Clarification: Chevy Volt Will Not be Based on Malibu
Before we get on to the massive Q and As, I felt a need to clarify a certain point. People might be getting the misconception the the Chevy Volt will be based on the Malibu. See this article so titled: (LINK).
This isn’t true. Lutz said the concept’s aerodynamics were not good enough for the efficiencies required for the Volt to get a 40 mile range, and thus had to be re-designed. This “production Volt” will still look like the concept in some ways. GM is not releasing the design yet or saying much about it. Per designer Bob Boniface he wants to keep it a surprise (see my interview).
Lutz said old version Malibus will serve as Volt test mules, but will not have anything to do visually with the final design.
Also, the plan is for the car to be available in November 2010, not 2011, it will just be known as a 2011 Chevy Volt.
Popularity: 2%
Related posts:
- Bob Lutz: Chevy Volt Mules Will Be Old Malibus
- The Volt Won’t be an Electric Camaro
- More Big News!: Chevy Volt Timeline Made Public
- The Hows and Whys of the Volt Concept Redesign
- GM-Volt Exclusive: Inside the Chevy Volt/E-Flex Design Studio
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
18 Responses to “Clarification: Chevy Volt Will Not be Based on Malibu”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- GM’s CEO Arrives to Capitol Hill in Chevy Volt Prototype, Senate Hearings Underway
- GM CEO Will Drive Volt Mule Inside Washington DC Today, UAW Agrees to Drop Job Bank
- GM: Out of Time, Out of Money, Out of Options
- GM Submits Long-Term Viability Plan to Congress: $18 Billion Needed
- Detroit 3 Viability Plans Go To Congress Today: GM’s CEO Will Drive to DC in Hybrid Malibu
- GM-Volt Exclusive: Bob Lutz Details Volt Mule Energy Use in Highway Driving
- GM’s Canceled LA Auto Show Conference: Was it Going to be the Volt Battery Contract Announcement?
- Flextreme Concept Wins Prestigious Design Award, Still Not Production Intent
- What Would Happen to the Chevy Volt if GM Failed?
- GM Viability Proposal Leak: CEO Likely to Work for $1 and Brands Likely to be Shed
November 15th, 2007 at 8:02 am
Good! I personally think the Bu is ugly…to plain, too boxy.
Johnnie
November 15th, 2007 at 8:11 am
That’s great. The Malibu blends in with all the other cars on the road. I don’t like it.
November 2010 sound good to me, although I don’t typically buy a new car in the Winter. There are too many flying rocks on the road then and these destroy windshields and paint jobs.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:39 am
1) Happy to hear that they are taking aerodynamic considerations seriously … probably so is that guy from the Rocky Mountain Institute. I car less about a “sexy” car than one that can do its job well, and a fairly low Cd is major part of that mission. Great Cd can look a little bit out there - see http://www.worldcarfans.com/2050607.004 - but its amazing what that alone can do. That boxfish inspired Mercedes design concept gets 70 mpg on diesel and seats four. Just imagine something close to that aero as a RxEV!
2)Lyle, can you you PLEASE add in a question about what they see as the impact of A123’s break with their only sub (CBAK) will be on their production schedule?
November 15th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I think the new Malibu is a beautiful car, but I am glad to hear that the Volt’s design will truly set it off as something very special. I hope it is functionally special too.
60/40 flip down rear seats that produce a truly flat load surface which can hold a nightstand, chair etc. would be great!
November 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I thought it was going to be based on Cobalt architecture. Didn’t we have a big discussion about that just the other day?
Bring on the killer Cd. I personally don’t give a damn what it looks like if it can have the best Cd on the road. The low Cd body will automatically differentiate it from everything else on the road. How about a scaled up Insight?
November 15th, 2007 at 11:37 am
All I am asking is that when they get to the point where they are at “design freeze”, that they release interior and exterior pictures and interior size specs, etc.
I am still ready to put down a sizeable deposit, but I would sure like to know what it is that I am going to get!!!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Don:
A123 recently got tens of millions of dollars in financing to in part ramp up their manufacturing capacity. Insourcing their manufacturing capacity would be a positive development if it meant they had more control over their production schedule.
November 15th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Ah Nick but now we get to where those critical comments about building new factories really apply. A123 is an intellectual property and marketing entity without a huge amount of manufacturing expertise. They do not have capacity to build these batteries in volume now and have commitments to Black and Decker to meet (and CBAK was making those batteries mostly). A newbie to big time manufacturing building new factories and getting them producing quality controlled batteries in volume and cost-effectively in time for a release of Nov 2010? That’s a big order to pull off. A123 may have gotten greedy and blow it as a result. A shame for them because the profit is mainly in the intellectual property and the marketing.
November 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Don
That boxfish design is sensational!
Thanks for pointing us to it!
Do we have details on how bad the fallout with CBAK is.
I tried to read the legal document but to be honest I cant even read my power bill.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Don, #3:
Well, that is almost enough to make me reconsider my rash words!
Wasn’t the Cd of the EV1 0.19? How about a scaled up EV1?
November 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Please GM, just make it a good looking car. The idea is to get as many people in them as possible. Don’t go “fishing” for ideas.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
You don’t think that that CBAK thing is just some kind of normal course of business? Maybe the original contract had a term, which is up, and they will re-up or renegotiate? It didn’t look that confrontational to me.
God forbid that we should make the batteries here!
November 15th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Lyle - thanks for a great site. Also thanks for all the clarifications. It seems thare are many newcomers to this site, and you make things great for all of us.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Noel,
Im not a lawyer but it looked like a penalty clause was invoked and CBAK issued them shares, I guess that was the penalty agreed.
They are doing the De Walt batteries as well as the GM batteries.
Dont know.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Gossip,
The Volvo C30 hybrid was meant to go to the Michelin Bibendum in Shanghai this week.
I cant see it in the list of participants.
Ford and GM entered Hydrogen fueled vehicles.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
“Bob Lutz, GM’s vice chairman for product development, told a group of automotive journalists that the feasibility of the Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid concept will be proven by next Easter”
http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/lutz-volt-easter-bunny.html
November 16th, 2007 at 12:43 am
I’d drive a RxEV boxfish but then I am known to be weird. I like it. It would be a niche product with the best range for the least batteries around. But the Volt? It needs a wide appeal. Low Cd yes but they can and will only so far “out there” to get it. Maybe a pure low Cd play a few years later. Meanwhile DaV8or is right … looks that the masses can see themselves in have to take precedence over having the best possible Cd.
From what I’ve been able to gather the CBAK A123 break-up was CBAK instigated … allegedly over concerns of longstanding and still pending litigation over intellectual property rights on A123’s technology with Hydro-Quebec. That may be cover for … who knows? Margins too narrow, having enough other for sure business, other EV developments in China to come on board, a better sub relationship with someone else? Maybe it’s a contracting ploy to make A123 sweat and sweeten CBAK’s pot even. But A123 will be in a tight spot to deliver on time without their only sub I think.
The batteries won’t be made here. Sorry but that’s the way of the world’s economy today. The IDEAS are often made here. The MARKETING is often done here. And with both of those come the biggest PROFITS that are made here. The PARTS sre most often not made here. Think of the iPod for an example. Most of its parts are made in China but almost all of the profit, very substantial profit, goes to Apple for the intellectual property and the marketing acumen. So far it works for all involved. American know how isn’t in the engineering, it’s in the creativity.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:56 am
I understand that the Volt needs work on the Cd, but GM better not close in the wheel wells. (e.g. EV1, Insight) Nothing goes further in wrecking the look of a car - especially if you are going to use at least 18″ wheels!