I agree, thats why I was very surpised by the previous article that said that aerodynamics accounted for only 20% of the energy.

Here is what the article said:

“Driver behavior is clearly a factor for both traditional and electric cars. Beyond that, on traditional cars, factors like mass, aero drag and rolling resistance come into play in that order. In testing and simulation GM has found that for electrically-driven vehicles mass actually drops to third on the list behind aerodynamics and electrical loads with rolling resistance coming in fourth.”

Do you dispute this?[/quote]Mike756, from GM’s comment that you quote above (last sentence) they’re ranking for an EV is: 1) aerodynamics, 2) electrical loads, 3) mass & 4) rolling resistance. My guess is that they’re weighing aero highest because of the fact the drag at 35 MPH (around town) will be only about 1/4th the drag at 70MPH (on the Interstate). Since the average buyer will focus primarily on the Volt’s non-extended ELECTRICAL range, which will deteriorate much faster than a conventional car’s range at 70MPH, aerodynamics indeed becomes a VERY important parameter!

Here is what the article said:

“Driver behavior is clearly a factor for both traditional and electric cars. Beyond that, on traditional cars, factors like mass, aero drag and rolling resistance come into play in that order. In testing and simulation GM has found that for electrically-driven vehicles mass actually drops to third on the list behind aerodynamics and electrical loads with rolling resistance coming in fourth.”

Do you dispute this?

It looks like they’ve chosen the long hood and wedge-like nose approach. The long hood was part of what really defined the concept to me.

Long hood will be better for mounting the two engines underneath, anyway.

[quote comment="19300"] the profile should minimize or eliminate the harsh angle between the hood and the windshield as well as that between the rear window and the tail.[/quote]

Sam’s comment of “The base of the windshield has moved forward providing more rake to the glass” seems to have addressed the front angle problem.

Also, if you look at this picture:

http://futuredrive.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/picture-8.png

There’s a sketch on the whiteboard that seems to show a much smoother angle at the rear.

On aircraft I have worked on, the wastegate is controlled by an actuator which is operated by the incoming pressure into the intake manifold. It moves in a smooth fluid motion, so it doesn’t “flutter”.
So the number of cylinders is irrelevant to it’s operation, just intake pressure.

Death to oil.

It got over 50 miles per gallon, sat 5, and did a good on the highway (had no problem merging with traffic, etc, even if it couldn’t go 0-60mph in 4 seconds).

Could have given the Prius a run for the money. Just amazing that congress may soon be patting themselves on the back for upping the CAFE numbers to 35mpg by 2020, almost 35 years after the Metro got 50mpg.

The better approach for this kind of car is to have the windshield slope smoothly into a short hood and a blunt (but smooth) nose. In other words, less like the Corvette, more like the new Civic body.

The combination of a long hood and blunt nose in the concept body is a big aero mistake. Long hoods go with wedge-like noses, blunt noses go with short hoods and sloped windshields.

From the side-view, the profile should minimize or eliminate the harsh angle between the hood and the windshield as well as that between the rear window and the tail. If the curve from the top of the canopy to the top of the front wheel wells is smooth, then the nose can be compact and blunt.