Get Blown Away: First Peek at Production Chevy Volt!
GM has just revealed a teaser photo of the production version of the Chevy Volt, and there it is!
You will remember how Bob Lutz previously told us that the concept Volt did not do so well in the wind tunnel. We also heard from vehicle line director Tony Posawatz that it turns out aerodynamics is more important than mass or electricals for getting the Volt to make it 40 miles on a charge.
Frank Weber, E-Flex vehicle line executive states:
“The electric range of the Chevrolet Volt is most sensitive to improvements in aero, which is in contrast to a traditional vehicle program in which mass typically plays a larger role.”
GM now tells us through aggressive work in their state of the art wind tunnel, and through the efforts of a team of designers headed by Bob Boniface, they have made significant progress getting the Volt more aerodynamic; hence the new design above.
Aerodynamics apparently accounts for about 20% of any vehicle’s efficiency.
Ed Welburn, GM VP Global Design states:
“I’m proud to say that after extensive aero development of the Volt, and more to come, we have achieved a vehicle that had a coefficient of drag that is more 30% lower in drag than the original concept,”…“It’s not easy, but it is a necessity.”
Read the whole press release after the jump.
For Release: Monday, December 10, 2007
Chevrolet Volt development moves forward with focus on aerodynamics
Design team explores aerodynamic enablers to maximize range for next-generation electric vehicles
Warren, MI –The massive fan in GM’s aero lab wind tunnel has been cranked up to full blast as GM’s designers and engineers work to optimize the aerodynamics of the Chevrolet Volt as part of the quest to make the breakthrough concept car a production reality. Aerodynamic improvement is a critical step in meeting the range targets necessary for moving the vehicle to a final production decision.
The design team, now with its own studio dedicated to the development of vehicles powered by the E-flex propulsion system, has been working with engineering, aerodynamicists and other scientists to develop an energy efficient Chevrolet Volt by optimizing aerodynamics.
“One of the ways design can contribute to the efficiency of any vehicle is through the aerodynamics of the body shape,” says Ed Welburn, VP, GM Global Design. “The collaboration between a designer and an aerodynamicist can not only contribute to improved fuel economy or extended range, but can produce beautiful and different body shapes.”
Frank Weber, global vehicle line executive and global vehicle chief engineer for the E-Flex System, agrees. “The electric range of the Chevrolet Volt is most sensitive to improvements in aero, which is in contrast to a traditional vehicle program in which mass typically plays a larger role.”
Reducing drag
Aerodynamic drag accounts for approximately 20 percent of the energy consumed in an average vehicle, directly impacting vehicle fuel efficiency. GM designers apply their expertise to address the opportunity to improve the fuel economy of all GM vehicles. In fact, GM offers more fuel efficient vehicles than any other manufacturer, in part due to vehicle design and GM’s aerodynamic development capabilities.
GM’s aerodynamics laboratory, located at the technical center in Warren, Mich., is the center of expertise for optimizing the impact of airflow. In addition to fuel economy, range, emissions, and acceleration are all affected by wind resistance, or aerodynamic drag. The cooling of components such as radiators and brakes are affected by airflow, as is cornering capability, crosswind response, directional stability and on-center handling. GM’s aero lab allows for the testing and development of each of these characteristics.
Aerodynamics development begins with a 1/3-scale model where basic shape and major features are defined. The model includes a highly detailed underbody and engine compartment. Radiator and under hood cooling flow is developed with computational fluid dynamic models. Simultaneously, computation development takes place to determine aerodynamic drag of design alternatives. Development continues with full-scale models, where shape is refined and optimized for low wind noise. The development process concludes with a vehicle prototype validation of the math-based analysis and physical testing.
“I’m proud to say that after extensive aero development of the Volt, and more to come, we have achieved a vehicle that had a coefficient of drag that is more 30% lower in drag than the original concept,” said Welburn. “It’s not easy, but it is a necessity.”
GM’s Aerodynamic Laboratory: The Wind Tunnel
Founded in the late 1970s, GM’s aerodynamics laboratory was built in response to fuel shortages of that time and the introduction of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. Test operations began in 1980 with several production vehicle tests that benchmarked the wind tunnel’s performance against other facilities. All new GM vehicles for the North American market have been developed using the lab. Today, the experimental work in the aero lab is supplemented by computational fluid dynamics analysis. The combination of the two testing operations provides a powerful tool to improve aerodynamics of future GM vehicles.
Wind speed in the tunnel can reach up to more than 120 miles-per-hour. Real-time data acquisition and display systems measure forces and moments, airflow velocities, pressures, temperatures and wind noise.
In addition to helping GM create today’s most fuel efficient vehicles, wind tunnel testing has provided a competitive advantage for GM racing vehicles. Several GM sponsored teams also have taken advantage of the wind tunnel, including America ’s Cup challengers, Sunrayce solar cars, bicycle racers, the U.S. Disabled Ski Team and the Canadian Alpine Ski Team.
The GM Aerodynamics Laboratory celebrated 26 years of wind tunnel test operations in August. The lab was the first full-scale automotive wind tunnel built in North America and remains the largest wind tunnel in the world dedicated to automotive testing.
GM and Aerodynamics
GM’s history in aerodynamics dates back to the 1930s with aircraft-inspired designs as industrial art. In the 1950s and 60s the company focused more on the science of drag reduction, but in the 1970s, the public demanded smaller, more fuel efficient cars in response to fuel shortages. As a new trend in aerodynamics emerges, GM leverages its heritage and expertise to develop full-sized trucks as fuel efficient as a mid-sized sedan and the next generation of electric vehicles with extended range, starting with the development of the Chevrolet Volt.
“We are now in the midst of a new period of aero exploration,” said Welburn. “There has been a significant effort by all our program teams to improve fuel economy and now to extend the range of electric vehicles for the future.”
Popularity: 3%
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
December 10th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Cryptic photo. I suppose they haven’t finished. The new design doesn’t appear to have the same type of creases as the original, for example the sharp edge that extended from the bottom of the hood to the bottom through to the bumper. Any word on what the new drag coefficient is?
December 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
I’m a little confused. I’ve read that the Volt charge is equivalent to 60 per gallon of gas.
This article here indicated it would be above $2.50 equivalent:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/14/what-will-it-cost-to-drive-a-chevy-volt/
So what is it?
December 10th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Great news, can’t wait to see the production version in all it’s glory.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Oh ya, I like it so far.
Tim, the volt charge is equivalent to 40 miles, which is 1 gallon of gas IF your car gets 40mpg(this is a pipe dream unless you have a hybrid).
Don’t get lost in the numbers, 40 miles per day of your drive will be gas free, which for me is 90% of my driving all year. Its really about the oil. If everyone bought one, we would be instantly energy independent overnight. That is HUGE.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Looks like a sloopier front end. Hope they don’t have to disturb the car’s best part - the see-thru top and rear end.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
voltman,
Thanks for the response. However I’m talking about the cost of electricity. It costs over $2.64 per charge to get 40 miles.
Now that is still less than gas, but not by a whole lot.
I’d love the chance for everyone to own one and say goodnight to oil. Unfortunately the amount of them available will only be enough to make a dent in comparison to the needs of the whole industry. Not enough supply for the whole world or nation.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Tim,
If you read down a little further you will see:
“[UPDATE: GM tells us the battery will be discharged to 50% when the generator starts. Therefore it will only require 8 KWH to drive 40 miles, cutting all the above calculations in 1/2]“.
So that means $1.32. Also, don’t forget Lyle is paying a lot for electricity. 16 cents a kWh is really high (maybe he is buying all renewable). This price easily places him in the highest 10% in the nation. The average retail price of Aug 07 was 9.68 cents.
see http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
That would put 40 miles at average consumer prices at 77.4 cents.
Now that is some real savings.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
2.64?
The battery holds 16kwh and stops discharging at 50%. 8KWH of power in Texas is about 80 cents, which works out to 2c per mile. Gas is 3-4 times that.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Kyle,
Thanks for the clarification.
I feel much better today.
But the only downer is the supply issue. Even if they make 100k it is probably not enough to satisfy the demand. Which means many of us coming to this site may not be able to get one.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
It’s great to see atleast a little of the final car. Hopefully we will see more soon.
“we have achieved a vehicle that had a coefficient of drag that is more 30% lower in drag than the original concept”
This is very respectable.
When it finally comes down to it, however, I ultimately don’t give a damn what the car look like as long as it’s a viable PHEV/E-REV and stays true to it’s 40-mile battery range. Being able to say that I’m 90% free from oil slavery will be more than enough to make me happy.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
As I predicted long ago, they did away with the sunken grill and headlights, as well as the flared wheel arches.
There’s still room for improvement - a lot of those little panel gaps can have a surprising amount of drag. Oh well - that’s what duct tape is for
(and I’m not joking)
I see elements of Saab in the front.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
That is good news, but with a catch - we know its 30% lower than the original concept, but we don’t know how bad the original concept was. As some examples, the EV1 had a remarkably low number (0.2 Cd, 4 CdA), the Civic is mediocre (0.35 Cd, 7 CdA) and the Hummer, unsurprisingly, is atrocious (0.6 Cd, 17-26 CdA). So while its terrific to see them focussing so hard on improving, it’d really be important to know what there baseline is to judge what level of success they’ve achieved. To be fair, though, if we assume that they started at mediocre (say the Civic’s numbers), that should put them near the front of the pack, if not quite where the EV1 does.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
It’s going to look significantly different without flared wheel arches and without those huge 19″ wheels. It will be interesting to see the final product. GM should release the rough sketches to let us comment.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
GM has already produced one of the most aerodynamic vehicles of all time, the EV1.
I’ve always thought the Volts body style looked to much like a Camaro.
If the Volts designers are serious about aerodynamics, the final version of the Volt will look nothing like the present one.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I really like the updated appearance. Sleek and sexy. Much better than the concept. And it’s also good to know that less fossil fuel will be burned to push air out of the way. And the teaser pick is brilliant. Lovely use of color.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Hey Tim! Use solar panels and the cost is ZERO and you can amortize the cost of the panels if you work out of your home PLUS there are lots of other tax perks for solar energy. Plus with thin film and nano materials, solar is about to get a lot more efficient (less panels needed) and cheaper to install.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
I’m very glad to see a picture of a more final version, even if it is a pre-production teaser. I hope the final car looks good. This would be an added bonus to the aerodynamic efficiency. Personally, I think the rear end of the concept car looks horrid, so I am looking for an improvement here. And it seems likely that we will see one.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I “digg” the teaser photo. I like the look even better than the prototype. Hopefully we will be able to buy a premium version with 19″ wheels, leather seats, and other bells and whistles.
It is amazing how, almost everyday, there is good information on this site about the Volt. I assume there will be some dry periods over the next three years. Lyle …nice job keeping us all up todate on the progress.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Like the teaser photo from the wind tunnel. Looks like they made the windows and headlights bigger and rounded all the corners, all expected to happen to make the car more aerodynamic. To those who don’t like it, sharp corners are not efficient. I’m sorry, this isn’t a Cadillac for Christ’s sake. But, Lutz was right, when you look at it, it says “Volt”. Just a more realistic design, and I’m a realistic guy.
Later guys.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Tim,
GM is planning for 60,000 Volts in the first mdeol year, and then ramping up from there. If the pickup from the public is really positive, then by 2015 we may see a whole line of E-Flex vehicles with dramatically higher volumes.
AES,
Don’t use duct tape - use gaffer’s tape:
http://www.filmtools.com/2blacwhitgre.html
Stays on better, and doesn’t leave that nasty residue. I never use duct tape anymore.
David Brandow,
That was my first thought as well. 30% lower than what?
December 10th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
I’m sorry, but the muscular wheel arches are what made the concept really stand out. I hope they don’t turn it into a full blown geek mobile as that will turn off many car enthusiasts. Bob Lutz has pretty good tastes in car design so I hope he still has a little say in the matter.
December 10th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Would the Tesla logo on the grill would be more aerodynamic?
http://www.gm-volt.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/volt_tesla.jpg
(humor)
December 10th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Yep, I like the muscular wheels too. Let’s see what they come up with.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
i think it looks way better… and im there too with the dont really care what it looks like, its the purpose of the car that im interested in. well, so long as it doesnt look like a prius.. they should call those cars prudish instead (but i suppose the volt will have its share of hypocritical celebrities who want to appear environmentally friendly while showing off how rich they are.)
December 10th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I like the new look better. As per the demand issues I dont really want a 1st generation Volt anyway. Let the early adopters and GM deal with all the bugs. Plus you can wait for the battery cost to go down because first year prices are obviously going to be over the top untill they can get production facilities and demand up.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Yes AES #11, i agree, there are elements of Saab in it. My neighbour was home tonight and he owns a 9.3. We compare the pitcture an the car, …
December 10th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Lyle
I was wondering if you could elaborate on the following quote from your article:
“Aerodynamics apparently accounts for about 20% of any vehicle’s efficiency.”
Who/where did you get this information from? Did they mean 20% of the energy needed to move the vehicle? Was this based on a certain speed?
Thanks
December 10th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I wonder if the 2008 Detroit auto show surprise is going to be the unveiling of the new and improved version of the Volt.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Yep, Saab was the first word in my mouth too.
RE Tim post #16.
Thin film and Nano Solar will not mean less solar panels needed they are only about half as efficient as best crystalline about 22% (mostly silicon) retail panels, and a quarter of leading ledge (expensive) crystalline over 40% (combination of silicon and other materials).
However, Nano Solar will mean lower cost.
Large traditional solar manufacturers like Sharp and Kyocera have made a loss for most of the last twenty years, only making a profit in the last 3 or 4 years. Nano Solar might force the price down enough so that the traditional manufacturers start making a loss again just to stay in the market.
For those that think that GM will not make a loss for the first year on the Volt, think about the solar business. The big Japanese players in that market made a loss for nearly twenty years with an eye to the future, and now Nano Solar might spoil their party. I’m not saying that GM will make a loss, but they will probably consider it for the first year or two.
RE Post #25
As for the cost of batteries coming down after the first year, I think that depends on how long the battery manufacturers amortize the startup costs over. The big step in cost will be going from 2 to 60,000 packs per year. How much of a decrease in cost there will be when going for 60,000 per year to 160,000 per year I wonder?
December 10th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Teasers are fun, but some real pictures would be a lot better!
Hopefully next up will be some graphics of the interior!
Good work, Lyle!!!!!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
#28 Jimmy
I have been suspecting that might be what’s in store as well. If they are going to have the mules on the road by spring I would think that the platform would need to be close to finalization.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
#27 Mike,
Perhaps, this could be of some help :
“About 60% of the power required to cruise at highway speeds is taken up overcoming air drag, and this increases very quickly at high speed. Therefore, a vehicle with substantially better aerodynamics will be much more fuel efficient. Additionally, because drag does increase with the square of speed, a somewhat lower speed can significantly improve fuel economy. This was the major reason for the United States adopting a nationwide 55 mile per hour speed limit during the early 1973 oil crisis as slower traffic would save scarce petroleum.”
Source :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient
December 10th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
pstoller78 #31:
I thought the mules were just to test the electric drive components, batteries, and software integration. The mules are going to be using Malibu’s, aren’t they? Or did I misunderstand something?
December 10th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
If you assume a fixed speed, or a fixed mix of speeds over time, then the amount of energy used to push the air out of the way can be calculated. Lets say that 20% of the energy required is due to drag. So if we can reduce the frontal area, we can reduce the amount of air being pushed aside. And if we use a smooth rounded shape we can slide through the air with less resistence than a flat front such as a hummer. Normally sedans have a drag coefficent between .30 and .35, and SUV range up above .4. Slick vehicles like a Vette would have a drag coefficent less than .30. The Prius claims .26 and GM claimed .19 for the EV1. The picture looks like a typical sedan, very much like the new Malibu, so I expect the Cd is about .32. Time will tell.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Jean-Charles
The 60% number sounds more like what I would expect, which is why I am confused by the 20% number. Maybe they were talking only about Cd or the coefficient of drag, not the actual aerodynamic drag which depends on cross sectional area and speed as well.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
In aerodynamics, the rear part of the car is just as important as the front. The EV1 was wider in the front than in the back, making it resemble a water droplet.
Similar shape on the Citroen SM as well.
So let’s reserve judgment until we see the whole thing.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Mike756 #35:
Maybe what they meant is they are reducing the drag by 30%, which results in a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency (30% of 60% ~ 20%).
December 10th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/10/autos/gm.ap/index.htm?postversion=2007121018
“Designers using computer and small clay models already have cut 30 percent from the wind drag of the original concept, said Ed Welburn, vice president of global design.”
December 10th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
That article also says that the A123 pack is coming early next year instead of December.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
#29 Mark - I was referring to the company Nanosolar in thin film. I was also referring to Advanced Diamond Solutions’ amorphous nanostructures that offer potential efficiencies of 50% at half the cost of silicon solar cells. Today’s silicon based systems are at best 15% full spectrum efficient.
http://www.advanceddiamond.com/AmorphDiamonds.pdf
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Advanced_Diamond_Solutions%27_amorphous_nanostructures 1-hour interview!
As a thermal electric generator, amorphous diamond nanostructures are superior to other materials. The material has a high heat threshhold, with an expected life-span of 40 to 50 years. This is VERY new and cutting edge stuff.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
If you ask me, It looks like they picked the perfect mule to test with. The front looks alot like the Malibu. I keep looking at the back end of a Malibu to see if would work some how. I don’t know. If it’s suppose to be areo, they would have to chop the back end off somehow. I’m stumped!
December 10th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Regarding headlight cutouts, I owned an ‘82 Z28 Camaro and a ‘94 Saturn, both of which had noticeably recessed headlights with pretty pronounced “eyelids” & sharp edges. An aerodynamicist friend of mine at JPL tells me that even fairly deep/sharp cutouts of that size are too small to significantly affect drag (”the wind tunnel’s smoke stream blows right around them without notches or turbulence”)…
….so I wouldn’t worry about it if GM decides to recess the final Volt’s headlights, running lights, etc for styling reasons. But the “teaser” photo’s front end looks real nice to me!
December 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
You can also “boat tail” the end of an object to achieve better airflow. Just think of the end of a rifle bullet.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
….BTW, could that be a red “lightning bolt” centered in the teaser photo’s Bow Tie on the grill, or just my imagination?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Thats what I expected it to look like (flushing up the lights, grill and air ducts). Looks like the flared wheel-wells are gone as well as the dubs…
Also, it looks like the roof line is a little higher than the concept so maybe, they dropped the two piece side windows.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“The Volt’s production model – hidden underneath a drape — shows a higher roofline than the concept car unveiled almost a year ago.”
Oh JOY! Could it possibly be true that tall people will be allowed to fit comfortably into this car?
Specs… Where are the new specs!!
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/14816581/detail.html
December 10th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Run Mindy run.
Tell Mork you found his egg.
Hope I’m wrong but I liked the concept.
Don’t blow this one GM or you may be relegated to a Ford future or the lack of one.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Tim #40.
Thanks for the Advanced Diamond Solutions’ amorphous nanostructures link. Looks interesting I’ll have to listen to the 1 hour mp3, since their “how it works” summary is missing.
As for silicon…
The cells on my roof are over 21% spectrum effective (by Sun Power). Although most are around down at 15% as you said, but are inching up every couple of years.
The cells used by NASA (e.g. Mars rovers) that use triple junction technology layering silicon and two other semiconductors, are over 40% spectrum efficient in real world conditions on Earth and on Mars not just in the lab. Although they’ve been available for a couple of years unfortunately they currently cost too much for retail use.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
kyle 7. wish i had scrolled down to your post before i checked the tim #2 website to see what those numbers were, lol…
christie 24. welcome aboard, was wondering when we were going to get some female input on here. : )
i don’t know all the specs on nano solar, but i do know that silicone prices are through the roof, and most companies can’t get enough. and if they do get some silicone, they have to increase their panel prices (which were already too high to compete with any other energies).
but, nano is getting all kinds of awards, and good reviews from news, government and greenies. and they can generate electricity even cheaper than coal, and way cheaper than that, once they hit mass prodution.
did anyone else fill out that survey a couple of days ago? i said 2009 for the first volts, but i’m really thinking late 2008.
death to oil! god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nanosolar, god bless a123 and l.g., god bless g.e., bell labs innovations, and a little company called google and God Bless the United States of America!
December 10th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I have no idea how common my list of “deal breakers” is, but maybe it could be it’s own poll?
A) If they were to shrink the overal size significantly (e.g. fewer than 4 passengers
B) If the “drive off the car lot” price exceeds 30K. My biggest fear is that they go with a “buy the car AND THEN lease the battery”
and
C) All electric range falls below the 40 mile range. That’s perfect for my needs and would mean that I’d RARELY have to visit a gas station to buy gas. I’m planning on quietly driving through gas stations as often as possible, to smile and wave at the people pumping gasoline.
I actually WANT to be an early adopter and don’t mind dealing with the “bugs”. I believe GM can, and will, get this done right.
Although I’m not in love with the clear roof (I know, I know, “specially treated”, etc).I have two vehicles with “moon roofs” that never get opened. Both cars were “previously loved” so the extra glass came with them. Between the two cars I’m over a quarter of a million miles on the odometers and STILL want to wait for a Volt!
Feedback?
December 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
LyleL #46 - Great find on that video! It shows clay models of the front end, and a lot of other things. I downloaded the video, and taking stills that I’ll post off-site for quick looking.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Sorry, I don’t believe this article. GM claims a 30% reduction in drag? Yet fails to even release a low resolution CGI image of the Volt profile? There is no way they achieved a 30% reduction with out extensive redesign of the body. So IMO it either looks more like a Toyota Prius and GM is afraid to release the image and/or they have failed to make good progress in battery design and that is the real reason for the need to reduce drag.
As a fan of the concept, I am now not hopeful that the Volt will be of a destictive design. I won’t drive a Toyota Cammry. Sorry.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
AES 51
Thanks!
Doesn’t the reporter say that GM will go from the clay model to a fully functional Volt prototype between April and June of 2008? The Malibu mules were to be January-April. Huzzah! If true this project is moving… maybe we will see a preproduction run in 2009.
Lyle Dennis please confirm?
December 10th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
30% drag reduction is not unrealistic, especially if the original design tested for higher drag than anticipated, meaning it was a defective design from this perspective from the beginning.
While I prefer the thought of driving a Volt, if Toyota produces an electric Camry, it will be worthy of comparison. The competition would be a huge positive. After all, this is more about energy independence than it is about showcasing a single vehicle.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Lyle #46,
Great video, bro. That shows even more of the car than the still picture. I really like the look from what they’ve showed us so far.
Let’s hope the Detroit “surprise” is a full unveiling. I also like the info on the working prototype between April and June.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
looks good to me.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Lyle, I think the reporter’s statement that “the team will go from clay model to a fully functional prototype” is misleading and misunderstood. GM have clearly said their first test mules will be based on late model Chevy Malibus. So those prototypes will not have Volt design bodies. My humble apologies to the reporter if I’m wrong.
The Malibu is a pretty good looking and practical car. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if they simply took the Malibu and retrofitted it to the e-Flex architecture.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Okay everyone, I got large stills from the news report video uploaded off-site for convenient viewing:
http://futuredrive.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/new-look-of-the-chevy-volt-a-detailed-look-and-analysis/
The video also had a mock-up of the interior.
It has four seats.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Duke Power here in Western North Carolina is 7.6 cents per KWH based on my November bill. My 1996 Jeep Cherokee, with which I would gladly part, gets about 15 MPG (I bought it to conquer winter snow and ice, which apparently no longer occurs here thanks to global climate change; it was 73 degrees today). I paid $2.89 per gallon last night, so 40 miles would cost me approximately $7.71 in the Chokaree. On the other hand, 8 KWH would cost me 60.8 cents — a 92 percent reduction in cost!
But even if it WERE a wash, as I said, my grandkids may never see snow thanks to oil. Now if we can just get rid of these godforsaken coal plants…
December 10th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I served 23 years with the Air Force. The one thing I’m sure of is nearly my entire career in uniform was dedicated to preserving Middle-east oil flow. Frankly, America, the country I would die for, would have been better served by redirecting 1/10th the amount of fiscal deficit money we exported to Oil barons to the auto industry. We could have recrafted the engine to electricity and cut loose those gougers once and for all.
The country would be better served.
My motto for the Chevy Volt - American made, American driven, American fueled - American security.
Get rid of the turmoil oil flowing from the sand before its too late.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
[quote comment="18724"]Looks like a sloopier front end. Hope they don’t have to disturb the car’s best part - the see-thru top and rear end.[/quote]Ken, the production Volt will not have a see-through roof. That is impractical on so many levels.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
jbfalaska #60:
Thank God for you.
I like your motto, but I would change it to “American made, American driven, American fueled”. The “American Security” bit sounds a tad too political for a car motto.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
[quote comment="18789"]Sorry, I don’t believe this article. GM claims a 30% reduction in drag? Yet fails to even release a low resolution CGI image of the Volt profile? There is no way they achieved a 30% reduction with out extensive redesign of the body. So IMO it either looks more like a Toyota Prius and GM is afraid to release the image and/or they have failed to make good progress in battery design and that is the real reason for the need to reduce drag.
As a fan of the concept, I am now not hopeful that the Volt will be of a destictive design. I won’t drive a Toyota Cammry. Sorry.[/quote]
Mr. Jackson. Everything in this post is based on nothing.
Gm, has no problems with design. It is an old company and knows exactly how to make cars that look good.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Concurrently make a small version of the Chevy Colorado (like the Phoenix Motors truck) with four doors and a payload, put the electric motor in that, then make it less than $25,000 like the Prius, and presto, you’ll have a winner. And I’ll buy one. I’ll admire this sleek sedan, but at $35,000 with limited space and payload, I won’t buy.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I agree 100%. The term “security” doesn’t have warm fuzzy connotations to me… After being frisked at the airport in its name, and yelled by people in all kinds of uniforms in its name when I’m doing reasonable (but mildly unusual) things. Not to mention the Washington DC Air Defense Interdiction Zone… Plus a lot of politicians who I vehemently disagree with use the word very frequently. “Security” is truly a loaded word.
Best to not to bring all of that into the Hope and Engineering that is the Volt!!
December 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
SAAB…I don’t know, I almost see current Malibu with smoother lines. Doesn’t really matter, glad to see they’ve got the CD down and from the pic. it looks pretty good.
One more thing….sticking point all over this forum….PLEASE don’t call the Volt a Phev.
Thanks
M.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Am I the only one who thinks that looks are VERY important? I mean, smart is nice, but no one ever says, “Hey, check out the brain on that as.” Keep it pretty, boys.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:10 am
#67
–Actually Josh, you probably are!
If you want looks, get an R8 or a GT-R. For reasons political, environmental, and financial, my main objective is to stop using gas (to the extent possible).
I don’t care if it looks like the rear-end of pit bull!
December 11th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Isn’t it ironic how every time my cursor touches one of those link in the text a little Ford ad pops up?
Really, there not enough information there to support alot of conclusions. If I were designing I’d be working pretty hard on the aero too. My guess is it costs less to build with good aero than less mass.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I really hope they don’t screw up the styling. So many of GM’s other vehicles look like the cars I drew in grade school (ie, generic). I hope GM is learning that the more progressive people are demanding progressive styling and if they make it look like a Malibu it’s going to be a much tougher sell. The set who would buy a Malibu has already bought Priuses.
I’m worried I can’t see the creases anymore, as the unique styling, sportyness, and eco cred are what attracts me to the car. Most people I know want their car to make a statement about them; the rest drive Civics. Even for someone like me (I bike to work when i can), saving the environment doesn’t out-rank it’s functions as a car, no matter if they figured out how to make run off the sun and happy feelings.
GM, don’t build me a Prius.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Agree - THE VOLT MOTTO: “American made, American driven, American fueled.” How wonderful a notion.
My bumper sticker is going to convey my hope no one else will ever need to go over to the sand box and fight for Oil Barons again - The Volt will be my “VOLT: Declaration of Independence.”
December 11th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Has GM actually announced a preorder, or is the Wait List really a Wish List? until pricing is established. I make over $100 grand per year and have no bills at all (I own three Buick Regals as a sign of jurisprudence yet yearning for a touch of blue collar luxury). The Volt will be in my garage sooner or later, just hoping for an insight as to when that may be.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:26 am
GM, any chance to use clear plastics to obtain the aero and keep the styling close to the concept? Buick and Cadillac cars seem to show the beginnings of this kind of promise. The sparklingly clear, rounded plastic extensions pushing out from the well defined angular lines seems incredibly appealing - yes, no?
Something to consider.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:26 am
GM, any chance to use clear plastics to obtain the aero and keep the styling close to the concept? Buick and Cadillac cars seem to show the beginnings of this kind of promise. The sparklingly clear, rounded plastic extensions pushing out from the well defined angular lines seems incredibly appealing - yes, no?
Something to consider.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:35 am
How exciting! I can’t wait to read the next progress report. Sounds like GM and Chrevrolet are really getting serious about this great concept.
When production begins, I will be living at the dealer’s showroom!!
December 11th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Josh #67:
You are not the only person to think that this vehicle has to look right.
This discussion pops up every few weeks.
You get the side that says “it can look like a deflated beach ball, just get it out now!”
You get the other side that says “This car has to be distinctive, take your time and get it right!” I have to say that I am on this side of this issue.
The problem is that you have over 6500 people on a wait list that have 65 million ideas on what the vehicle should be. Some want a truck, some want an SUV, some want a sports car, some want a Prius clone. Hopefuuly over the next few years, everyone will have their choice available. But we need to get the first model out on the road.
IMHO, this teaser did exactly what GM wanted it to do - get a feel of what people think of the design, without giving up too much. That way, if the general opinion was not favorable, they could modify it before they hit the design freeze date.
But from the looks of things, the Gen-1 vehicle is going to be a car, probably a two door, with room for four passengers.
Does that seem like a reasonable opinion?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:55 am
The Ford Probe concepts in the 80’s were even more aerodynamic than the EV1 and it used a gasoline engine with intake work. This design found its way into the Taurus and I’d say it turned every car maker away from boxy designs.
http://www.scottgrundfor.com/concept/1985probe.html
RE: #74
>GM, any chance to use clear plastics
>to obtain the aero and keep the
>styling close to the concept?
Looks like the best place to use this is on the grill. And there was an interesting comment posted by naggs on Autoblog I’ll paste below:
regarding the gril, i can only speculate. recently gm demonstrated cheap, light and reliable actuators and one of the uses they demonstrated was a grill opening and closing depending on the cooling needs of the automobile. gm said that this would be in production by ‘10 which is when the volt is slated to begin production.
once again, only speculation but it seems to me that a brand new, high tech, ultra efficient model is the perfect place to start using this tech
December 11th, 2007 at 12:59 am
2 door? No this is a four door sedan people.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:07 am
>2 door? No this is a four door sedan
>people.
It obviously is a 4 door with a type of hatch back design.
http://futuredrive.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/new-look-of-the-chevy-volt-a-detailed-look-and-analysis/
December 11th, 2007 at 1:08 am
As the sound of 40 mpg sounds great … anyone living in the South will know .. I gotta have my A/C. How much will that hit the 40 mpg??
December 11th, 2007 at 1:11 am
This photo reminds me of all the “hype” when GM started to produce the VEGA 20+ years ago. To say the least I was disappointed when the actual Vega was produced. If you aren’t aware, GM decided to build the Vega with an all aluminium engine, which GM then replaced (at a minimum cost of $2,000+ thru dealerships when the engines failed because of problems due in part to thermal expansion.
As if this lesson was not enough, during the first fuel shortgage, GM then decided to convert gas engines to diesel fuel but these engines also failed due to the higher compression/ stresses these converted gas/diesel engines could not handle over time (50K+ miles).
After the Corvair, Vega, Fiero, I hope that the Volt is NOT another half-attempt by GM **(GM are you listening?)**
If GM does actually produce a RELIABLE electic vehicle (of which I am guardedly optomistic), I will put my money where my mouth is and buy the Volt (but) I will also buy an extended warranty just in case.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:18 am
I wonder how long it will be before one ever shows up in Canada… as long as I can remember, even as far back in the ’60s low drag high performance gas buggies have always been associated with the high end cool looking sports cars…certainly not your average family 4 door sedan. The old ‘vette comes to mind….always was a pretty car.
Frome Wikipedia: About 60% of the power required to cruise at highway speeds is taken up overcoming air drag, (notice they are saying 60%) and this increases very quickly at high speed. Therefore, a vehicle with substantially better aerodynamics will be much more fuel (energy) efficient. Additionally, because drag does increase with the square of speed, a somewhat lower speed can significantly improve fuel(energy) economy”…. Did GM not figure on this when they introduced the concept car? A lot of effort and engineering went into designing that body shape. Perhaps GM should hire on a few aeronautical engineers… they do know a few things about lift/drag coefficients…
Unfortunately these days the consumer is still hooked on that SUV blunt big n tough big grill front end look, so changing to sleek and aerodynamic is gonna be bit of a tough sell to Joe consumer.
So I ask… even now, to get that 40 miles per charge, at what highway speeds do they predicate that range on? 70kmph? Even 90kmph would be acceptable.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:33 am
tim 40. thanks for the link on the Advanced Diamond Solutions’ amorphous nanostructures, i will definitely be looking for more from these guys…
tagamet 50. my deal breaker will be like this, when the volt hits the showrooms, i’ll look it over, and take a test drive.
probably come back 3 or 4 times for test drives. read some reviews that hopefully tell me the cars are working right.
if i like it, i’ll buy it, if i don’t, i’ll wait.
chris 52.
jb 60, etc. kool motto, even with the security, but i like it either way, let’s hope gm agrees with it or something similar.
josh 67. i’m with ya, i would like to see a kool looking volt, but, wouldn’t mind almost anything electric, as long as it sells and gets things moving. exponentiality…
December 11th, 2007 at 1:41 am
#76, Jim, a few people, who are not on the waitlist but who also post here probably would like a truck or something. Anyone who signed up for the waitlist better be wanting a car and not a truck or SUV. I think we have a pretty unified desire for the car, fuel efficiency and the nice looks we saw in the concept.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:09 am
It is funny to see the explanation for GM’s wind tunnel, which is only 26 years old when Tucker, the one in the 40’s that wanted to propel the auto industry to the heavens, and was not allowed to by the big 3’s, in fact, he was doing wind tests already. I guess if GM could find engineers such as him, the company could soar like an eagle too. I would like a car as beautiful as the concept is and with wheels no less than 18 inches, if not make an economy model and a sports model with the above specifics. Being friendly with the planet does not have nothing to do with having an ugly car!
C
December 11th, 2007 at 6:32 am
[quote comment="18839"]As the sound of 40 mpg sounds great … anyone living in the South will know .. I gotta have my A/C. How much will that hit the 40 mpg??[/quote]
It’s 40 miles per CHARGE (not gallon!), Bob. Regarding the A/C’s impact on mileage, GM is likely working on a high-efficiency compressor/condenser/fan A/C. My guess is that roughly 1/2-3/4HP (375-560W) should keep the car icy cold and 560W is only a 7% loss in the 8KW used to drive 40 miles with the A/C full on. I live in Florida, and I can easily live with a ~7% loss in gas-free range (i.e., 2.8mi).