009 10:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like noise and I like the individual character of combustion engines.


Damn straight! Nothing like the sound of a 70's mustang :D

quote:
Driving a car that sounds like a case fan with a bad bearing is extremely unappealing.


For now, yes. Did the first internal combustion car have the massive sound appeal that most cars have today? Haha, not a chance. I bet they sounded like a sputtering mess. Give it time though, I bet if we ever get to enjoy a zero emissions pure power fuel celled car they will definitely find a way to make it sound furious. I'll take the dying fan noise for all the benefits any day of the week though.


RE: Killer design
By callmeroy on 4/16/2009 11:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
The sound was actually one of the first things I kind of went "oh geez here comes the wimpy electric revolution there goes beefy sounding cars...."....performance WAS a concern but its been proven electric doesn't have to mean slow.

Someone suggested sound chips before to make a custom sound...I guess that would be one way to address the issue but it would feel lame to me and I'm sure others....you see with an ICE you get the sound but --- its real and there's a genuine purpose for it. If electric cars rely on artificially creating the sound by sound boards/chips/speakers --- it just won't feel right.

I'm sure down the road several years everyone would just accept it and adjust to it,and many many years into the future the young adults and kids won't know the difference , but to us folks now the transition will be hard since we've known and loved our gas guzzling sports cars and the beautiful sound of raw explosion created horse power.

....but that's just me.

i don't drive much to begin with --- so the impact or drain on the enivornment I do personally with my gas guzzler is LESS than the average person they use for those statistics....by far.


RE: Killer design
By Spuke on 4/16/2009 1:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Haha, not a chance. I bet they sounded like a sputtering mess.
It's an electric motor. It sounds the way it sounds. There's no cylinder firing order or exhaust to be tuned.


RE: Killer design
By Keeir on 4/15/2009 7:27:06 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's their JOB to do theses things, and if they can't then there is no need to call themselves engineers.


Are you an engineer? Have you ever tried to get something past safety regulations?

I think this statement answers the question

quote:
Everyone should know that cars should be able to get 200 mpg by now.


Heres the an actual analysis of the situation:

A gallon of gas contains approx 132 x 10^6 Joules of energy

The best possible gasoline engine that could every be created will turn approx 45% of that energy into rotational energy/motion.

59.4 x 10^6 Joules

The best possible trasmission/gearing will only transfer approx 90% of that rotational energy/motion to wheels.

53.4 x 10^6 Joules

Force exerted by Air Resistence alone =1/2*p*v^2*Cd*A. Cd is best possible right now as .25. Cross Section Area... I don't want my car to be smaller than 50 inch high by 60 inch (A prius is 58 by 66) so minimum of 3000 in^2 (1.935 m^2). I want to travel at least 60 mph (26.82 m/s). Standard Air has density 1.2754 kg/m^3.

So minimum Force acting on a car is 221.89 kg*m/s/s or 222 N.

Work is F*d. A gallon of gas using IDEAL components can push an IDEAL car 149 miles.

Being realistic, due to safety requirements, pollution requirements, and variablity requirements, a 30% efficient gasoline engine would be an amazing peice of technology.

A system to get the engine motion actually transfered to forward motion at around 85% is pretty good!

And to be fair, a drag+friction force more like 350 N (Current Civic) is much more reasonable to allow for comforatble cars that seat more than 2.

This gives a maximum reasonable steady state at 60mph on a flat road of ~60 miles on a single gallon of gas. This is what should be acchievable right now using gasoline.


RE: Killer design
By wookie1 on 4/15/2009 9:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Did you also factor in the rolling resistance of the tires and the drivetrain losses? Rolling resistance is the more significant drag up to at least 30 to 40MPH.


RE: Killer design
By goku on 4/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Killer design
By Keeir on 4/16/2009 3:49:32 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but "I don't like your conclusion" is not a great basis for saying my math is wrong.

Read my input assumptions:
Safe Medium Sized Car, similar to US Civic/Accord
Meeting Tier 2 Bin 5 emission requirements
Steady State, 60 mph travel

If you take a Geo Metro body (Does not pass current safety standards, and is Tiny! Making it practical for only a small subset of the population), add a gasoline engine similar to a Prius (probably the most efficient mass produced engine, not really suitable to varied loads but hey if you are willing to deal with crummy performance you can get better milage) and throw on some expensive and non-durable low rolling resistance tires.... Yep, you too can have a car capable of traveling 75-100 miles per gallon at my 60 mph speed... Did I mention stripping of the pollution controls? The car might produce more harmful emissions per mile, but hey less CO2!

In reality, people want/need the civic/accord/cr-v/pilot sized cars... Why do you think ALL manufactures are producing RD prototypes outside the gasoline range? Their engineers know there are realistic limits about how efficient various car types can ever get...

In conclusion, I am not saying 60mpg Highway is the limit for all autos, just ones the public would be willing to buy! Hey look at the tiny Honda Fit... It gets what like 33 mpg Highway? It's really only about 50% as efficient as that frontal area ever could, so it really isn't like there is no room for improvement (Hatchback increases drag, durable tires increase friction, variable engine to allow "sporty" performance, radios climate control etc)


RE: Killer design
By RandallMoore on 4/16/2009 10:33:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you an engineer? Have you ever tried to get something past safety regulations?


Yes, a network engineer. Safety regulations isn't of my concern so no, I have not. It is not my job to do so. However, it is my job to continually find new and different ways to upgrade and maintain networks and electronic equipment while standing within a certain (most often unreasonably low) budget.

I can't challenge your technical layout of gas efficiency but I can say that just because I am not an auto engineer doesn't make me unable to evaluate innovative progress or lack thereof.

You are right that there is a finite limit on the efficiency of internal gas combustion. I'll never dispute that. Perhaps my number of 200mpg is a little more than what's possible but my whole point is they are no way near what they should be in terms of the age of the internal combustion engine. We all know with absolute fact that the oil companies and their ties with legislation have been the biggest hindrance. That statement also brings me to say that hydrogen adoption will only come about when the tycoons and law dogs find a way to take complete control. Seeing how you could perform a safe hydrogen extraction from well water in your own back yard, it is hard to imagine that they will ever make that push.

No hard feelings about this discussion though, cheers!


RE: Killer design
By cerx on 4/16/2009 10:44:08 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Why do you think SUVs were so popular in the 90s? Was it so hard to see a gas-price hike back then? No. The car companies made SUVs instead of researching more fuel-efficient vehicles. And now they are reaping what they have sown.


RE: Killer design
By djc208 on 4/17/2009 7:23:58 AM , Rating: 2
Because people like large powerful vehicles and gas was cheap enough to afford them.

The auto makers produce things because people want them. While they certainly hold blame for letting their smaller cars falter in that environment you can't blame them for not wanting to spend money where it's not profitable.

The fact that a high performance car now days has at least 500+ HP and most closer to 600, or the fact that GM managed to create a whole new brand around one of the most fuel in-efficient SUVs (HUMMER), or that Cadillac's resurection was funded by the vehicles like Escalade and CTS-V points to the fact that most people don't want smaller vehicles if given the choice.

The problem for the big three (and all the rest of the auto makers too) is that what people wanted changed essentially over night. When new car development takes years but the price of gas can double in a month there's no way the auto companies can suddenly throw out new vehicles into a changing market.


RE: Killer design
By Spuke on 4/16/2009 1:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This gives a maximum reasonable steady state at 60mph on a flat road of ~60 miles on a single gallon of gas. This is what should be acchievable right now using gasoline.
Nice work! Very informative. Thanks.


RE: Killer design
By ThePooBurner on 4/22/2009 5:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Please redo your equaltions to be based on a steam powered engine that runs on gas or diesel and then come back. 60mpg max for a car people would want. Psh.


RE: Killer design
By mikeyD95125 on 4/16/2009 3:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ok you can pay $1,000,000 for your fuel cell car. I'd take an EV-1 anyday.


RE: Killer design
By Oregonian2 on 4/15/2009 6:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
adding a turbo would be pointless


I disagree! I agree that it would be technically useless, but that's not what the "Turbo"'s number one job is. It's a marketing thing.

Putting "Turbo" on the car gives it marketing pizzazz!

Make a model fire-engine red and put a '7' into it's model number (maybe, "VOLT Turbo-7"). And off it goes!

:-)


RE: Killer design
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 7:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
What if by using a turbo you get faster battery charging, or size and weight reduction from a smaller engine?

IMO, the primary problems are addt'l cost while the car designs are already too costly, and lower reliability in what *should* currently be very reliable as a single speed, moderate RPM engine except for the issue of being a new design with bugs to work out and further refinements to work in over time like all new designs.


RE: Killer design
By Black69ta on 4/16/2009 12:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
adding a turbo would be pointless


Turbos increase Volumetric Efficiency, which increases gas mileage and Power for a given RPM. A larger could allow a bigger Generator thus charging the Battery pack in less time. allowing better MPG.


RE: Killer design
By Black69ta on 4/16/2009 12:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A larger could allow a bigger Generator thus charging the Battery pack in less time.


Sorry that was supposed to read:
A Turbo could allow....


RE: Killer design
By cunning plan on 4/16/2009 5:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
The more air you cram into a cylinder the more fuel you have to use. The reason for putting more air into the cylinder is so more fuel can be used creating more power without degrading the mixture to the point of miss-fire / stall. Basically if you pile loads of fuel in a cylinder without the correct mixture of air, the engine will miss-fire and probably stall, but if you FORCE induction of air into the cylinder you can add more fuel use that oxygen to combust.

The only time that a turbo engine is as efficient as a N/A one is off the boost and if that is the case there’s no point adding the turbo!

However, I agree that a turbo would increase the power of the engine which in turn allows a bigger generator and reduces the recharging time. BUT the fuel consumption would go up!


RE: Killer design
By JediJeb on 4/16/2009 12:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
Not always. If you read up on people who are putting the 4 cylinder diesel Cummins engines into just about everything, they increase their milage by adding a turbo and upping the power so they can in turn put in a better gear ratio. Producing more power can allow for a change in gearing that will produce the same speeds at lower RPMs, which can if done correctly actually use less fuel because you are using it more efficiently. Tractor trailer trucks and farm tractors use turbos more to increase fuel efficiency than to increase raw power.


RE: Killer design
By mindless1 on 4/16/2009 7:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Since we don't know the tweaks made to GM's battery charging engine it may be difficult to say whether a turbo, also tweaked, would be more or less efficient since we are comparing a different use of different engines.


RE: Killer design
By phorensic on 4/16/2009 12:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only time that a turbo engine is as efficient as a N/A one is off the boost and if that is the case there’s no point adding the turbo!


Sorry, this is just plain wrong.


RE: Killer design
By RU482 on 4/16/2009 11:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
he meant add a turbo to the electric drive, duh


RE: Killer design
By KnightBreed on 4/17/2009 1:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm assuming a bigger battery pack and higher performance means you need a bigger engine to generate electricity. Unless, of course, the current 1.4L is enough on it's own...

Christ, and I'm the one to get voted down.


expensive but
By RamarC on 4/15/2009 12:25:24 PM , Rating: 5
A lot of folks think GM should be releasing 'affordable' electric vehicles, but new technology always debuts at the high end first. That's the only way the intial costs of the parts can be recovered -- with an expensive product.

Many convenience features we now take for granted on cars debuted in a top line Mercedes. In dash navigation, air bags, and the like were so expensive initially, they could only be offered in an auto whose overall price could justify the additional feature cost.




RE: expensive but
By m0mentary on 4/15/2009 12:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well, for a high-end electric vehicle, I'd like to keep usable back seats. Those might be concept pics, but I really hope the Converj can carry more than just one adult passenger and a couple set of golf clubs.


RE: expensive but
By RamarC on 4/15/2009 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
i expect the interior to be practically identical to the CTS coupe.


RE: expensive but
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 1:07:04 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. You don't see anyone b*tching about the $100,000 Lexus "hybrid" that uses the electric motor more as a performance feature than a gas saving one. It still gets 12 mpg.


RE: expensive but
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: expensive but
By Jeffk464 on 4/15/2009 2:43:33 PM , Rating: 1
I think its going to cost $40,000 but drop down to around $30,000ish with the government subsidies. Subsidies are not all bad and encourage new technologies until they are profitable. Windpower was subsidized for years and is now getting profitable.


RE: expensive but
By Keeir on 4/15/2009 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Windpower was subsidized for years and is now getting profitable.


Sorry, but this is really untrue.

Windpower is still produced at roughly 10-15 cents per kWH wholesale price. Its true, this is down sigificantly from early costs in the 20 cents+ kWH prices, but its far "from profitable".

Some companies are making money because of government subsidies combined with regulation that force power company to have purchase "pollution free" power regardless of price.

Windpower (or any renewable power source) really shouldn't be considered economical until it approaches the wholesale prices of coal/current Nuclear plants.. which is around 4-5 cents per kWH (Heck, the Palo Verde On Peak Spot is just 2.41 cents per kWH right now). Until that occurs, in the free market, the Windpower would not be "profitable".


RE: expensive but
By Oregonian2 on 4/15/2009 6:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
Depends what you do with that windpower.

Here in Oregon, at least the biggie electric company (PGE) sells green power to customers (including residential) at a higher cost than for their "regular" power.

Customers (such as myself) are sent forms about every year or so to option that wind power in our bill.

Don't recall what they charge for it, but it might be profitable for them at those higher prices.

P.S. - If windpower is sold on the wholesale market for 10 cents/kwh, I'd assume then that the producer is making a profit off of that which they charge even if the wholesale customer isn't (presumably buying it because a government law requires it).


RE: expensive but
By Keeir on 4/15/2009 7:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, no, I mispoke

The DOE in 2007 estimated costs for wind to be between 10 to 15 cents per kWH. Its hard to really understand the costs of wind power unless a firm grip on expected lifespan of wind turbines is known... which is still an unknown. I don't have access to data of a particular wind company, so I will assume the DOE estimates are "reasonable".

Yes, its true, but at the same time, using the DOE estimates, wind power would need to be priced between 8 to 10 cents higher than the other power to "break even" for the power company. Often times a power company with seperate power prices leaves the cost of infrastructure and billing on the older coal/nuclear/hydro power rather than fully charge it on the renewable. Obviously there are company that do not do this, but given the US average premium for "green" power, it seems the only way it can be acchieved.

PS. Its not really profitable for society. Its wealth transfer forced by regulation and as I understand not the goal of subsidies driven theory to create industries that only exist due to regulation. IE the original poster "Since we subsidies wind in the past, we now do not need to subsidize a the industry as it makes its own profits"


RE: expensive but
By Black69ta on 4/16/2009 1:01:11 AM , Rating: 1
And original Computers took up a whole room. Just because Locomotives use Diesel generators doesn't mean that the technology is small enough to be feasible in a passenger car.


RE: expensive but
By Jeffk464 on 4/15/2009 2:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
Its amazing, GM waited untill they were practically dead to come out with desirable products. Now they have a lot of "Americas Most Wanted" products coming out and they might go under. Not only that but they trashed their name with crappy products for so long that people will be reluctant to buy from them.

I Say it was a great day when Obama S canned the CEO of GM.


RE: expensive but
By Oregonian2 on 4/15/2009 6:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
First, I don't think the Volt and volt derivatives are "desirable products". They'll be symbolic, but they won't sell very much nor are they expected to. They'd be "desirable products" at half the expected prices, but not for that which is expected (not their "fault", they are a new class of vehicle).

Secondly, all reports have their regular cars to be very reliable decent cars for quite some time now -- but yes they're stuck with their bad reputation from previous years with little success in getting rid of it no matter what they do.

Canning the CEO of GM was a nice symbolic gesture but I suspect that wasn't the biggest problem with GM.

What amazes me is Ford. :-)


RE: expensive but
By matt0401 on 4/15/2009 11:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First, I don't think the Volt and volt derivatives are "desirable products".


I completely disagree. I frequent a few news sites dealing with environmental issues and green cars (autobloggreen and treehugger to be specific) and while those left-of-centre sites often salivate upon hearing of a minor detail about the new Prius or news of a new wind farm being developed, the Volt has these sites orgasming at the thought of it being produced. It is a VERY desirable product. Sell as much as a standard mid-size sedan? No, not nearly. But sell all in stock to a legion of diehard hippies? Most likely, if not definitely.

These will sell.


RE: expensive but
By djc208 on 4/16/2009 8:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's a very desirable product for this subset of people, but they are not a large subset of people. I thought the Dodge Magnum was one of the best looking cars built, but obviously I was in the minority on that one since it doesn't exist any more, and that was based off an existing archetecture and therefore cheaper to produce.

No one is saying GM won't sell the Volt, but same as the Prius or the Tesla, only people who value mother Earth green more than Uncle Sam green, or are looking to make a social statement, will buy right now. That's not a huge market in the 10-million car sales year the auto industry is praying they can get this year.

Add in the fact that with gas prices back down as low as they are fewer people are seeing the benefit of spending extra on a more fuel efficient vehicle, and the Volt isn't coming out into the best market it could have.

Technologically GM needs this vehicle to survive into the future. Financially it's a horrible time to do it. GM needs to worry more about building world class Volt sized conventional cars. Maintaining its current competitive Cadillac products since they make good profits and target people who are much less affected by economic downturns. And staying competitive in the full-size truck market. The home buyers may be backing out but the core of that market isn't going anywhere, and it's a large market with lots of applications.


RE: expensive but
By cerx on 4/16/2009 10:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What amazes me is Ford

Ford isn't having troubles now because they already went through that, a couple years back. They re-worked their union contract so they pay less than the others (or at least less than GM). They've also come out with some newer and better cars in the last couple years so of course that is part of it, too.


RE: expensive but
By walk2k on 4/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: expensive but
By hduser on 4/15/2009 5:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno, I kinda like the looks of this Caddy. Then again, I like the looks of the preproduction Volt. I don't like the style of the current production Volt as much. I wonder what the production version of the Caddy will look like.


Concept or not..
By bohrd on 4/15/2009 12:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or does it seem that viewing out of the front windshield would be impossible? The steering wheel looks like it would sit right in front of you face and then there are a few more inches of dash to contend with.

Perhaps GM wants everyone to look like grandmother driving whether or not they are.




RE: Concept or not..
By Aquila76 on 4/15/2009 12:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it IS a Caddy.


RE: Concept or not..
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 1:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think the pictures paint it worse than it is.

I know if they built the car to actually look like that, it'd be one sexy @$$ car.


RE: Concept or not..
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 4/15/2009 1:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's just you. The bottom pic is a wide angle, so it makes the windshield look obscured.


RE: Concept or not..
By geddarkstorm on 4/15/2009 2:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the head on pic. The seats are easily visible; there shouldn't be any problem seeing out the front of that car.


RE: Concept or not..
By Keeir on 4/15/2009 3:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
One word... -concept-

I imagine the final interior will use more "off the shelf" Caddy components and designs.


RE: Concept or not..
By Spuke on 4/15/2009 3:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
You do know this is a concept car, right?


insurance
By Chernobyl68 on 4/15/2009 12:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
2-door coupes have higher insurance costs.




RE: insurance
By m0mentary on 4/15/2009 12:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
Im assuming the "back seats" might be included to help alleviate insurance costs, much like in the Lexus SC430.


RE: insurance
By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 1:09:13 PM , Rating: 5
People buying Cadillacs typically don't care.


RE: insurance
By Bender 123 on 4/15/2009 1:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
If you have to ask, then you can not afford.

BTW: Does it not look like somebody could play a mean game of star trek shuttle craft in that thing?


RE: insurance
By mattclary on 4/15/2009 3:23:26 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, it sucks that the "concept" is always way cooler than what shows up on the showroom floor.


By Fenixgoon on 4/15/2009 2:10:51 PM , Rating: 1
Diesel electrics, as featured in trains, are designed to endure relatively constant, sustained loads. Getting a train to 60mph in 6 seconds doesn't matter, but getting a car there certainly does. Cars have power demands that fluctuate very rapidly, whereas a train is more likely to travel within a very narrow range of speeds, and therefore, power demands.

I'm not saying a diesel electric can't be viable for automotive applications, only that in its current form (locomotive), the design criteria is far too different to allow designers and manufacturers to simply rescale things to fit in a car.

and to think that I learned that from AT! :shocked;




By Jeffk464 on 4/15/2009 2:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Its just a stop gap until battery packs improve enough and go into mass production. Think of it as a step to mass produced all electric vehicle.


By Jeffk464 on 4/15/2009 2:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
The idea is that for most commuters they will run on all electric and just use the engine when going on long trips.


By FITCamaro on 4/15/2009 2:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
The engine in the Volt will also see a constant, sustained load when it is operating. While I'm sure it has a few different operating speeds, the gas pedal isn't what will determine how fast the gas generator is operating.


By Doormat on 4/15/2009 3:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
GM has said diesel isn't a good idea. I can see why once they explain it...

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/18/join-our-cross-...

quote:
[Comment From Jon Lauckner] No, not extensively. First, in the U.S. a diesel fuel infrastructure (fueling spots) is a tiny fraction of 170,000 fueling stations currently. Secondly, the cost of a diesel engine is far greater than a gas engine. Recognizing most people will drive their daily commute (78%) using only electricity, we didn't think it made a lot of sense for consumers to incur the additional cost and inconvenience of a diesel range extender. You're right though, the efficiency of a diesel would be better than a gas engine, but remember, the U.S. emissions standards (Bin 5, Tier 2) also require a "mini-chemistry set" to meet emissions and this hurts their theoretical thermodynamic efficiency compared to a gas engine.


By cerx on 4/16/2009 10:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
Same reason VW quit selling diesel cars in the US.


SAAB -- the best of the bunch
By BikeDude on 4/15/2009 7:06:30 PM , Rating: 4
General "safety does not sell" Motors get away with a lot of stuff.

E.g. SAAB sold a bunch of cars in the US in 2007. All the expenditure went into SAAB's books and all the profits went directly into the books of GM USA. If SAAB had been allowed to keep the profits of those sales, they would have shown a nice profit for that year globally.

quote:
GM is continuing to make efforts to grow its profitable brands as it reluctantly agrees to kill other ones, as part of its restructuring -- including Saturn, Saab, and Hummer


...makes it sound as if SAAB is not a profitable brand. Which is not only wrong, but also quite unfair given the amount of technology and knowhow harvested by GM. SAAB gave GM a lot, but all GM contributed was bad management and strange ideas like killing the turbo hatchback and letting the SAAB model range grow old. Other brands have picked up where SAAB was forced to let go, and have shown that SAAB's original strategy would have been quite profitable and good for both companies.

Good luck GM. Without SAAB you won't have any road-safe cars to sell anymore. Which GM car can say it is at least 30% safer than the average car? The answer used to be 'SAAB', now the answer will soon be 'none'. Good (for GM) that most people think a couple of airbags suffice to make a car safe.




RE: SAAB -- the best of the bunch
By Andrwken on 4/15/2009 9:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2003 saab 9-3 linear coupe. I can assure you from my experience and the experience of a lot of owners of this car (just do a little searching) that the best parts of this car were from the GM parts bin and not the proprietary saab components. The drivetrain has been solid (mostly a carryover from cars like the cobalt), the new turbo is better and less laggy than any of the saab originals, and the handling and suspension has also been great (also gm parts bin). But the saab computer system and electrical is a joke. This thing crashes like windows ME. One day a door lock won't work, you get in the car, and the car tells you the door locks screwed up, see your dealer(they took the time to write this error code for you?). Turn off the car, and woila! everything works. The radio has cut out and I had to "reboot" the car twice. I already replaced two components of the saab proprietary audio system. Trust me, from experience, GM didn't hurt this company. Not using enough of GM's electrical components did.


Concepts
By Warder45 on 4/15/2009 12:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Like most concepts I'd buy the model shown above... Of course it will never make it to the showroom looking like that.




RE: Concepts
By threepac3 on 4/15/2009 1:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
I hope when it goes to production it does not end up looking like a Prius.


well sir
By judasmachine on 4/15/2009 4:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
I quite like it, and hope it doesn't lose it's concept flair in the production model. Can't help it, I really freakin like it. Now to start looking for change, everywhere.




RE: well sir
By kellehair on 4/15/2009 5:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
I wish it was coming out sooner. I would buy one today.


CTS midget
By CalWorthing on 4/15/2009 6:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ever ride in the back seat of a 4dr CTS? Claustrophobia city.




"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki