backtop


Print 207 comment(s) - last by Shadowmaster62.. on Sep 22 at 5:02 PM


Production Chevrolet Volt
GM takes the wraps of its highly anticipated Chevrolet Volt

After months of speculation, teaser shots, and spy photos taken on the set of “Transformers 2”, the production Chevrolet Volt has finally been unveiled to the public. Although General Motors made the horrible mistake of having key executives partially block the view of the Volt in every single photo available, it's still good to finally see the vehicle's final shape.

The Volt pictured to the right doesn't appear to be an actual finished vehicle, but rather a clay representation of what the production model will look like. That being said, the production Volt is noticeably "rounder" than the concept version. The concept Volt's unique glass beltline has also been replaced by what looks to be flat black paint to give the same illusion.

There were obvious concessions made for occupant comfort such as the taller roofline to accommodate a wide variety of body types. The concept vehicle's flared fenders have also given way to a more slab-sided appearance -- no doubt in an effort to maximize aerodynamic efficiency.

In its transition from concept to production, the Volt now looks more "ordinary" instead of something that drags consumers kicking and screaming into the future.

The Chevrolet Volt is estimated to have a price tag of $40,000 to $45,000 (before tax breaks/credits) when it launches in late 2010 as a 2011 model. The Volt can travel 40 miles on a charge before its internal gasoline engine (ICE) has to start to recharge the battery pack.

Taking into consideration the 40 mile battery range and the 7.2-gallon gas tank, the Volt will have a total range of 360 miles.

Updated 9/16/2008
GM recently revealed new pictures of the Volt sans the executives mugging in every shot. The new shots give a better idea of Volt's final shape. There's also a shot of the Volt's interior which looks quite remarkable.

GM also revealed a few more details about the Volt during the press unveiling. According to GM, here are a few of the highlights of the interior:

  • Driver-configurable, liquid crystal instrument display
  • Standard seven-inch touch screen vehicle information display
  • Touch screen-style climate and infotainment controls
  • Optional navigation system with onboard hard drive for maps and music storage
  • Standard Bluetooth for cellular phone and USB/Bluetooth for music streaming      

GM stated that the electric motor generates 150 HP and 273 lb-ft of torque which can propel the vehicle at up to 100 MPH. The company also noted that the average driver would save $1,500 in fuel costs per year based on an average daily commute of 40 miles per day, $3.60 gasoline, and 15,000 miles of driving per year.



Comments     Threshold


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

Mistake?
By cherrycoke on 9/8/2008 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Although General Motors made the horrible mistake of having key executives partially block the view of the Volt in every single photo available


Can you call that a mistake? The original concept model looked so good.




RE: Mistake?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By jRaskell on 9/8/2008 2:13:21 PM , Rating: 1
My chances of purchasing one were never very high to begin with. Fuel consumption and perceived environmental issues simply aren't things that even register on my own personal radar.

That being said, I originally thought GM was making some progress here with an edgier, more interesting hybrid visual design. The underlying technology is still a potentially successful selling point, but they've just gone and thrown themselves in with the rest of the hybrids as far as asthetics are concerned. More of a follow the pack than lead the pack decision there.


RE: Mistake?
By Locutus465 on 9/9/2008 3:41:16 PM , Rating: 1
My guess is a higher up panicked given the "must must sell" nature of this project... And in the process, assuming GM really is in such a pracarious position that this car must sell to save the company, killed GM. If this turns out to be the case it would just be a damn shame to see an otherwise fine company go under due to retarded management choices like that.

But even if there's some truth to all of the above i think GM might have an "unforseen" saviour in the form of the reissued camero which I do beleive will be hitting the market in about the same time frame. Volt may now be no where on my (or many other peoples) radar, but a convertable Camero sure as hell is.

If GM is saved (with this car tanking) I hope that it wakes them up and they redesign year 2 (or 3) to match the original concept which was a brilliant design IMHO.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 4:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If GM is saved (with this car tanking) I hope that it wakes them up and they redesign year 2 (or 3) to match the original concept which was a brilliant design IMHO.
LOL! You'll be waiting a llllloooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnngggggggggggggggggggg time!


RE: Mistake?
By Chaser on 9/16/2008 1:38:23 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think I've read a more confusing, off topic, completely irrelevant paragraph of dribble like that in a long time.

How about we let the car get to the market before we issue a complete proclamation of doom for the Volt.

And another note. Not to insult your vast automotive knowledge its Camaro.


RE: Mistake?
By Penti on 9/17/2008 8:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, they only plan to make 10 000 of them the first year and 60 000 of them the second year.

Thus between 2010 and 2012 they only plan to build 70.000 vehicles and I'm sure they sell them easily.

It aren't a car that will save GM. They won't even try with it. It can only keep a few hundred assembly workers working. More importantly though is that this car with it's $16 000 US dollar battery won't sell with any profits. Yes you can buy a whole damn Saturn or whatever for the cost of just the battery. It doesn't compete against the $22 000 Prius, which already has sold over 1 million cars worldwide. So it won't gain the same momentum and recognition.


RE: Mistake?
By timmiser on 9/17/2008 5:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
In my opinion, GM screwed up the production Camaro too. Gone is the cool set of wheels we saw in Transformers. We'll be getting a narrower, taller model which killed it for me. I want short and wide in a performance car thank you very much.


RE: Mistake?
By silversound on 9/16/2008 12:27:00 PM , Rating: 4
"The Chevrolet Volt is estimated to have a price tag of $40,000 to $45,000 (before tax breaks/credits) when it launches in late 2010 as a 2011 model."

Who the hell will get this over 40k? GM should sell this max out at 25k, i dunt see this volt better than the new honda hybrid selling for 18.5k.

With 40k I rather get a BMW 335 coupe...


RE: Mistake?
By djc208 on 9/16/2008 12:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
People similar to those buying the Tesla. They could get just about anything they want for that kind of money but it wouldn't be "green".

This is Chevy's halo car for the green movement same as the Corvette is for the car lover or the Hummer is for the truck guys.

This is for those who want to be able to thumb their nose at all the Prius owners the same way most of them liked to at SUV drivers.

Besides, sounds like they're throwing in all kinds of electronics on the inside as standard, so it's not going to be a Cobalt with a really expensive drivetrain from the sounds of things. Does it justify the extra $10~15k this thing is going to cost over a "normal" hybrid? Probably not but it's about selling the technology right now, not making a big seller.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/16/2008 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Probably not but it's about selling the technology right now, not making a big seller.
They're only making 10k a year anyways so it can't be a big seller. These things will be fairly rare.


RE: Mistake?
By ianweck on 9/16/2008 8:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're only making 10k a year anyways so it can't be a big seller. These things will be fairly rare.


They stated only 10k units the first year, ramped up after that. So we'll see.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/16/2008 1:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
GM said the target price is $35k not $40k and definitely not $45k. The over $40k price is a rumor but I won't be surprised if markups bring the price up to $45k.


RE: Mistake?
By Penti on 9/17/2008 8:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
Hum, would you sell a car with a estimated battery cost of $16,000 USD for 25k? Yes you can almost get a new parallel hybrid for just the battery cost. There's more them a slight difference between a 16 kWh lithium battery pack and a 1.3 kWh NiMH that the Prius has.


RE: Mistake?
By Tsuwamono on 9/18/2008 10:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
The battery cost isn't 16k. I'm not sure where you guys are getting this info because your the second person I have seen say this but its not true. I believe it is 8k but I know it sure as hell is under 10k.


RE: Mistake?
By AE3Wolfman on 9/18/2008 2:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, with the cost of Lithium batteries 16kwh is easily going to cost $10k unless they get the battery pack from China, in which case quality control is going to be an issue. For half the cost of this car, you could convert pretty much any vehicle you want to pure electric, a handful of companies make the kits to ease installation issues. I am looking at converting an 86 F250 to electric, the battery pack for my 45 mile commute at max speed of 65 is going to set me back about 14K, motor, controller and charger is another 6k. I could save 5k on batteries if I go lead-acid, but the weight penalty is pretty severe. If they do end up selling these cars for 30k, don't be surprised if its at a loss.


RE: Mistake?
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:21:06 PM , Rating: 4
Shame really. I thought the concept looked bad ass. This thing looks again just like a Prius with a Chevy front end.


RE: Mistake?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/8/2008 2:22:27 PM , Rating: 3
WTH? FITCamaro saying something that doesn't put GM in a positive light??

**falls off chair**


RE: Mistake?
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:25:06 PM , Rating: 5
What? I never said everything they do is great. The Pontiac Aztec? Easily the ugliest car ever produced. The Honda Element being a close second.


RE: Mistake?
By cherrycoke on 9/8/2008 2:38:23 PM , Rating: 3
I agree..

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/top-10-...

GM has a couple in there, I usually think GM does ok.
I just wish we had the Corvette and Camaro stylists work out the production vehicle and keep that aggressive look.
I can't think of too many other reasons than possibly aerodynamics, cost of production for special components (ie. door glass)

I was surprised not to see the Element not in the link.


RE: Mistake?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/9/2008 12:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
In the end they have to make lots of money on this puppy, and that is going to mean appealing to the run-of-the-mill GM buyer (who let's face it, doesn't have any styling taste to speak of, except for the above mentioned Camaro and Corvette, and then the interior styling is highly suspect), so they have to keep costs down and market appeal way up.

No room for a niche market here. They will make tons on this car, though, I predict. 6 figure annual production runs easy.


RE: Mistake?
By Penti on 9/17/2008 8:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
Eh, they will just use this vehicle as a platform to develop future electric drive-trains. They will probably loose tons of money on this car. And it would only be 70000 of them around in mid 2012.


RE: Mistake?
By 67STANG on 9/8/2008 2:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
You, sir are wrong. The Subaru Baja ( http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2003/03/11/1571... ) is by far the ugliest vehicle produced.


RE: Mistake?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 2:58:54 PM , Rating: 1
I rather like the Baja. I think a 70s-era VW "Thing" beats it hands down. But both pale compared to either of these two:

http://www.carsandtuning.org/wp-content/uploads/20...

http://allworldcars.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploa...


RE: Mistake?
By 67STANG on 9/8/2008 5:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I was containing it to current U.S. production vehicles. I guess that cannot be the criteria however as Subaru has discontinued the Baja due to lackluster sales... imagine that.

Lets be honest, if we're going back to the 70 through the mid eighties-- the list gets quite long. I attribute that to car designers listening to disco music.


RE: Mistake?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 6:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
That car in the first link is still made by Fiat.


RE: Mistake?
By ebakke on 9/8/2008 7:10:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Lets be honest, if we're going back to the 70 through the mid eighties-- the list gets quite long.

Nope, the list of "Ugliest car ever" remains the same length. 1.


RE: Mistake?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/9/2008 12:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
Um, the Thing is a 1940's era design. See the Kübelwagen on which it was based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_K%C3%BCbel...


RE: Mistake?
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:59:40 PM , Rating: 3
Nah I don't find that nearly as terrible.

http://www.edmunds.com/media/reviews/top10/05.truc...

The Subaru just looks like an Outback with the roof of the tailgate cut off.


RE: Mistake?
By borismkv on 9/8/2008 5:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
They look a lot better in person. And in a color other than yellow. And without the two-tone cladding. But then, I'm biased. I own one :D And it's fun as hell beating the pants off those idiots in their coffee can cruisers.


RE: Mistake?
By Ratinator on 9/8/2008 3:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
I have the Element and Scion as 1,2. Aztec is 3.


RE: Mistake?
By MrBungle123 on 9/8/2008 4:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot to put the honda insight on that list.


RE: Mistake?
By Doormat on 9/8/2008 8:18:54 PM , Rating: 2
The original insight? Yes, the new one, eh, its OK, it falls into the same category as the Prius and other cars that go for the aero over everything package.


RE: Mistake?
By timmiser on 9/17/2008 5:53:16 PM , Rating: 2
My ex wife loved the Aztec.

Haha... Sorry, I just had to post that out into the public domain for the record. :)


RE: Mistake?
By hydmoghul on 9/17/2008 3:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Mistake?
By onwisconsin on 9/8/2008 3:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed...this design is kinda vanilla. Looks too much like a Cobalt to me.

Then again, if the Volt sells a lot (consistently, not like Chrysler who has occasionally sells a ton of one model for one year then steeply drops off the next few) GM and their employees should be happy....


RE: Mistake?
By ajfink on 9/8/2008 3:34:28 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but the back end is fugly.


RE: Mistake?
By Mitch101 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/8/2008 4:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's supposed to be around $35k with a $10k tax credit or something. At least, that's what GM is shooting for.


RE: Mistake?
By mcnabney on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/8/2008 7:10:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Right now you can buy a Prius and spring an extra $12k and have it modified into a plugin hybrid with a huge battery pack that will get over 100 miles to a charge.
None of which is covered by a warranty. BTW, the all battery range of those conversions are NOT 100 miles. Try a max of 30 miles and the price is closer to $15k for the 30 milers. Nice try. And, like all electric cars, range is dependent on driving style and environmental conditions. Sometimes you'll get more, other times you get less.


RE: Mistake?
By Samus on 9/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Mistake?
By Totally on 9/9/2008 11:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
Just in case you didn't get it the first time around.

GM owns Daewoo.


RE: Mistake?
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 7:52:57 AM , Rating: 2
The EV1 was also the size of a Geo Metro. This is much larger.


RE: Mistake?
By Jedi2155 on 9/10/2008 10:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
My current opinion on the volt is that they are following the right steps except for the price although that is due to the fact that they EXPECT the battery to die and require to be replaced within the 10/150k mile year warranty, so they included the replacement battery into the cost of the vehicle.

My guess is that they are trying to cut into the high efficiency market where Toyota currently reigns supreme and get the green moniker, that they seem to be greatly lacking. If they had designed the Volt to compromise on efficiency and stick with the original style in which many of you love, it would merely cannibalize users which GM probably already have thus cannibalizing a market they don't need to. They need to get market share AWAY from Toyota/Honda which is what the Volt is aiming to achieve.

I know they certainly got my attention with the Volt and has swayed my purchasing decision from an almost guaranteed Toyota Prius to the Volt.


RE: Mistake?
By Jimbo1234 on 9/16/2008 1:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, at $40K I'll take an A4, 3 series, G37, or even a C-class over a Chevy every time.


RE: Mistake?
By maverick85wd on 9/8/2008 4:39:00 PM , Rating: 3
while the Prius is, admittedly, one ugly car, it was also designed that way for a reason. You realize that when trying to maximize your mileage it's important to lower your drag coefficient, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coeff...


RE: Mistake?
By randomly on 9/8/2008 6:23:39 PM , Rating: 3
Weight is also extremely important. If you are just concerned with drag area you have a lot more flexibility in your design looks, but add in extreme measures at weight reduction and still retain the internal volume you end up with the Prius, Insight, Volt look as a fairly optimal shape.

Personally the concept car looks too much like the Dodge Magnum, which after two weeks of driving I got to loathe for it's terrible visibility. I prefer the look of the production Volt. That's just me though.

If they can significantly bring the cost of the batteries down this has the potential to really start a sea change in what we drive and our consumption of automotive fuel.


RE: Mistake?
By Fireshade on 9/16/2008 8:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
Judging from the Transformers 2 spyshots, I would have to say that the Volt looks much better and sportier than the Prius.
However, somehow this doesn't carry over at all with these ugly "Public Disaster" shots.
Weird, but perhaps it only looks cool from a distance :)

http://www.dailytech.com/Update+Chevrolet+Volt+Int...


RE: Mistake?
By Alias1431 on 9/16/2008 4:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
You got that from a digg.com comment.


RE: Mistake?
By albundy2 on 9/16/2008 5:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
actually the front looks like a 2009 acura tl with the rear end looking like a prius... also if you've seen a riced out cobalt it looks alot like a 93-97 civic... chevy is really in love with hondas' designs. it's starting to creep me out.
car's are really starting to look alike.

seriously though, if you doubt it compare some photos for yourselves. my brother almost puked when i proved it to him.


RE: Mistake?
By Davelo on 9/16/2008 7:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it looks okay. Definitely nicer than a Prius. Looks a lot like the Acura TSX.


RE: Mistake?
By djkrypplephite on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By helios220 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By therealnickdanger on 9/8/2008 3:16:59 PM , Rating: 1
Yup... I'll reserve final judgement until I actually see it in person and drive it, but I think it should be submitted to failblog.org immediately.


RE: Mistake?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 3:20:45 PM , Rating: 3
Cmon people.. look at the field of view that the concept windshield has. There was no way in hell that something like that would have passed safety regulations.

The Insight/Prius look the way they do for a reason, aerodynamics..


RE: Mistake?
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 5:41:55 PM , Rating: 2
The point I think people would make is that hippies have their models already. People who like a harder, old-school look to a car had nothing. The market catered entirely to whatever the industries marketing people found that hippies and bra-burners would find appealing.

And now, thanks to GM, the pool of people willing to buy these types of things will remain the same. I won't touch one of these things now. I'll give up a little in looks for performance, but not that much.


RE: Mistake?
By maverick85wd on 9/9/2008 6:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
I find your argument of aesthetics over functionality idiotic.

The marketing people found that people buy cars with higher MPG on the sticker, so they made the car more aerodynamic to boost that number. You can always go buy a hummer or something if you'd prefer more drag.


RE: Mistake?
By bhieb on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/8/2008 4:01:11 PM , Rating: 3
I think it looks pretty good but I'll reserve judgment until I actually SEE one. Pictures hardly ever do any car justice. I'd also like to see the interior.

I'm not really in the market for a new car (yet) but I'll take a trip to the dealer once the car is actually available and check it out.


RE: Mistake?
By Chadder007 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 5:51:52 PM , Rating: 1
They can definitely blame UAW on the cost side in general.

But when people go in to the show room and shake their head at this bland-but-expensive hippy car, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves. If they made good enough cars, they'd still be disadvantaged but not fatally wounded.

I think the blame falls squarely on Bob Lutz at this point. He should've been on top of this.


RE: Mistake?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Mistake?
By Alexvrb on 9/8/2008 10:37:09 PM , Rating: 3
If you saw the prototype in person, you'd immediately realize that the design had to change drastically for a production model. The prototype was a cool attention getter, but everything about it screamed "can not mass produce". $500 difference? "Moulding"? You're way off here, which is uncommon for you.

The interior was inappropriate, the proportions were wrong both inside and out. It would not have been a comfortable commuter car. The doors were cool but insane, an obvious flare that would not make it to the production model. Go dig up some more detailed shots. The whole front end is less costly to produce, lighter, and more aerodynamic. There's more to it, although some things that they changed did NOT need to be changed. I guess they didn't want it to look like two cars merged, to have it clash with itself. So they smoothed the whole thing. They could have at least kept the headlights and tail a bit closer, perhaps.

Do I like the changes? No. Hell no. But I KNEW they were coming, after all, the Volt as a high efficiency vehicle HAD to become less flash, more substance. You don't buy one of these things if you want a killer sports car or muscle car! That's what things like the Sky, Corvette, Camaro are for. This isn't a high performance vehicle.

Also, I highly doubt the price is going to be $40-45K, even before tax rebates. Probably closer to the $35K mark pre-tax rebates. I could be wrong, but if we're all going to speculate, I might as well throw in my two cents.


RE: Mistake?
By Totally on 9/9/2008 11:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
I do agree it was a bait and switch. Two prototype and production models seem to have different wheelbases.

Doors, insane? No very doable, in fact, they did somewhat with the suicide door in the Saturn SC2, it is possible just need to do it on both sides.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By Totally on 9/9/2008 6:05:26 PM , Rating: 1
You're mistaken. Concept vehicles are exhibiton pieces that are built in the spirit of oneupmanship to be shown at auto shows. They rarely see for production without external influences i.e. a collective 'BUILD IT' from the automotive community, and usually, if green-lighted, these are most likely to be shit-canned late into development cycle should market conditions go awry. These are concepts that made it off the drawing board and into the prototype stage, as a showcase never meant to see a dealership lot:

Cadillac: Cien, Sixteen, Ecojet, Imaj, Vizon, Provoq;
Chevy: SS, Orlando, TX2;
Chrysler: ME412, SR 392, Firepower, Imperial, Nassau, Java, Citadel, Howler, ESX3, Airflite;
Dodge: Copperhed, Tomahawk, Super 8 hemi, M80, Sling Shot, Hornet, Zeo, Power Wagon;
Ford: 427, Shelby GR1, Shelby Cobra, Interceptor, Verve, Vignale, Iosis, Reflex;

Now, the progression of things go CONCEPT > PROTOTYPE > PREPRODUCTION > PRODUCTION. The problem I am having is that the Volt was purpose built was never a concept that got green-lighted. Roof line, General Shape, layout, Overall size all should have had been fleshed out on paper

quote:
The main reason for the production look was that the concept's coefficient of drag was terrible.
You think the engineers and designers wouldn't have known that from the outset, You got to give them a little more credit. Anyone who knows the least bit about cars knows that a blunt nose will work "wonders" when it comes to drag. They could have shown us this or something very close when they released it. Instead Mr. Lutz himself drives a vehicle with styling that borrows heavily from the Camaro which incidentally was being redesigned at the time, announces goals set that the Volt will achieve. In hindsight, probably laughing to himself and a couple GM heads "What were we thinking". How do you get something to go from Camaro-esque to Honda Civic other than an attempt to garner attention from those who wouldn't be interested is why I call shenanigans.

quote:
Also, the people buying these aren't interested in the look of present cars. They want something that looks like a hybrid. The Prius may be a hot selling car but its sales figures are half of the Camry, Corolla, Civic, and Accord separately.


You do realize that the Civic, Prius, Fit, Sentra all share the same body shape. I'd think it's safe to say that it isn't looks alone that drives sales. I'm pretty sure price, size, performance come to play.


RE: Mistake?
By Alexvrb on 9/9/2008 6:29:43 PM , Rating: 2
I understand concept cars well enough. I was saying that when you look at the concept up close, it was obvious that there have to be some serious changes in order to keep it light, compact, aerodynamic, and keep it from costing even more than it already does.


RE: Mistake?
By Alexvrb on 9/9/2008 6:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Dude... look at the doors.

First of all, the door has a very unique hinge mechanism because of the very tight gaps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJhl8Vf_D-4

Second, the GLASS on the DOOR.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070108.001/photo1/ele...

http://www.i-car.com/graphics/about_icar/current_e...

A lot of you really never got to look closely at the prototype.


RE: Mistake?
By Totally on 9/9/2008 8:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
I understand why the glass had to go as it isn't practical, and was purely eye candy. Gaps had nothing to do with it, the hinges were designed because of the dramatic angle that the leading edge of the door sweeps inward, they easily could've kept if they didn't shorten the wheel base.


RE: Mistake?
By Ringold on 9/9/2008 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for putting up a smoke screen on behalf of GM, but at the end of the day it's crap. They know how to make sporty looking cars; they've got some similar looking Cadillac's, they've got long experience with the Corvette.. All GM need to do to understand how to shape a car like the Volt is to walk through their private heritage car museum and take a look at some of their old school cars.

What you describe is on a scale similar to taking the last model Corvette and giving it the new headlights, etc. What happened in reality was more like taking the Corvette and making it in to a Civic.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 4:46:59 PM , Rating: 1
Why do some of you think this car was supposed to be sporty? It's friggin hybrid and, currently, NO ONE wants a sporty hybrid! They want a hybrid to look different than current designs. The new fad/trend is to LOOK like you're efficient, right down to your car. And ALL of the hybrids have this fad/trend in mind. People that are actually buying these cars have already spoken AND the automakers are doing their bidding. Capitalism!

People that are into sporty cars buy sporty cars, not hybrids. To twist another persons words, people that want sporty cars already have them! Currently, GM is going with the sure sell. Makes perfect sense from a business standpoint.


RE: Mistake?
By Totally on 9/9/2008 6:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
NO ONE wants a sporty hybrid!

Yeah and wanting to look poor is why people don't buy designer clothing. You are wrong on so many levels, that is probably one of the biggest reasons why they aren't taking off, aside from a higher entry cost of a comparable vehicle. You probably own an Iphone and all you use it for is make is to calls/text.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/16/2008 1:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah and wanting to look poor is why people don't buy designer clothing
Say what you want but the hybrid OWNERS have already spoken with their wallets and determined the hybrid market. Not some dude on the internet that claims he'll buy one if it were this price with this look but in all reality wouldn't buy it at ANY price.

You can live in denial but the Prius, Camry Hybrid, Civic Hybrid sales are through the roof. Not to mention, people WANT their hybrids to look like hybrids. They WANT that goofy look. And the automakers are responding in kind by giving them what they want.

The whiners on DT aren't in that market. Therefore, you keep seeing the styling that you see. Until you count, you don't.


RE: Mistake?
By Alexvrb on 9/9/2008 6:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
I never said I liked the new design. I even said that I DID NOT like the changes. But if you look at the concept, there was a whole lot of things about it that had to be ditched in the name of cost, weight, and efficiency. Do I think they could have done better? Hell yes. But you're comparing this little hybrid with a vette? The Volt doesn't have the handling or punch to really pull off sports car, nor is that what it is for. The target audience for this car doesn't even care. Heck, make it too sporty, give it a tight suspension and sporty interior, and they'll complain about the ride and uncomfortable seats and crap.

Long story short, the production model looks really bland, but compared to the concept it has some improvements in terms of visibility, interior room/comfort, and it doesn't look like it will be a rough ride. Its also lighter and more aerodynamic, without relying on expensive materials like carbon fiber. I'm hoping that they'll eventually come to their senses and release a more aggressive looking model, and maybe put out an SS model with a more powerful e-flex system, possibly with a 2-speed if they can build it strong enough and cheap enough.


RE: Mistake?
By Polynikes on 9/8/2008 7:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like a Honda Civic. What a disappointment.


RE: Mistake?
By chhimp on 9/9/2008 12:45:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's more practical to drive, easier to find parking, and it does take less space on the road than the concept car. I like it, but I have to test drive it before making any criticisms. I know the new Malibu (rental) looks like a TSX, but drives worst than a civic (power wise, possibly from the extra weight compared to a civic). I own a Honda Civic and an Acura TSX, I hope this car brings the company out of the gutter. Good luck to them.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
The Malibu isn't in the Civic's class, it's in the Camry/Accord/Altima class.


RE: Mistake?
By AlmostExAMD on 9/9/2008 6:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with you, I know they have to adjust for aerodynamics and the like to improve efficiency, As with most of these cars ending up bubble shape, But that is just not a Chevy at all.
Was hoping for a more square looking muscle car shape like the concept even if they have to sacrifice some mileage or performance, Chances of me purchasing are now nothing! :(
Bahhh now need to win lotto and get one of those sports models,British one has the looks and class, Reminds me of an Aston Martin.

http://www.tuvie.com/lighting-gt-first-uks-electri...


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Was hoping for a more square looking muscle car shape like the concept even if they have to sacrifice some mileage or performance, Chances of me purchasing are now nothing!
This is a hybrid and mileage is king with hybrids. And hybrids are only interested in mileage. The style they're interested in is the hybrid style. Granted, this car looks FAR better than the Prius even from the pics but I'll reserve final judgment until I see the thing.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:08:54 PM , Rating: 1
Hybrid OWNERS are only interested in mileage. Ack!


RE: Mistake?
By 67STANG on 9/16/2008 11:01:17 AM , Rating: 1
I already emailed them to let them know I'd like to be removed from the waiting list. Would have been the first Chevy I would have bought in years.


RE: Mistake?
By ciparis on 9/16/2008 11:10:20 AM , Rating: 1
This is disappointing.

It's like the good design wouldn't fit through the car-shaped cut-out in the factory exit wall, so this is what we get.


RE: Mistake?
By zshift on 9/16/2008 12:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
They totally screwed up the design. The concept would have been such a cool car to drive. but no, they have to make it as ugly as every other hybrid (not as ugly, just close enough so people can still say, "yeah, that butt-ugly car is a hybrid"), and then the cost is just ridiculous. if people can't afford gas costs, why are they going to pay 40-45K for a car that "saves" money, and the maintenance is going to be ridiculous on that thing. custom/premium parts = premium price. it all goes against "saving money". anyone smart enough to not fall into the hybrid trap can do the math and realize you'll save money only in the long run, but initially the costs will be high.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/16/2008 1:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They totally screwed up the design.
You totally can't read. The reasons for changing the design are in this thread but you STILL had to make your ignorant comment anyways.


RE: Mistake?
By EglsFly on 9/17/2008 10:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
I was very interested in this car and was strongly considering purchasing one. But at $40K, I am not purchasing one. I also do not think that this car or any cars like these should be subsidized just to make them affordable. Why should John Doe down the street and other Americans have to have there tax dollars help pay for your car!

If GM cannot release this car at an affordable price point ($25K seems to be the range of competitors in its class), then as far as I am concerned it can fail. They can bury them next to the EV's for all I care.


RE: Mistake?
By tastyratz on 9/8/2008 2:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
So much for a real ground breaking appearance. The concept was hot and people wanted to buy it just by how smoking it looked. The new one? Olive drab bland. Completely disappointing exterior that will blend with the crowd.

The concept volt was just the head turner Chevy needed.

But hey, I'm sure someones grandmother will love it.


RE: Mistake?
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:33:47 PM , Rating: 5
I will say that I think it does look better than a Prius. But not by much. It just looks a little sharper than the Prius which is one limp wristed wave away from having a Gay Pride sticker come standard on it.


RE: Mistake?
By cherrycoke on 9/8/2008 2:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Looks better than a Prius, maybe about the same as the new Honda Insight 2 that was unveiled. Could anyone tell me if that unveiled Honda is how the actual production model will look? Was it just a pre-production teaser?


RE: Mistake?
By 67STANG on 9/8/2008 2:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
Difference is, the Insight will cost less than half as much. This thing just went from hero to zero.

This car was supposed to be GM's saving grace...
If anyone has stock in GM: SELL.

What's next, the production Camaro is a performance version of the Saturn ION?


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/8/2008 4:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! Man you guys are quick to judge! No wonder we all get in arguments daily. Wait till you actually SEE it in person, in three dimensions, before you decide.


RE: Mistake?
By 67STANG on 9/8/2008 5:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
Quick to judge? I don't really care about the technology behind the price tag... a $40,000 cobalt will not sell well. I don't think I'll see too many of them in person until the price changes (down), they are redesigned or both.

I could be wrong though... Prius's are ugly as sin and people still drive them. They do start at about half the cost, however....


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Quick to judge? I don't really care about the technology behind the price tag... a $40,000 cobalt will not sell well.
The target is $35k not $40k ($40k is a rumor). They'll sell in droves to people that can afford it and want a hybrid. This car wasn't targeted at the living in Mom's basement crowd. And at 10k units a year, you won't see many anyways.

PS - Given the limited units, I won't be surprised to see markups on them. Expect them to be hefty, around $10k or more.


RE: Mistake?
By Alexvrb on 9/8/2008 10:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually the Ion Redline was the supercharged performance version of the defunct Ion model. Too bad, really, if they kept the Ion around they'd have gotten a Redline model with a turbo ecotec. The Ion Redline was a bit of a sleeper, being everything a Cobalt SS SC was at the time, but less well known and less common.

The SC 2.0 ecotec didn't have the potential for power that the more advanced 2.0T DI dual VVT ecotecs do, but the old 2.0 ecotec could still produce quite a power curve.


RE: Mistake?
By Computermonger on 9/8/2008 3:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I sort of like it. The concept looks alot like a Cadillac (and It shares its price point) but how can you market a cadillac as green? Economy and luxury don't mix. The end result is a Chevy Malibu with a new trim level.

Im pretty sure GM would like to price this under 30k, but it is simply not possible due to the low volume.


RE: Mistake?
By Chudilo on 9/9/2008 11:29:20 AM , Rating: 2
I bet GM will release a luxury version (Cadillac) of the volt for $45k that will look a lot closer to the concept. Just to shut up all the naysayers.

It's the same old story with GM. They spend a lot of money to come up with a great idea. Then let the marketing and manufacturing people tone it down past the point of reason; add to that the piss-poor quality of everything you will get to interact with on the inside; and you get yourself a normal new GM release. This was supposed to be a revolutionary car that would save GM. Good buy GM , we'll miss you. Well I guess the government will step in to save their domestic parts.

Who's still excited about this car? Helloooo? Anybody ?
All they needed to do was put more effort in this then they "HAD TO" to stay relevant. For the love of your own people , Make something BETTER THEN IT HAS TO BE to restore your name. STAND UP FOR YOUR BRAND. Customers will come.


RE: Mistake?
By srue on 9/8/2008 4:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
OMG - gay bashing is SO hilarious. Good one.


RE: Mistake?
By FITCamaro on 9/9/2008 7:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks. I try.

Get over it. Just because someone makes a gay joke doesn't mean they hate gays. I've known many gay people and all have been cool. One of the coolest guys at my last job was gay and we got along great.

The only gay people I don't like are those who seem to think they have an obligation to the world to tell anyone and everyone they're gay.


RE: Mistake?
By Totally on 9/9/2008 11:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
Amen, and I'd like to append, also annoying are the homosexuals who take ownership of the word 'gay' and get offended by my liberal use of it to describe things. It's the English language, might as well take offense when people use fail and suck interchangeably.


RE: Mistake?
By v3rt1g0 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By mezman on 9/8/2008 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 3
Granolas with more money then sense?


RE: Mistake?
By djcameron on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By MrX8503 on 9/8/2008 3:27:57 PM , Rating: 4
What part of concept don't you get. Granted this isn't a car forum, but really people need to understand that the concept that GM released was a...what do you call it.. a CONCEPT.

Some concepts that car manufacturers display don't even see the light of day. It is a well known fact among car enthusiasts that most production cars don't end up looking like their concept cars.

Concepts are there to draw attention, but when it comes down to it in the end the car manufacturers has to decide what kind of styling would appeal to everyone. This is why few cars today have radical designs.

I really did like the Volt concept, but I knew from the get go that the production Volt wasn't going to look like that.


RE: Mistake?
By cherrycoke on 9/8/2008 4:22:40 PM , Rating: 3
I think some radical designs can appeal to a lot of peoople, I think this redesign has a lot more to do with other costs and logistics than who it would appeal to.


RE: Mistake?
By ninethirty on 9/8/2008 4:24:28 PM , Rating: 4
We understand concept. The point of a concept is to pilot ideas and test the waters. Throw out a dozen radical ideas and see which ones stick. Its up to the automaker to gauge what the consumers like about the concept and make sure those make it into the final car. In this case, GM apparently decided that what we really wanted was a Cobalt with an electric engine. And double the price tag. Which, judging by the comments here, is pretty far off base.

quote:
Concepts are there to draw attention, but when it comes down to it in the end the car manufacturers has to decide what kind of styling would appeal to everyone. This is why few cars today have radical designs.

Which is what we're complaining about. It appears that they tried to restyle the Volt to appeal to "everyone", which means it doesn't particularly thrill anyone.

I'll concede the visibility and headroom issues in the concept, but they've completely moved it from "cool-looking car that happens to be electric" to "a boring sedan, but it's ok because it's electric." It's a genre shift as well -- from four-door sports car (or sporty car, for the purists) to sedan.

For the record, the Honda Insight 2 article also on DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/Honda+Insight+2+Concept+H... points out that Honda's concepts translate 97% into production models. So people can be forgiven for hoping.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/8/2008 4:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I really did like the Volt concept, but I knew from the get go that the production Volt wasn't going to look like that.
Besides, the CONCEPT Volt had the aerodynamics of a brick. You can't have a fuel efficient brick.


RE: Mistake?
By rtrski on 9/8/2008 5:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
Sure you can. In fact, my house exterior is made up almost entirely of bricks that I can categorically say have not, collectively, burned a single gallon of gas in the entire 10 years I've owned the house.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny! I'll give you that. So your house is all electric and doesn't get it's power from any power plants? Or that your homes materials were not trucked to your homesite when it was built? Or even better, were the materials used to build your house created using machines that did not require gas?

Thought not.


RE: Mistake?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 6:25:53 PM , Rating: 3
> "Besides, the CONCEPT Volt had the aerodynamics of a brick..."

I don't believe there's a huge difference between the two. The concept lacked a Camback, which might have cost 1mph highway, and nothing whatsoever in city driving.

The real issue is interior space and visibility. No one at GM had the guts to gamble. So they designed a "safe" model. . . that costs twice as much as what anyone in that demographic would be willing to pay for it.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Mistake?
By walk2k on 9/8/2008 6:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't look that bad.. what I can see of it. The front looks exactly like the new Honda Accord.

Anyway it's an economy car, not really designed for its looks.


RE: Mistake?
By ninethirty on 9/8/2008 11:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It doesn't look that bad.. what I can see of it. The front looks exactly like the new Honda Accord.


Exactly. It looks like an Accord. But if you take a look at the concept, it was very different -- a look to indicate the 'new breed of automobile' that GM is trying to promote.
It turns out, they're making a very expensive Accord.

quote:
Anyway it's an economy car, not really designed for its looks.


It's $40,000.


RE: Mistake?
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's $40,000.
It's $35,000.


RE: Mistake?
By Jimbo1234 on 9/16/2008 1:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
$35K is still not an economy car.


RE: Mistake?
By Some1ne on 9/8/2008 8:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The original concept model looked so good.


Only if you happen to think that the Ford Mustang also looks good. That's about what the concept model looked like.

I'm glad they changed it, the Mustang look has really gone downhill with the more recent revisions.


RE: Mistake?
By Hiawa23 on 9/8/2008 9:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I planned on buying the car as I have an 06 Lancer, & a 97 Honda, but the final car now looks like a regular Ford. The concept did look pretty impressive but the car cost more than some SUVs & is priced way out of many people's range. Honda & Toyota will own this vehicle if they can't get the price down.


RE: Mistake?
By Totally on 9/9/2008 5:42:18 AM , Rating: 1
OMG! They ruined it! I'm pretty sure there are other shapes other than the egg that are just about as aerodynamic. Looking at the production and concept, they are not the same vehicle. I feel lied to.


RE: Mistake?
By HOOfan 1 on 9/9/2008 10:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
Again, apparently a manufacturer with the idea that its potential customers have a preconceived notion of what a Hybrid should look like...a Prius.

With this trend all cars will look exactly alike in the next 10 years.


RE: Mistake?
By HOOfan 1 on 9/9/2008 10:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
Actually IMO it looks a little like the bastard child of a Toyota Prius and a Ford Focus


RE: Mistake?
By hduser on 9/9/2008 1:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt concept looked like a promising new vehicle with bold styling. This production Volt looks like a "me too" styling for hybrid or any boring small car. Looks like GM slammed the brakes on my enthusiasm for this car.


RE: Mistake?
By Etern205 on 9/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Mistake?
By bostlund on 9/9/2008 10:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
The Volt just went Full Retard.


RE: Mistake?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/16/2008 11:16:28 AM , Rating: 1
It's a re-skinned Malibu, my friend.


RE: Mistake?
By phxfreddy on 9/18/2008 1:17:12 AM , Rating: 2
The original was too retro coupe like. Visibility would have been an issue. ... also anyone over 5'2" tall would have been uncomfortable.

Last but not least our economy is collapsing due to sending boatloads of dollars out of the country to buy oil. Better hope it works.


Ohhh no
By pauldovi on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ohhh no
By kampret on 9/8/2008 2:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
This makes me think...

Is it really impossible to create sporty look hybrid? I'm not an expert on car design... But is there a specific reason that they can't keep the concept version? (aerodynamics, MPG, etc...?)


RE: Ohhh no
By jRaskell on 9/8/2008 2:17:11 PM , Rating: 3
There are PLENTY of aerodynamic sports cars out there, and the idea that hybrid drives can't be packaged under those skins is utter hogwash.

More to the point, it is not at all impossible to create a sporty hybrid that is aerodynamic. Manufacturers just choose not to do so. They may very well have justifiable marketing reasons for doing so, but it's not the result of some technical hurdle that can't be overcome.


RE: Ohhh no
By kampret on 9/8/2008 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
That design looked eerily similar to the new Honda hybrid (whatever it's called) and Prius..

Hopefully this (the design) won't be a trend in the future.. or I might not purchase a Hybrid car ever...


RE: Ohhh no
By Spuke on 9/8/2008 5:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Manufacturers just choose not to do so. They may very well have justifiable marketing reasons for doing so, but it's not the result of some technical hurdle that can't be overcome.
Ding! Ding! Ding! This is exactly right. Marketing decided that the target audience for this car wants their hybrid cars to look like hybrids. I have to admit, from the pics this car blows the others away in styling but final judgment

A lot of you guys have already stated in previous threads that you prefer something under $25k anyways so what difference does it make if this car appeals to you or not? You wouldn't buy it anyways! LOL!

You guys crack me up.


RE: Ohhh no
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 6:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know where you're coming from if you really think this was a decent move. Just speaking generically here, about a third of the population is liberal, a third conservative, and a third lets say bobbing around in between.

The granola munching bunch already have their cars, as you know. That 1/3 segment of the population is thoroughly served -- nay, saturated.

Those in the middle and those on the right who watch NASCAR, grew up admiring sports cars of the old days, or who would just buy a classic sports car if they had the time, skills, money and inclination to do proper upkeep.. this group has been entirely ignored.

Sure, it wasn't the most aerodynamic. So what? Neither is an F-150, which people in the segment I'm talking about loved to buy. But those hard looks combined with technology that could burn coal at an efficient powerplant, where GM could play the domestic energy security card as a selling point, could've been brought together to appeal to both some granola munchers (due purely to the technology) plus the whole rest of the population. All at the cost of, what, a few MPG when on gasoline? Looks matter.

Indeed, if you think sacrificing mass appeal to suit your technical glee at slightly better fuel efficiency.. well, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face as the saying goes. GM's just now coming to market with a Prius clone that's more expensive and competing over the same hippies that already have tons of choices. As people have pointed out, they'd rather go for the new Insight. GM's screwed, and who ever in GM who apparently had your logic should be fired IMHO. If I were a shareholder, I'd of been selling today.


RE: Ohhh no
By Keeir on 9/8/2008 9:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ringold, here are some interesting things you might be not be aware of

#1. Original Concept had a Cd ~.43. New version has a Cd ~.27. (Per Lutz in Charlie Rose Interview)

#2. Original Concept had a wheel base of 120+ inches. New version has between 100-110 inches.

#3. Electric Engine with not have transmission and Torque curve is fairly flat.

Putting 1+2+3 together we can make the following assumptions

If the original concept and new version have the same projection area, the estimated Highway mileage of the original concept will be roughly .27/.43 or ~62%. At constant velocities air drag is the number one component. The new version pegs ~48/50 MPG highway. So the original concept would be around 31 MPG highway. (Keep in mind, the the Volt, the engine runs at maximum efficiency for highway speeds, so its fair to just ratio the forces)

If the original concept is 120+ inches, then it must weigh significantly more. The added glass in the roof, sides, truck, etc will add significant weight as well. Lets assume the original concept had a weight around 4,000 lbs (similar to a 350Z with a 400lb+ battery pack) and this new version is around 3,000 lbs (GM's supposed target). The city mileage and all-electric range are going to suffer a 75% hit due to weight and some hit as well due to aerodynamics. I wouldn't be surprised if the original concept struggled to 30 AER and 35 MPG city.

Due to the nature of the one-speed transmission, things that reduce the 0-60 times are weight, aero drag, electric motor power output. This new version improves the weight and aero drag so it will have better performance using the same power.

In conclusion, we can have this new version (which looks better IMO than the cruze, cobalt, malibu, prius, camry, corrola, civic and insight but significantly worse that really sports car or sport sedans) with 40 AER/50 City/50 Highway, 0-60 at 8 seconds (stated goal) OR the original concept that is 30 AER/35 City/30 Highway, 0-60 at 10 seconds. (At a cost of 5+ grand extra). Then your not really significantly greener or near as practical as a prius, nor anywhere near the power of a 'vette or similar.

In the end, GM decided to make a car that might actually challenge the Prius as the most fuel efficient car, which afterall is the point.

Lets compare it to the Prius then. It looks better. It has significantly better performance. It has the ability to have 0 gas usage for more than 50% of the population, and drastically reduce gas usage for but all the tinest of segments. Its going to cost alot more.

I just hope it A. delivers an interior volume that is near or better than the Prius and B. delivers an interior quality that is superior and hopefully on par to cost segment. I know I spend 2 minutes a day looking at my car and 1 hour a day inside the car.


RE: Ohhh no
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 11:59:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the estimated Highway mileage of the original concept will be roughly .27/.43 or ~62%. At constant velocities air drag is the number one component. The new version pegs ~48/50 MPG highway. So the original concept would be around 31 MPG highway.
Whoa, whoa. You're assuming air drag is the only factor. Rolling resistance (time deformation/slip friction, etc) and drivetrain losses are both also large components; together they're nearly half of the total force on the vehicle at highway speeds.

Secondly, the frontal area of the two vehicles aren't identical. The concept, being longer and lower, is going to have its higher drag coefficient at least partially offset by the lower drag area.

Third and most importantly, one **can** design a sexy vehicle with a low drag coefficient. The Nissan GT-R, for instance, has exactly the same 0.27 coefficient as the new Volt. Yet their appearances are miles apart.


RE: Ohhh no
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 12:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Nissan GT-R, for instance, has exactly the same 0.27 coefficient as the new Volt.
As does the old G35 and Prius. But we don't know the frontal area of the Volt. It may be pretty low on the production car. Sexy designs can be made on low CD's but a hybrid won't sell unless it looks like a hybrid.

Anywho, I don't know why I bother, I'm not interested in ANY hybrid anyways.


RE: Ohhh no
By Andrwken on 9/9/2008 6:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whoa, whoa. You're assuming air drag is the only factor. Rolling resistance (time deformation/slip friction, etc) and drivetrain losses are both also large components; together they're nearly half of the total force on the vehicle at highway speeds.


It would be a good to assume that this vehicles rolling resistance due to weight, small tires and no transmission should better than most cars even while taking into consideration the added battery weight. Also, most of the drivetrain losses are in the transmission, which this will not have either. All in all they may not have as much of an impact on this car as they do in traditional vehicles.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care for the new look as much, but cd is probably the biggest player in this car's efficiency.


RE: Ohhh no
By Ringold on 9/9/2008 3:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the big post, but you really missed the point. I refuse to believe GM can not make a decent looking car to expand the market for hybrid vehicles. They've made too many decent cars throughout their history. They've simply made it a Camry clone.

As for Spuke, he's in denial. He wouldn't know if hybrid buyers would want their car to look like a hybrid, because so far the demographic I've been talking about (and the what, dozen or more people complaining have been talking about) has never been tempted with a decent looking hybrid. Camry, Accord, Civic, Prius.. those in no way compare to the looks of the old school Camaro, or the old (and new) Mustangs. Judging from the mass interest in the Volt, I'd say Spuke would have to be wrong, as the granola crowd appears to be much more interested in the Insight 2.

And if people didn't care at all about the appearance they only look at 2 minutes a day as you say, we'd all drive unpainted teardrop shaped econoboxs.


RE: Ohhh no
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 7:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for Spuke, he's in denial.
Actually, I'm comfortable with truth, even if it disagrees with my beliefs unlike some others here at DT. Judging by the final design, GM obviously isn't trying to go for the sporty hybrid crowd (all of which consists of 12 POSSIBLE members). They decided to go after the actual hybrid crowd which consists of WELL over 1 million members (actual owners of these vehicles). They've already spoken, whether or not you choose to listen is your own business.

GM made a wise move considering they're only selling 10k units a year with the possibility of increasing that somewhat.

Will GM or anyone make a sporty hybrid? Looks like Honda will be the first with their CR-Z. And I'm sure others will follow but I think you'll see some marketing as such beforehand like what Honda is doing with their CR-Z.


RE: Ohhh no
By Keeir on 9/8/2008 5:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think a concept that is missing is the idea of interior space versus projection area.

There are plenty of very cool looking aerodynamic cars on the road that get laskluster fuel economy because they are just too big (projection area).

Once you have the goal of reducing Coefficient of Drag, reducing frontal area, and increasing usable space inside the car, then a fairly narrow subset of shapes are presented which reach a "sweet-spot" for all three. IE, the "Prius" shape, which has a projection and Cd of a Yaris and the interior volume of a corrolla+ (rather than a yaris)

I would like to point out, I believe the executives have been photoshoped in based on pictures seen at other sources.


Civic
By mdogs444 on 9/8/2008 2:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
That looks like a 4 door civic si.

Not that the civic is bad looking or anything, but I sure wouldnt pay $40-45k for one, even if it could go 40 miles on battery power.

Does anyone know what the actual MPG will be, as well as 0-60 time, after the battery dies, or did I miss it?




RE: Civic
By mdogs444 on 9/8/2008 2:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
NM - i see it would be about 44mpg (obviously highway).

What about 0-60 performance?


RE: Civic
By joex444 on 9/8/2008 3:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, indeed it is 44mpg when the gasoline is used, simply the range less the battery range divided by the 7.2 gal tank yields 44.4mpg.

However, you're forgetting that the Volt is not a standard hybrid setup. The gas engine powers a generator which recharges the battery. That's all it does. It has *NO* link to the wheels. So, provided it recharges faster than the battery drains, even under stop and go traffic, it should allow the gas engine to run at a constant RPM. If this is the case, then the fuel consumption is constant. That is, the Volt should get around 44mpg city and 44mpg highway. There shouldn't be any major advantage to highway or city (recall the Prius uses regenerative braking to recharge the battery during braking so the Prius actually has higher MPG in city than highway).

My personal opinion is that this production Volt styling is not radical but has some mass market appeal. I think that their setup is unique and worth trying out (although I would have insisted on a diesel engine -- it burns more efficiently and is best suited to constant RPMs; even with the price difference between diesel and gas as it is the diesel would still be cheaper -- also easier to maintain). Depending on how they price it and what tax rebates the government offers this may make a lot of financial sense for a lot of people. If I drove more than my 2,000 miles per year, this might make sense (almost all my trips are to college and back, about 20 miles roundtrip -- just charge it at night and I would probably need gas only a couple times a year).


RE: Civic
By mcnabney on 9/8/2008 5:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
The price is too high. It has a small generator (cheap!) and a small electric motor(also cheap!) to make it go. Probably doesn't even have a gearbox. The only thing expensive on it is the battery, which they downsized to 40-50 miles on a full charge. I doubt the battery will cost over $4k. They could sell millions of these for $25k. I don't think they can sell 10,000 at the mid-40's.


RE: Civic
By Alexvrb on 9/8/2008 11:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
Downsized to 40? 40 on battery alone was the stated goal all along. Perhaps you are thinking of the fuel tank? They downsized the fuel tank, as the batteries and high efficiency allow them to use a smaller tank. You don't know the cost of any of these components, especially the batteries. Nor do you seem to understand economies of scale. The initial model will not be produced in huge quantities. As they ramp up production and attempt to lower the cost of the batteries, the pricing will improve.

Regardless, we can still only speculate on the pricing.


RE: Civic
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 1:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
The battery pack is estimated to cost about $5k to $8k from the supplier.


RE: Civic
By Noya on 9/8/2008 11:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What about 0-60 performance?


I've read quotes of Bob Lutz saying 9.5-10 seconds.


By SilthDraeth on 9/8/2008 4:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
Where Ford states that there new vehicles are as reliable as Toyota. I found it amusing to say the least.

So many Hybrids are cloning the Prius. I guess they think people bought the Prius based on body style, instead of Toyota reliability and brand recognition.




By The0ne on 9/8/2008 5:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's all marketing; marketing to the less knowledgeable in the field. American car companies are no where near the quality levels of Toyota, not even Hyundai. But then again, the other manufacturers are in the same boat. I won't go into details of the quality system but I do get a good laugh everything I see a commercial claiming their superior quality cars. Without an effective quality system that has proven itself I'm not going to believe a single word coming from them.


By 67STANG on 9/8/2008 6:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ford IS as reliable as Toyota. Just do a google search, there are many links to sites that show the research and numbers.


By SilthDraeth on 9/8/2008 6:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think the first reply missed my point.

Ford is trying to get you to buy their car over a Toyota, by saying they are now as good as Toyota.

We are as reliable as the guys with the status of legendary reliability. So buy us now.

I know it is marketing, but saying you are now as good as the "best" is humorous.


By The0ne on 9/8/2008 7:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
While I haven't done research enough on American car companiese to say too much I don't think they are at the same Quality level as Toyota. My hesitation is mainly that if Ford or any other GM companies have improved their quality, they would have seen significant changes and benefits, including cash benefits, from it. And although it is not the sole reason for their struggles now, it is a good reason.

In addition to that, the quality of the cars are not on par with the quality of cars from Toyota's line up. The focus for example is a poorly made vehicle. Toyota's line up, on the other hand, hold it's own including the Yaris. Hyundai, known for their shotty workmanship, has also greatly improved. This is because they saw, realized and follow in the foot steps of Toyota. Now they're reliability is way up their and so is the quality of their vehicles.

Like I said before, it isn't about saying you will do it or even implementing it. It's whether you can effectively carry out the changes and see the benefits (money-wise) at the end. It's not an easy thing to do, I know this first hand and I've help smaller companies change over, but the benefits are there. And lastly, Toyota isn't the first company to use these tools. They just so happen to make it work and work fantastically.


By Spuke on 9/9/2008 1:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I haven't done research enough on American car companiese to say too much I don't think they are at the same Quality level as Toyota.
Then instead of interjecting your uninformed opinion and looking silly(or just downright stupid), why don't you DO some research and come back with an informed comment?


New one is better
By Oregonian2 on 9/8/2008 2:17:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In its transition from concept to production, the Volt now looks more "ordinary" instead of something that drags consumers kicking and screaming into the future.


The concept car would definitely have me "kicking and screaming" if I were put in it. The teeny tiny windshields make me feel claustrophobic just looking at the photograph!

The "real" one looks a lot better to me as well as less "evil-looking" which I suppose is what many here like.




RE: New one is better
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
Hell yeah I wanted a wicked looking car. That's why I loved the 1998-2002 Trans Am. It just looks like its gonna kick your @$$ before it does it. I loved the old commercials for them of eating the car in front of them at the light.


RE: New one is better
By shin0bi272 on 9/8/2008 2:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
I remember that commercial too it was awesome! Didnt it go through a corvette?


RE: New one is better
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
Lamborghini.


RE: New one is better
By Ringold on 9/8/2008 6:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know about you, but I was cheering when the Imperial's were kicking Rebel scum ass at Hoth as a kid. I also, like many others, grew up around classic muscle cars (and still think they look far better than some of the garbage out there today). There is a culture outside of your own, you know. ;)


WOW
By ClockerXP on 9/16/2008 10:44:00 AM , Rating: 3
Looks SOOO much better than the Prius or any Honda. GM has always stated that the concept was inept aerodynamically and anyone looking at it could see it would not pass muster as a real car. The concept had no headroom, very poor visibility and transparent door sides for god's sake!

This will be a great mainstream car which combines fantastic aerodynamics will good styling. Something Toyota should have done but the fuglyness of the Prius makes it appear, they didn't even try. Good job GM. Hopefully you bring it to production soon!




RE: WOW
By FITCamaro on 9/16/2008 12:33:55 PM , Rating: 3
Actually these photos make the car look much better than the previous ones did.

Still not as radical as before but good looking. Especially compared to the Prius.


RE: WOW
By Keeir on 9/16/2008 4:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Hopefully more people realize

This is best looking car under 50k that gets more than 35 MPG combined currently planned for production or in production.


Got to admire that guy in the pic
By sigilscience on 9/8/2008 2:04:07 PM , Rating: 3
It takes a lot of guts to stand in front of that butt-ugly atrocity and smile.




By an0dize on 9/8/2008 2:28:08 PM , Rating: 4
You guys have it wrong, these execs are laughing at everyone who thought that a major car manufacturer would actually make a car look as cool as the concepts they use to dupe investors.

Everyone knows that American car manufacturers are locked in a battle to out bland each other.


By steven975 on 9/8/2008 4:20:21 PM , Rating: 3
I know batteries were a concern with the first hybrids, but Toyota and Honda baby them so they will probably last the life of the car.

I hear that GM has built one battery replacement into the warranty costs for each car. That shows their confidence in Li-Ion tech right there...and it's still priced below cost. New, they will get 40 miles to a charge. How many miles will that be in 2 years? Five? At least with this car there's an engine. I forsee a class-action suit against Tesla coming in about 3 years.

I know there's plenty of Li-Ion fans here citing batteries from the likes of A123 and others that going by their cheerleading, you'd think they would last forever. They have not been tested in the real world for 2 years in a hot climate on a large scale, though. Even today's laptop batteries are not expected to retain over half their capacity in 2 years.

If in fact the batteries will require constant replacement as GM seems to think, what will the value of a 7-year old Volt in need of batteries be? And now, given it's looks, I think it will be less than a 7 year old Cavalier...which is like, what, a few hundred bucks?




By randomly on 9/8/2008 6:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
This is a very good point, what is the real battery life going to be under real world use/abuse. You can't draw a valid comparison to laptop batteries because the chemistry and construction are completely different. LiFePO4 batteries only have about 2/3 the energy density of the laptop type LiPoly batteries, but much greater cell cycle life. The Volt battery pack could easily last 100,000 miles if it was operated at 25C. The potential problem comes in at elevated temperatures where the cycle life starts to drop off if used at 40C and up, and plummets like a rock above 60C.

I guess we'll see what happens.


By Spuke on 9/9/2008 1:35:12 PM , Rating: 2
Real world is estimated to be between 13 and 130 miles on all electric usage. Also, the batteries are not charged to full capacity and are not allowed to fully drain either extending battery life.


How to sway away buyers
By GhandiInstinct on 9/8/2008 2:12:24 PM , Rating: 3
1.Reveal a sexy concept and then have the production version look like a down syndrome twin.

2. Start pricing at middle class 20-30k then reveal final pricing at 40-45k

As a potential customer, I am now the least bit interested.




RE: How to sway away buyers
By Spuke on 9/9/2008 1:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Start pricing at middle class 20-30k then reveal final pricing at 40-45k
Anyone that thought this car would be cheap considering that even the cost of figuring out the battery tech alone would be expensive is an idiot. Also, you were never a potential customer for this car so just cut the crap.


GM Bailout inevitable now after horrible design
By Lord 666 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 2:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
GM isn't a New Orleans "victim".


By shin0bi272 on 9/8/2008 2:49:18 PM , Rating: 1
Win!


By Lord 666 on 9/8/2008 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
Check out http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122083515707008703...

Resistance is futile on this one... just like Fannie and Freddie. The only difference is the big three (now the big two and investment group) have been negotiating a bailout since 2006.

2006 - http://www.autoblog.com/2006/11/09/meeting-of-the-...

2007 - http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/...


Looks good
By Trippytiger on 9/16/2008 12:31:40 PM , Rating: 3
I like the styling. It's not exciting, but it's nice and clean and fits with the rest of the model line quite well. And let's face it - this is a car that GM is hoping to sell a lot of. It needs to have mainstream appeal, and I think the sleek four-door kammback design will do better in that respect.

Of course, the price needs to come down a whole bunch before it has a hope of becoming mainstream. Here's hoping!




RE: Looks good
By Spuke on 9/16/2008 1:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
GM isn't hoping to sell a lot of anything with production planned at 10,000 units a year. This is a low volume car.


I want a good looking hybrid...
By ryedizzel on 9/8/2008 2:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's a shame the car doesn't look as slick and sporty as the concept. The rounder curves and higher roof put it back in the same old boring 'economy car' category that does not appeal to consumers like me.




By Spivonious on 9/8/2008 2:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. And no one buys a $40k economy car.


So they're the same color
By jimbojimbo on 9/8/2008 3:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
Do these models have anything in common besides the color? I'm going to agree with everyone in that they just killed their sales by changing the design so drastically. I thought they were in trouble with their 2010 release but now they said it's a 2011 model with a 2010 release meaning late 2010.

Time to sell short GM stock...




RE: So they're the same color
By steven975 on 9/8/2008 4:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
short it to what, zero?


Fugly
By Ben on 9/8/2008 10:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
GM hasn't produced a good looking car in 5 years or more.

Their trucks are fugly.

Their cars are as generic as the dreaded Chrysler K cars.

I'm starting to think it's intentional. How else can you fail on so many levels for so long?

I agree with someone else's commment. The chances of me buying one of these just went from 90% to 0%.

I guess the Vette may be an exception, but I think they even wrecked that when they went from the previous wide, flat, exotic look to the smaller curvey stingray look of today.




RE: Fugly
By Sandok on 9/9/2008 5:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
Come to Europe, we got pretty handsome GM made cars!

Seems it's just for the US market that they shovel the fugly cars :P


Only drawback is price
By stlrenegade on 9/9/2008 12:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'd buy this car (if I was in the market for a car) if it was priced in the low 20s.

For me, right now the main consideration for a new car is using less gas (and spending less on gas)

They say this will get 360 miles on it, before having to "fill up". For example, let's set the price of gas at 3.88/gallon. At 360 miles, when I need to fill up my Rodeo, it will cost $61 (I keep a spreadsheet to view my mpg and prices). Filling up the Volt after 360 miles would only cost $28. That's 2 times less than what I'm paying now.

I think it has everything going for it, except the price.




RE: Only drawback is price
By Murphious on 9/20/2008 10:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, and my Honda Fit fills up for the same, with a 10 gal tank and my avg mpg of 36 CITY. But my Honda costs over half as much as the new Volt. Chevy is not worth it IMO. Get that price down to around $20,000 then maybe they'll have a hit on their hands, but the tech is still too expensive to be mass marketable.


save GM
By fryeman on 9/10/2008 10:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Slap a 2.4 in the Volt and GM will sell a million of them.




RE: save GM
By Polynikes on 9/16/2008 1:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
They need to put a turbo 2.0 or 2.4 in the concept car, they'll sell a million of THOSE.


Average year length?
By Visual on 9/16/2008 11:32:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
...based on an average daily commute of 40 miles per day ... and 15,000 miles of driving per year

So the average year length is 375 days on their planet?




RE: Average year length?
By CatfishKhan on 9/16/2008 12:42:52 PM , Rating: 3
That, or they are on a planet where people use their cars for more than just commuting to work.


I disagree
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 2:05:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Although General Motors made the horrible mistake of having key executives partially block the view of the Volt in every single photo available...
Given the final design, I'd say that was actually a wise move in GM's part. Their only mistake was in not choosing a more obese exec for the role.




Interesting...
By Locutus465 on 9/16/2008 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, so the physical design of the car still doesn't scream "I'm worth $40,000" to me, but maybe the standard touch screen + bluetooth capabilities will help push the car over the edge. I wonder if they're going with Sync like Ford and others.




I can't believe they're making this thing
By Samus on 9/17/2008 4:12:09 AM , Rating: 1
It's fucking awesome. God I've always hated GM crap, and I never thought the day would come I'd even consider driving one let alone owning one. This is a remarkable step forward for automobiles.




By matt0401 on 9/19/2008 11:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
I know! I thought the concept version looked cool but kinda weird but this production version looks even better! It's amazing! If the car does what it's designed to, then I think GM has a hit! This looks way cooler and is more technologically-advanced than the Japanese hybrids.


What the devil is that?
By smiller83 on 9/8/2008 3:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
I know the first one was a concept, but I had hoped that the production version would look a little bit like the concept. Instead it is completely unremarkable. GM really dropped the ball here. GM had this beautifully vicious animal that happened to run on electricity and they let it become tame. They may as well have made a hybrid mini-van, at least then I wouldn't have this big sigh of disappointment coming out of me.




not buying one yet
By Chernobyl68 on 9/8/2008 4:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see the logic in getting a new car payment to offset the high prices of gas. My car is paid off and I get about 23-25mpg and its a good sized 4-door. In a few years I might be in the market for a new car and I'll look then, but I can't understand all these people who sell their cars just so they can get a "fuel efficient" hybrid. Cars that get 30-40mpg aren't new, its the size that counts. Small car, small engine, light vehicle.




Busissness tactics!!
By bobny1 on 9/8/2008 5:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
The production car is a direct competition with toyota Prius. The concept look will most likely come later as "GT" and will go after Tesla.




By Locutus465 on 9/8/2008 5:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
....as the day that General Motors failed... It's that simple, period. No one is going to buy a $40,000 base cost honda, are you freaking kidding me?? You know I was raised in Detroit, and I can't tell you how it breaks my heart to have American car companies shoot them selves like that.




That's gonna hurt...
By austinag on 9/8/2008 6:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
The production version looks like a suppository.




Honda Civic Redux
By Doormat on 9/8/2008 8:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
There were some neat features of the concept and some things I didn't like. It seems like a 50/50 trade off, some of the things I didn't like went away, but it doesn't grab attention. Sigh.

At least this model will get better aero numbers going forward through the wind tunnel than backwards. This thing better be cheaper to produce than the concept too.

And sadly Toyota killed the FT-HS which I though looked really neat from a concept standpoint.

If the new Insight has really good MPG numbers it'll be hard to beat, especially if the price of oil is sub-$125/bbl for the next few years due to the craptacular economy.




GM leadership = fail
By iFX on 9/9/2008 1:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
The proof is the execs in the shots of the cars. These guys THINK they are rock stars. They THINK they are important and people care about what "they" are doing for the company. Well, we don't. Just show us the car.




By Bob in VA on 9/10/2008 6:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
You need both to design something that will capture the imagination. Why would I take a chance on new technology in an ugly package for a lot of money? Give me two out of three and I might bite. New tech + cool package, cool package + low $, low $ + new tech. Give me all three for a runaway hit! The current Volt only offers one. Sorry - no sale.




Reminds me of...
By xstylus on 9/16/2008 3:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Is it me, or does this thing look a LOT like a Honda Civic? Not that I'm complaining, mind you. :P

This may sound silly, but if there's a manual transmission model (sticks are more fun!), I WANT one.




Ugly, plain and blah, blah, blah
By psarquis on 9/16/2008 8:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
The only way this car will be competitive at $40k is if Toyota and Honda's hybrid offerings are priced north of $50k. The interior of this car is above average, but not good enough. The exterior is ugly and, apparently, a return to the rental-car grade look that Chevy has proven so proficient at producing over the decades. Chevy, you got the interior right--you should have stuck closer to the concept Volt for the exterior. I'm disappointed...and won't buy this car.




Voltemort
By ABorealis on 9/16/2008 11:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's reVolting!

Count me out.




Like new design
By JosefTor on 9/17/2008 2:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
I must be the only one to think this but... this is a big improvement over the original concept. I was never a huge fan of the original concept. What we have here though is a car that is a BIG step up from the Prius and even looks better then most other cars in my opinion.




looks like a pontiac
By Dreifort on 9/18/2008 8:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
I know they are all owned by GM, but it looks like a Pontiac.




This car is a no sale
By RoberTx on 9/19/2008 3:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
This car is BS. Compared to Fords 65 mpg diesel Fiesta the Volt is a joke,... a complicated, expensive joke. Ford's joke is that the idiots at Ford will not sell the diesel in America. Wanna hear another joke, Hayes Diversified Technology has developed a 140 mpg multi-fuel motorcycle (diesel, bio-diesel, kerosene) for the military based on the Kawasaki KLR 650 with taxpayers' money. It offers near equal performance of the civilian 60 mpg, 100+ mph gasoline model. We corporate bail-out specialist (aka,taxpayers) can't get one of those either, we get promises instead. The marketing ANAL-ist of the transportation industry are pathetic morons. The top brass of the American car makers are even sillier. And the gutless butt kissing media is afraid to call them on it.




Sad
By Shadowmaster625 on 9/22/2008 5:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
It is sad that even when you remove the batteries and the engine and the transmission, you are still left with a car that is way way to expensive to compete in the world market. Or even in the US market. It is fundamentally flawed. This is a car that was designed by a bunch of morons who have their heads stuck so far up their butts that they cant even see how fast the world is changing.




By lijenstina on 9/8/2008 7:13:55 PM , Rating: 1
He did it again. "The Homer II" is going to be a smash hit almost as the original was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Brother,_Where_Art...




A need to be ugly?
By Beenthere on 9/16/2008 1:13:15 PM , Rating: 1
Evidently car companies feel they need to make some really ugly cars so that they will get noticed. It's a strange way to do business when good looking cars sell 10:1 over ugly. In the case of hybrids, ugliness must be the only means car companies can find to get attention for the hybrid models because they keep pumping out ugly when it has no aero or mpg advantage. While styling is always subjective, ugliness is pretty obvious to most folks other than the styling depts.




Yuck
By Cunthor666 on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
ford cards
By hunter0701 on 9/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: ford cards
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/16/2008 11:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
What does any of this have to do with the Chevrolet Volt?


"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

Related Articles













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