Chevy Volt Revealed!

[regfootball]

Based on Bob's comments, yes. Or at least much closer than it is.

Luckily the public has a short memory and will likely never connect the 2011 Volt to the concept Volt in the commercials GM has been airing.

well, if the car ever does get to market.

is the camaro here even yet?

[PurdueGuy]

Looks good.

I still chuckle at Lutz's comment about the concept having the "aerodynamics of a brick". lol

[Sixty8panther]

all I can think of (now at second glance) is:

combine the tall, frumpy, awkward stance of the last gen. Corolla

with the generic, "safe" styling of the current Civic coupe: VOLT!

[ZL-1]

Now... could GM please remove the people and let us see the whole car?

Edited September 9, 2008 by ZL-1

[thegriffon]

IMHO an improvement over the awkward concept.

[balthazar]

I have neighbors that have 2 Priuses, both dark gray. Across the street from them is a couple with 2 CR-Vs, one dk blue, one maroon.

I'll bet you don't even notice your neighbors & co-corkers eyeing you suspiciously as you continue to stalk & case their vehicles, repeatedly categorizing & listing them on the internet in an answer to a question no one asked....

[capriceman]

i see Focus when i look at it.

[loki]

i see Focus when i look at it.

i see what you mean. isn't the focus selling well though? but whatever.

[Robert Hall]

Here's the only pic I've seen without the models in the way..

[ZL-1]

Here's the only pic I've seen without the models in the way..

That colour =

Interesting that the production version has that black area under the windows to mimic the visual effect of the concept's odd-looking side windows...

Edited September 9, 2008 by ZL-1

[Robert Hall]

That colour =

Interesting that the production version has that black area under the windows to mimc the concept's odd-looking side windows...

I would have thought they would have put out the pics in green to emphasize it's eco-friendliness...

[siegen]

Here's the only pic I've seen without the models in the way..

It certainly isn't anything special or distinctive, but it isn't ugly. If GM can give it a high-tech image, people will talk about it and want it.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I like the show car a bit more. I realize that from show car, to production model, a vehicle must change. After all the show car that was touted around for the Beretta was a baby version of the Camaro, and we all know how that turned out.

[ZL-1]

I would have thought they would have put out the pics in green to emphasize it's eco-friendliness...

British Racing Green would look nice.

[GMTruckGuy74]

I like the show car a bit more. I realize that from show car, to production model, a vehicle must change. After all the show car that was touted around for the Beretta was a baby version of the Camaro, and we all know how that turned out.

What showcar was that PCS???

I like the production Volt, even though I prefer the boxier styling of the concept car more. I think the "vanilla" styling will work well with the masses... especially since all those boring Japanese cars seem to sell so well

[pow]

I really don't like it, but I suppose it could have been worse...?

(I'll go hide now)

[Oracle of Delphi]

What showcar was that PCS???

I like the production Volt, even though I prefer the boxier styling of the concept car more. I think the "vanilla" styling will work well with the masses... especially since all those boring Japanese cars seem to sell so well

By show car, I mean there was a car that GM brought around to all the assembly plants and showed the employees what the proposed Beretta (L car), was going to look like. This was either 1884 or 1985. I did not work at GM at that time, but saw pictures of it when I got to Wilmington, which built the Beretta. I was shown these pictures by the current plant manager then. The car I saw from the rear, looked like a baby version of the Camaro, with similar taillights and design cues. It was a much nicer car than what was actually produced after the manufacturing engineers got done with it. Remember, they make most changes to make it easier to build. That's why what you see at a show, is most likely changed when it hits the lot. If I can find the Beretta pic in the GM historical files I will post it.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Robert Hall]

By show car, I mean there was a car that GM brought around to all the assembly plants and showed the employees what the proposed Beretta (L car), was going to look like. This was either 1884 or 1985. I did not work at GM at that time, but saw pictures of it when I got to Wilmington, which built the Beretta. I was shown these pictures by the current plant manager then. The car I saw from the rear, looked like a baby version of the Camaro, with similar taillights and design cues. It was a much nicer car that what was actually produced after the manufacturing engineers got done with it. Remember, they make most changes to make it easier to build. That's why what you see at a show, is most likely changed when it hits the lot. If I can find the Beretta pic in the GM historical files I will post it.

I seem to remember Car and Driver showing pics of a running mockup that was going to be the Corsica or Beretta that bore a strong similarity to the swoopy Citation IV concept that I saw as a kid at Epcot Center.

[91z4me]

By show car, I mean there was a car that GM brought around to all the assembly plants and showed the employees what the proposed Beretta (L car), was going to look like. This was either 1884 or 1985. I did not work at GM at that time, but saw pictures of it when I got to Wilmington, which built the Beretta. I was shown these pictures by the current plant manager then. The car I saw from the rear, looked like a baby version of the Camaro, with similar taillights and design cues. It was a much nicer car than what was actually produced after the manufacturing engineers got done with it. Remember, they make most changes to make it easier to build. That's why what you see at a show, is most likely changed when it hits the lot. If I can find the Beretta pic in the GM historical files I will post it.

That wasn't the Feretta was it.

[ocnblu]

Much more appealing than the horrible Prius, with more soul. The front end appears to be a little bit "inflated" looking to ensure the best aero numbers, but otherwise I find nothing wrong with the car.

[Sixty8panther]

As usual, you guys; like most "Joe Public" types

just eat up all the mediocrity and blandness. No

I am NOT going to bring B-pillars & RWD into it

because I'm picky not retarded, but this is a

very blandarific, predictable, safe design that

would get a few looks on the street today, but in

M.Y. 2011... pathetic.

It's a 21st century Lumina Euro.

[Robert Hall]

As usual, you guys; like most "Joe Public" types

just eat up all the mediocrity and blandness. No

I am NOT going to bring B-pillars & RWD into it

because I'm picky not retarded, but this is a

very blandarific, predictable, safe design that

would get a few looks on the street today, but in

M.Y. 2011... pathetic.

It's a 21st century Lumina Euro.

Well, there is this place called <reality>...... GM has to build cars for that. Some of us do live in the 21st century and understand <reality>.

[Croc]

This looks GREAT! I love it. This is why American design IMO is always more expressive--and just overall better--than anything out of Japan.

As for the Beretta, I know the mockup looked totally different, but I always liked the production Beretta. Definitely one of the better designs out of GM in the 80s, and certainly better than the dowdy Corsica.

[GXT]

Well, there is this place called <reality>...... GM has to build cars for that. Some of us do live in the 21st century and understand <reality>.

There is a lot more <reality> coming to this vehicle.

Reality is that the Volt is horribly flawed due the PR/Exec-picked prius-envy-inspired range and timing.

Reality is that this is why the Volt needs such a large and expensive battery and a range extender.

Reality is that this is why the Volt is going to be so expensive.

Reality is that this is why the Volt is going to remain low volume (both in terms of demand and production).

Reality is that even at a price that most consumers won't pay GM will lose money with each Volt sold.

Reality is that GM picked a range to try to satisfy 80% of the US driver's needs and ended up with a car that is economically good for 0%, feasible for only a few percent more, and available for only <0.08% of US buyers in the first year and <0.4% of US buyers from 2010 to 2015.

Honestly, given all of the above, they may as well have tacked $2K onto the car and made it something good to look at.

They better hope they get some halo wins out of this. Because they may be able to direct people to the Cruze (which may get 40 MPG highway but will almost certainly be mid to low 30's in the city) for $18K but if those people want a 45-50 MPG city car for sub $20K then they are going to head straight to the Honda Insight. It really seems to me that GM is trying to create a market that only their competitors can satisfy. That seems really stupid to me. But then I don't have the experience and results of Wagoner.

[Robert Hall]

Anyway, it looks like a decent $20-25k commuter car. Not $30-35k.

[regfootball]

any truth chevy is readying a Beretta hybrid?

?

seriously, look at the shape of the cruze front end and this. its easy to see that the volt is a little influenced by sharing this delta chassis.

[SimonDavid]

Toyota already working on EV recharging infrastructure in Europe.....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b163e1c-7f8c-11...0077b07658.html

[G. David Felt]

Gov should require the oil comapnies to install plug in recharging posts at all gas stations. This would truly jump the country onto alternative power further reducing the controlling hold the arabs have on our country by reducing prices of gas due to less demand.

[PurdueGuy]

Gov should require the oil comapnies to install plug in recharging posts at all gas stations. This would truly jump the country onto alternative power further reducing the controlling hold the arabs have on our country by reducing prices of gas due to less demand.

Umm... when charge time is measured in hours, that's a pretty unrealistic demand.

[Sixty8panther]

hahahaah... "charge stations" would make sense at starbucks, the supermarket & other

public places where people spend 1+ hours... also any workplace that wants to look

green would do so I would imagine. 6, 7 or 8 hours is a good time frame for a partial, if

not complete charge. Either way, you guys are forgeting that we've already discussed &

most of us collectivelly agreed that emulating Toyota styling is BAD for GM.

I, for one and 100% turned off to this melted blob of midsize sedan.

No matter how good the technology without curb appeal I'm NOT interested.

[G. David Felt]

Umm... when charge time is measured in hours, that's a pretty unrealistic demand.

They have proven that quick charging can work with cell phones and laptops. it is a matter of scalling the software / hardware to handle it on the volume size of cars. I know that much due to being a software engineer.

[siegen]

Gov should require the oil comapnies to install plug in recharging posts at all gas stations. This would truly jump the country onto alternative power further reducing the controlling hold the arabs have on our country by reducing prices of gas due to less demand.

Nobody is going to want to spend any large amount of time at a gas station. The most realistic way is to have charging outposts at work (large corporations such as Boeing, Microsoft, etc would lead the way) and at home. In terms of recharging in the middle of a trip, it is not really viable IMO, unless they can have something to occupy the person for an hour or more. Really the only way to make it work is to drastically improve charging times, or have hot-swappable universal battery packs that can be swapped out at the gas stations and you only pay for the electricity (like how you can go to a store and swap your empty CNG bottle for a full one).

One of the big advantages of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle over an electric vehicle is that the refill time is around the same as a gasoline vehicle.

[Robert Hall]

Nobody is going to want to spend any large amount of time at a gas station. The most realistic way is to have charging outposts at work (large corporations such as Boeing, Microsoft, etc would lead the way) and at home. In terms of recharging in the middle of a trip, it is not really viable IMO, unless they can have something to occupy the person for an hour or more. Really the only way to make it work is to drastically improve charging times, or have hot-swappable universal battery packs that can be swapped out at the gas stations and you only pay for the electricity (like how you can go to a store and swap your empty CNG bottle for a full one).

One of the big advantages of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle over an electric vehicle is that the refill time is around the same as a gasoline vehicle.

The hot swappable battery is the approach Better Place is wanting to use with their electric car plan, IIRC. There was an interesting article about them last month in Wired..they have some pretty ambitious ideas for electric car infrastructure, trying to get it off the ground in Israel and partnering w/ Renault, I've read...

[GXT]

Really the only way to make it work is to drastically improve charging times, or have hot-swappable universal battery packs that can be swapped out at the gas stations and you only pay for the electricity (like how you can go to a store and swap your empty CNG bottle for a full one).

As long as my brand new $15,000 battery isn't swapped for someone's old one

Plus switching 400lbs of batteries for every 25-40 miles range is going to be an issue.

"Fill 'er up with 2 tons of li-ion please! And check the battery coolant levels while you are at it."

[SimonDavid]

Dumb question :

Is there an "industry standard" for the recharging infrastructure??

Toyota is installing 100 recharging points in London in a JV with EDF - will the be able to recharge GM's cars as well? someone better check up on this sharpish

[87Chevette]

Dare I say it??

The Concept car was..

.

.

.

well,

UGLY!!

It looked like an aztek had a baby with an 82' Cavalier. *puke*

Way to go GM! you have made a decent looking car, that looks like it is "GREEN." (pun un-inteneded)

Edited September 12, 2008 by Westjetter737

[Turbojett]

I like this. It's a very well designed car from the outside (Much, MUCH better than the Cruize).

The electric/fuel cell powertrain is sure to be a real game-changer. Way to knock the Prius out of the ring.

[PurdueGuy]

Dumb question :

Is there an "industry standard" for the recharging infrastructure??

Toyota is installing 100 recharging points in London in a JV with EDF - will the be able to recharge GM's cars as well? someone better check up on this sharpish

plug-in hybrids seem to be mostly using a standard 110 plug. Getting into fast-charging an all-electric vehicle is likely to require a conduit capable of carrying more juice, though, and I'm pretty sure there is no industry standard for that yet.

[dwightlooi]

(1) I do not believe in the Global Warming hogwash, but that is another topic for another time.

(2) As a symbol of technological superiority, I think GM hasn't gone far enough with the Volt. They should have dumped the big, heavy and only moderately efficient piston engine for a combined cycle turbine generator set. Each turbine will have only one moving part (or two if its an advanced dual shaft design), each will be the size of a stack of 100 DVDs. There will be no coolant, no radiator, no water pump, no camshafts, no timing chains, no valves, no springs, no rods, no crank, no connecting rods, no balancer shafts, none of those things that fill up the engine bay, add weight and restrict packaging by having to be clustered together. A turbine generator can easily fit in the spare tire well even divided up and stuffed into fender spaces here and there.

[PurdueGuy]

Well, the nice thing about the Volt architecture is that they could easily engineer in any other "range extender", such as turbines & other things generally unused in the automotive world. Whether they actually do that or not is another issue, but it would be awesome to see.

[the_yellow_dart]

Haven't we gone through turbines already, in the '60s? What happened with that anyways? Why did they disappear?

[PurdueGuy]

Haven't we gone through turbines already, in the '60s? What happened with that anyways? Why did they disappear?

Turbines have terrible lag powering up and down, so they're awful for an automotive drivetrain... when the turbine is directly connected to the wheels. When the turbine is only connected to a generator, and the wheels are powered by electric motor(s), however, there is some great potential there. Hopefully as the Volt gets finished up, GM will let some of the engineers go nuts playing with other "range extenders" (electricity generation systems), and we'll really start to see the beauty of the serial hybrid design shine.

[Argen]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "we did if for aerodynamics" crap. Aerodynamics and cd matter just as much to small things like panel gaps as well as overall shape.

Firstly, it is a sedan shape with a boot. They could have gone for a wagon or hatchback, like the Prius, which would have been more aero, but they didn't because of styling concerns. That would explain the pointless rectangular divot in the hood, which on the concept lead to a vent of some kind. Like the inset side windows, it does nothing to decrease coefficient of drag and serves only for styling.

[dwightlooi]

Well, the nice thing about the Volt architecture is that they could easily engineer in any other "range extender", such as turbines & other things generally unused in the automotive world. Whether they actually do that or not is another issue, but it would be awesome to see.

The gas turbine has a few problems...

(1) A simple cycle gas turbine is less efficient than a piston gasoline engine and much less efficient than a diesel engine. The main reason is that a lot of the energy made by burning the air and fuel is simply dumped out the tail pipe as very hot exhaust gases. The single or dual stage exhaust turbine simply cannot harness as much of the combustion energy to do work as a a piston in an enclosed cylinder.

(2) When you are using it to mechanically drive the wheels, you introduce two huge problems. The first is that the turbine takes about 5 seconds to go from idle to full power, that's like turbolag times 10. Basically, the engine respond to your throttle input with huge multi-second delays which makes the car undriveable on public roads. The second being that the engine can be horribly inefficient and sometimes smoky when operating outside it's ideal operating rpm. Imagine an regular engine that drinks gas horrendously or spews black smoke if you don't keep it at between 4000 and 4500 rpm -- that's unacceptable to anyone.

However, none of these problems remain in a COGES drivetrain. The wasted energy in the exhaust is recaptured to boil water and drive a closed cycle steam turbine. The total thermal effciency of a COGES plant can approach 60% which is better than even diesel engines. Turbine lag and inefficiencies at other than ideal speeds are also retired when you run the turbine for no other purpose than to turn an electric generator. The turbine does not turn faster or slower regardless of how you accelerate or decelerate. It turns at a steady, optimum speed to recharge the batteries, the batteries and the electric motor coupe with changing driver requests for power.

Edited September 13, 2008 by dwightlooi

[PurdueGuy]

I'm sorry, but I don't buy this "we did if for aerodynamics" crap. Aerodynamics and cd matter just as much to small things like panel gaps as well as overall shape.

Firstly, it is a sedan shape with a boot. They could have gone for a wagon or hatchback, like the Prius, which would have been more aero, but they didn't because of styling concerns. That would explain the pointless rectangular divot in the hood, which on the concept lead to a vent of some kind. Like the inset side windows, it does nothing to decrease coefficient of drag and serves only for styling.

Those are extremely minor issues compared to a blunt nosed vehicle shape. They originally set out to make the real thing look just like the concept, and did wind tunnel tests on the concept, and it was terrible. The hood divot is probably good for a tenth of a mpg, not sure about comparing a hatch vs sedan shape, but they certainly didn't want it to look EXACTLY like a Prius.

[prinzSD]

Mikey like. I think it looks nice as far as hybrids go. And I actuallu like how they faked the lower greenhouse effect with the Black Gloss trim. It makes the car stand out a bit, though I suspect this area will wear unevenly if I go by whats happeded to the shiny black triangle on the sides of my Trans Am windows and the semi gloss black side window pillars on my wife's Lexus RX300. As far as the grill, I like that as well...it sort of gives a solar panel affect to what would be a somewhat boring and non discript grill. It also looks like the newer Chevy line up and looks like it belongs to the family.

[prinzSD]

There is a lot more <reality> coming to this vehicle.

Reality is that the Volt is horribly flawed due the PR/Exec-picked prius-envy-inspired range and timing.

Reality is that this is why the Volt needs such a large and expensive battery and a range extender.

Reality is that this is why the Volt is going to be so expensive.

Reality is that this is why the Volt is going to remain low volume (both in terms of demand and production).

Reality is that even at a price that most consumers won't pay GM will lose money with each Volt sold.

Reality is that GM picked a range to try to satisfy 80% of the US driver's needs and ended up with a car that is economically good for 0%, feasible for only a few percent more, and available for only <0.08% of US buyers in the first year and <0.4% of US buyers from 2010 to 2015.

Honestly, given all of the above, they may as well have tacked $2K onto the car and made it something good to look at.

They better hope they get some halo wins out of this. Because they may be able to direct people to the Cruze (which may get 40 MPG highway but will almost certainly be mid to low 30's in the city) for $18K but if those people want a 45-50 MPG city car for sub $20K then they are going to head straight to the Honda Insight. It really seems to me that GM is trying to create a market that only their competitors can satisfy. That seems really stupid to me. But then I don't have the experience and results of Wagoner.

The Honda Insight is no longer sold in the USA unless I missed somewhere and Honda is bring it back. Speaking of Honda. Did anyone see the witch Jamie Lee Curtis touting her Honda FCX Clarity and how she was an unofficial ambassador for the car. Leno remarked that the car might do 100 mph if it fell off a cliff. I hate these stupid "green" celebrities and wish they would get off their pulpits. That is perhaps why I began hating celebrities a couple of years ago, who made them the experts?

Edited September 15, 2008 by prinzSD

[Drew Dowdell]

The Insight is coming back to the US as a Prius ripoff.

[prinzSD]

The Insight is coming back to the US as a Prius ripoff.

Thanks Oldsmoboi. I forgot the Prius clone was the new Insight. So it looks like the Insight and the Clarity will have similar shapes. If all new cars will look like this (this jelly bean aero shape), we are heading for a dull phase in car design as far as I can see.

[siegen]

The Insight is coming back to the US as a Prius ripoff.

Right. Because it shares a similar greenhouse shape, it is a ripoff. Oh, well it does have the same number of wheels and doors, maybe you're right...