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

  (Source: The Car Connection)

  (Source: The Car Connection)

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

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

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

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

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

This is how Cadillac describes the design of the Converj:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments     Threshold

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

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

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

Just my two cents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just my 3 cents (damn you, inflation!)

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

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

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

I believe you were looking for:

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

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

Next try referencing wikipedia or quoting Julia Louis Dryfus


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

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

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

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

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

I'd be more worried about your brakes working.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)
Related Articles
GM's New Electric Concept Car
January 7, 2007, 4:55 PM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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