Chevy Volt to Have 50/50 Weight Distribution
In an article in Autoobserver, Jon Lauckner, GM VP of technology tells the author:
“…although the addition of hundreds of pounds of batteries typically would be a detriment to any vehicle’s dynamics, because of their placement roughly in the center of the Volt’s chassis, the Volt’s weight distribution will much closer to the ideal -– and entertaining -– 50 percent front/50 percent rear ratio than any conventional front-wheel-drive vehicle displays.”
“…with near 50/50 weight distribution and the 0-60-mph target of around 8.5 seconds, “the Volt will not disappoint” in terms of driving dynamics.”
Balance is a good thing, and 50/50 weight distribution for a car suggests excellent handling and agility.
Source (AutoObserver)
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- Chevy Volt Curb Weight Around 3520 Pounds
- One-on-One with Jon Lauckner, VP of Global Program Management, Part 4
- Chevy Volt Chief Designer Bob Boniface on One Versus Two Charging Ports (With Poll)
- Gun Owners Also Want Their Volt
- GM-Volt.com Chevy Volt Waiting List Reaches 20,000 Members
(17 votes, average: 4.41 out of 5) 
Loading ...
48 Responses to “Chevy Volt to Have 50/50 Weight Distribution”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- The 2009 Detroit Auto Show Should be Electrifying
- Chevy Volt Battery Temperature Control
- EEStor Gets a Trademark Patent on EESU and Provides Specs for a 24V EESU
- More Future Volt Competition?: Lotus E-REVs and Solar-Powered Toyotas
- Poll: Which 2010 Hybrid Would You Buy?
- Happy New Year From GM-Volt.com
- 10,000 Camaros Have Been Pre-Ordered, How Many Volts Will Be?
- How Will Air Conditioning Affect the Chevy Volt’s Electric Range?
- Volt Chief Designer on the Public Reaction to Chevy Volt Redesign
- US Battery Companies Seek Government Funds to Establish US-Based Lithium-ion Production Capacity
January 11th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Good news!
January 11th, 2008 at 7:07 am
Locating the large battery mass in a tunnel under the floor, with its “T” under the back seat area, allows GM to do two things that are often very difficult to achieve in conventional car designs:
1) Optimize the car’s front/rear weight distribution by accurately counter-balancing the under-hood components (ICE/GEN, 160HP Drive Motor, etc), and
2) Significantly LOWER the overall vehicle’s center of gravity (cg) (by probably several inches!) compared to that of conventional car designs
When I first noticed the battery would be located very low & centered, with most of its weight toward the Volt’s rear, it reminded me that the low cg of a Z-28 Camaro or a Corvette make them a joy to drive fast on twisting canyon roads …the VOLT’s cg will be even lower, so it should be even MORE fun driving the “twisties”!!! I can’t wait!
:) 
January 11th, 2008 at 7:51 am
[quote comment="26219"]Locating the large battery mass in a tunnel under the floor, with its “T” under the back seat area, allows GM to do two things that are often very difficult to achieve in conventional car designs:
1) Optimize the car’s front/rear weight distribution by accurately counter-balancing the under-hood components (ICE/GEN, 160HP Drive Motor, etc), and
2) Significantly LOWER the overall vehicle’s center of gravity (cg) (by probably several inches!) compared to that of conventional car designs
When I first noticed the battery would be located very low & centered, with most of its weight toward the Volt’s rear, it reminded me that the low cg of a Z-28 Camaro or a Corvette make them a joy to drive fast on twisting canyon roads …the VOLT’s cg will be even lower, so it should be even MORE fun driving the “twisties”!!! I can’t wait!
:) :)[/quote]
It had better be, because with those skinny tires, it’ll have grip problems that other cars do not have.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:01 am
This is all really cool, but I just wish they would release some real pictures of what this car is going to look like!
January 11th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this (I for one mentioned it about a month ago) since it will have a small, light engine, and a heavy battery with weight shifted towards the rear with the T configuration. Effectively they are taking weight out of the engine and putting next to the rear wheels. I’m looking forward to it.
Juan - I don’t think the Volt is the one that most needs to get a grip.
January 11th, 2008 at 9:37 am
In other news - check out that wait list! My bet is that we break 10k before the end of the month! Probably even by the end of the auto show!
January 11th, 2008 at 9:40 am
If it has a decent suspension, and the tires are grippy enough, it would be real fun to drive!
I had a Honda Insight for about a year… and it handled pretty well, actually.
Of course, I know the Volt would never come close to my current car (Porsche Boxster) in handling, but just because it’s a commuter car doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t handle well!
January 11th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Lyle & Co.,
There was a CNN story this morning about a third party company that took a Saturn VUE hybrid, added existing battery tech. to the trunk area and a plug, all using parts off the shelf. They claim they are getting 40-mile electric only performance and highway speeds (again, electric-only), at a cost of about $8,000. The CNN story stated that the company would attempt to market their technology to the major companies at the Detroit Auto Show. Does anyone know more? If accurate the story both gives me hope for the Volt, while at the same time wondering why the Volt is such an achievement: all the majors should be doing this already.
-Mark
January 11th, 2008 at 10:29 am
[quote comment="26251"] …Of course, I know the Volt would never come close to my current car (Porsche Boxster) in handling, but just because it’s a commuter car doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t handle well![/quote]
Matt 986 #7: No offense, but I disagree — a Boxter’s weight distribution of 46/54 is NOT as ideal as the VOLT’s at 50/50, and the VOLT’s 400 LB battery location under the floorboard will give it a much lower cg. So unless GM can’t design a state-of-the-art suspension, the VOLT should handle as well or better than most existing cars, including even high-end sports cars! We’ll see.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I saw the story as well and wonder what is going on with this. The story says that the company could get it on the road in 3 years which would be a contender for the volt if another car company bought it. Here is the video
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/01/11/hunter.extreme.hybrid.cnn
January 11th, 2008 at 11:47 am
50/50 weight distribution is good.
Weight itself is not. Is there any information on how much it is going to weigh?
Juan, #3, is actually right. Low rolling resistance skinny tires are great for good mileage, not so good for cornering grip.
I am looking for optimum fuel economy, and am willing to sacrifice sports car handling. There are always tradeoffs. If I want to carve up the canyons, I will drive a Corvette. If I want to save gas while commuting and traveling, I will drive a Volt.
Modern mid-engined racing cars actually have a rearward weight bias. 40/60 is not unknown.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Joshua #10
Yeah, that is the same story I saw. This is where all the engineering folks on this site can tell me how dumb I am. If a third party company can take off-the-shelf stuff and get Volt-type performance out of a stock VUE hybrid (no special aerodynamics, tires, SUV size etc.) why can’t the car companies do this now? If this is “off-the-shelf” parts, why would it even take three years to get it to market? If this third-party can get Volt-type performance from off-the-shelf tech., why wouldn’t the Volt get even better performance with Lithium batteries? I’m sure Lyle is at the Auto Show, so I hope that he will dig into this a bit more.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
[quote comment="26280"]Yeah, that is the same story I saw. This is where all the engineering folks on this site can tell me how dumb I am. If a third party company can take off-the-shelf stuff and get Volt-type performance out of a stock VUE hybrid[/quote]
Questioning how a tiny motor (4kW, I believe) without active cooling can propel a vehicle highway speeds is hardly dumb.
Their claim simply make no sense. Something is being misunderstood on the reporting side.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“Off the shelf”
Well it depends who’s shelf that is!
Seriously, “off the shelf” can mean different things to different people, and in different contexts. I suspect that it means no scientific break through, just applied engineering. e.g. existing battery technology.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“off the shelf” that was RE the CNN video
January 11th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Edward Furia, the CEO of AFS Trinity Energy Corp started with a stock Saturn View. Mr Furia stated in the interview that:
“The batteries, the ultracapacitors and the electronics pieces are all things that you can just buy off the shelf.”
This E-Flex style Saturn View can cruise at 80-mph in all electric mode for over 40 miles RIGHT NOW! AFS Trinity Energy Corp is willing to license their technology to the car manufacturers.
Interesting bit to me is that they can use batteries that are available right now off the shelf and keep them cool by using off the shelf ultracapacitors to control and regulate power flow in and out of the pack. Fewer power spikes at the pack level means less heat and more simplistic and cheaper batteries.
$8,600.00 to convert a standard Saturn View to E-flex and available without GM’s help! It appears that GM is just stalling with this battery pack crap.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
The third party conversion likely involved deep-cycling the batteries, instead of using a conservative partial discharge like GM is implementing. It also might not last anywhere as long as the Volt pack.
So no Tim, John, et al, they’re not stalling. They’re being careful.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Reporter: “One drawback is that the car must be plugged in every night”
It’s too bad that idea is still prevalent. We’re going to have to overcome that misconception somehow.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Researching AFS trinity turns up an ambiguous company website, plus a news story on their patent for flywheel energy storage. Not sure how that relates to a plug-in, but we’ll see on the 13th, apparently.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Don’t worry Glenn (#18), $3.50 and up gas will overcome that “I don’t want to get my hands dirty by plugging it in” misconception.
And AES (#17) Nice guess on the deep-cycling part. Any facts or will you just stick with guessing?
Why isn’t GM using ultracapacitors to buffer the power spikes and thus keep the packs from heating up? This would allow them to use cheaper packs and a more simplistic (cheaper & available) thermal control system… like NONE!
January 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
[quote comment="26292"]
Glenn #18,
Reporter: “One drawback is that the car must be plugged in every night”
It’s too bad that idea is still prevalent. We’re going to have to overcome that misconception somehow.[/quote]
I agree. Funny, I don’t see “plugging it in” as a problem. I park my car in my garage (I’m going there anyway), pull the cord down from the ceiling, and plug it into the car. 15 seconds tops. I don’t have to make a special trip to the gas station and pump gas (way more than 15 seconds).
“Plugging in” is not a problem, it is a solution, and a “time saving” one at that.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Sorry to change the subject, but now that we know the Volt already has a new body style, I’m really getting sick of seeing the initial impractical concept with the grotesquely oversized wheels and the chop-top and pointless polycarbonate window flares. I hope they reveal the entire new body soon.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
ug has a point. Maybe we can talk Lyle into using the graphic from the bumber sticker on this website instead of the old GM Volt photo.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
First of all, re: the $8k Vue conversion. Yeah, people have been putting together cars like this for years. It’s nothing new. But there’s a difference between these ‘hobby’ jobs and an engineering effort that’s targeting the sales and reliability of a modern production car.
For example, off-the-shelf Li-ion batteries at this point means a pack of laptop batteries. And not the fancy pack Tesla is engineering with extra safety and heating/cooling. This pack will probably only last 2-3 years, probably won’t work for s*** in cold weather, and is likely to catch fire or explode if it’s deformed or punctured in an accident.
Re: Volt sportiness. 50/50 weight distribution and low cg is good. But a lot still comes down to tires, suspension, and driven wheels. Remember, the Volt is still a FWD car. Also, many (most?) sports car drivers prefer a slight rearward bias, so don’t think 50/50 is obviously better than 46/54. I’m not trying to dump on the Volt for no reason, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s sportier than the stock Cobalt, but don’t think you’re going to get Boxster handling. I’m also still not impressed with the 8.5 second 0-60 time. After people get over the novelty of fast, torquey starts, people are going to realize that 8.5 seconds just isn’t that fast. I wonder what the limiting engineering factor is.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
#24 Tom, you beat me to it. It’s the same answer as when people go “why does it take GM five years to build the Volt when Tesla/Aptera/etc. are doing it _now_?”
Because those companies aren’t doing things like:
- Considering the needs of first-responders when rescuing people from their cars so that the poor paramedic with the Jaws of Life doesn’t die from an electric shock
- Training a nationwide network of service-people so that you don’t have to deliver your car to one of a dozen service stations in the country (someone told me that’s what Tesla is doing… not sure how true it is)
- Negotiating with parts suppliers for a run of 100,000 units per year, guaranteed, with a backup supplier for every part
- Testing the _hell_ out of it because your reputation, built up over 80 years and largely destroyed over the last 25, is riding on the project
- Etc., etc., etc.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“I’m also still not impressed with the 8.5 second 0-60 time. After people get over the novelty of fast, torquey starts, people are going to realize that 8.5 seconds just isn’t that fast. ”
You don’t think the Volt will come with some form of reprogrammable chip? Many cars/trucks already have this feature and performance tuning is as simple as picking one of these up, plugging it in and mashing a few buttons. I’m just guessing though.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Re: Plugging in as a “draw-back.” I wonder if this is a problem fostered by the heavy New York presence of major media. If you are a CNN talking-head who lives in an apartment the idea of plugging in every night might seem like an insurmountable problem. It’s interesting sometimes to see our regional perspectives come out, but the main-stream media SHOULD be above that, but my guess is that is the problem here.
Re: AES. Yes, people have been doing plug-in hack jobs for a while. So that begs the question, what makes AES think that they have something that a big automaker would want? I don’t see Cal Cars going to the auto-show with one of their Prius plug-ins. I’m looking forward to finding out if AES really has something, or not.
P.S. Thanks to the tech-savvy for the technical commentary.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
re:weight distribution, I am looking forward to the handling characteristics, although I will firmly agree that suspension and tires make difference. I will probably put on non-eco tires anyway.
If they go ahead with a 160hp motor, 0-60 will probably be much lower than 8 seconds.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I am not trying to slam GM for not getting the volt out sooner. I think that this story shows that the technlogy is on the market for someone to buy and it would be smart for GM to sweep in and buy it before someone else does
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/01/11/hunter.extreme.hybrid.cnn
January 11th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I am not trying to slam GM for not getting the volt out sooner. I think that this story shows that the technlogy is on the market for someone to buy and it would be smart for GM to sweep in and buy it before someone else does
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/01/11/hunter.extreme.hybrid.cnn
January 11th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
While we’re on the subject of the Volt’s competitors to be revealed at Detroit, watch out for the ecochic:
http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/
January 11th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Of course there are tradeoffs involved, but the Volt’s very low cg is a fundamental advantage GM will be able to exploit to help achieve excellent handling. Regarding top speed, Ford used a 700+ HP electric motor in a recent Bonneville run in a small production-model chassis to set a land speed record of >200MPH, and Tesla’s prototype car achieves 0-60 times on the order of 4 secs as well as sport’s car handling with its low rolling resistance tires.
I may be an optimist, but I think the guy behind Chrysler’s Viper (Bob Lutz) will INSIST on the Volt “promising less & delivering more” as a tried & true way of redeeming GM. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see road test results of production Volts with skid pad g’s comparable to or better than those for a Mustang or Camaro (with higher cg’s), 0-60 times in the 7 sec range & a battery-only range of 50 miles.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
nasaman, #23:
Maybe, but I couldn’t care less about the 0-60 time, or the skidpad numbers, as long as it uses less fuel than anything else on the market.
This is about the gas mileage derby to me. Maybe they can offer a “Volt SS” the second year which would go faster and have performance tires, even if it sacrifices a little mileage.
I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the fine points of Prius options, but don’t they offer a “Touring” option now? I think it has bigger wheels and more performance oriented tires. I don’t know if it goes any faster. Does anyone know if it sacrifices any fuel economy?
I don’t care if the Volt has bicycle tires, as long as it gets better mileage than a !@#$%^ Prius!
January 11th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Geoff #25 - Very Good post.
It never ceases to amaze me how little grasp the public has of just what it takes to develop a large production vehicle.
Tom #24 You’re correct. Since the beginning of time there have always been companies promising something that often can’t be certified or ends up not living up to what it was supposed to do. Nothing new with this.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
[quote comment="26262"][quote comment="26251"] …Of course, I know the Volt would never come close to my current car (Porsche Boxster) in handling, but just because it’s a commuter car doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t handle well![/quote]
Matt 986 #7: No offense, but I disagree — a Boxter’s weight distribution of 46/54 is NOT as ideal as the VOLT’s at 50/50, and the VOLT’s 400 LB battery location under the floorboard will give it a much lower cg. So unless GM can’t design a state-of-the-art suspension, the VOLT should handle as well or better than most existing cars, including even high-end sports cars! We’ll see.[/quote]
Weight distribution is one factor, the suspension, and tires are the other.
Couple with the fact that there are NO Volts in existence (production version, not concept), we don’t know for sure that it will work out to 50/50. If it does, I doubt GM will have a suspension as refined as Porsche’s.
Also consider, the Porsche uses a flat six engine design, that puts the cylinder heads as low as the bottom of the engine, lowering the cg.
Those things make the Boxster one of THE best handling production cars. It is THE roadster that every other roadster strives to be, yet still falls short of.
Anyway, I hope the Volt ends up as a good handling car, but I 1. don’t expect it to handle as well as my Boxster and 2. fully expect GM couldn’t make it even if they wanted to.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
#26 - Brian: The chips you’re talking about change the fuel mapping in your car to run lean–probably fine if your car takes 87 octane and you start putting in 91. Anyway, since the Volt’s motor won’t use fuel, the idea won’t be exactly the same.
But I have a feeling that the Volt’s 0-60 time is being limited by the discharge rate of its battery. A 160 HP electric motor should be able to do better than 8.5 seconds. It’s possible that GM is limiting the discharge rate to increase the longevity of the battery–in which case there may well be chips and hacks to increase the rate.
#32 - nasaman, I sure hope you’re right re: underpromising and overdelivering!
#33 - noel: Even with today’s high fuel prices I’m pretty sure the average consumer has a bias towards acceleration vs. fuel economy. So even if you don’t care about 0-60 times, you better hope that for the commercial success of the Volt, it provides some good solid “driving excitement.”
January 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Regarding the 50/50 weight distribution… They did not factor in my family.
Rashiid Amul #21: Plugging in nightly IS a major concern to people who say live inan appartment and do not park near an outlet (Persumably their own outlet). I don’t have a problem with plugging in but others will. I think the press needs to not assume it to be a deal breaker however.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
[quote comment="26318"]
Nasaman # 32:
I may be an optimist, but I think the guy behind Chrysler’s Viper (Bob Lutz) will INSIST on the Volt “promising less & delivering more” as a tried & true way of redeeming GM. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see road test results of production Volts with skid pad g’s comparable to or better than those for a Mustang or Camaro (with higher cg’s), 0-60 times in the 7 sec range & a battery-only range of 50 miles.[/quote]
I hope you are right. How excellent will this be? But in the end, I have to realistically side with Noel Park #33 when he says he wants better mileage. I do to. The less times I need to fill up with gas, the better. I am tired, very tired, of
helping the Middle East.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
[quote comment="26337"]David #37
Rashiid Amul #21: Plugging in nightly IS a major concern to people who say live inan appartment and do not park near an outlet (Persumably their own outlet). I don’t have a problem with plugging in but others will. I think the press needs to not assume it to be a deal breaker however.[/quote]
You’re right. I wasn’t thinking about the people who don’t have access to a garage or plug. I would think that for them, the Volt isn’t an option. Maybe in Canada where they have to plug in there car during the winter months, but not here in the USA.
January 11th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I am an electrical engineer, and have been using these a123 and lipoly batteries on RC Airplanes for several years. These batteries can be quite impressive when they are new, and then capacity begins to drop off. And what do you do if your build a big pack, and one in the middle shorts out? GM is building a box of these, with processors checking and balancing the pack, and possibly disconnecting bad cells, I think. At any rate, the trick is to get the performance and 8 yr life or so. Easy enough to demo a unit. The trick is reliability. I think that is what is going on.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
If I were a GM engineer working on Volt 2.0, I would suggest redesigning the battery pack to be a flat plate lining most of the underbelly between the motor in the front and the fuel tank in the rear. This would allow 5 seats with the flat floor that’s popular in compact cars, provide more surface area for passive air cooling, lower the CG even more than the tunnel T shape, and provide excellent weight balance.
January 11th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
[quote comment="26297"]Funny, I don’t see “plugging it in” as a problem. I park my car in my garage (I’m going there anyway), pull the cord down from the ceiling, and plug it into the car. 15 seconds tops. I don’t have to make a special trip to the gas station and pump gas (way more than 15 seconds).
“Plugging in” is not a problem, it is a solution, and a “time saving” one at that. [/quote]
I agree.
This whole discussion reminds me of how most corporate executives think. They are quick to point out the risks and downsides of the new way, but never stop to think about the risks and and downsides of the status quo.
The point is that plugging is is comparitivly easier than going to the gas station. So plugging in is an advantage over the status quo.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
[quote comment="26271"]I saw the story as well and wonder what is going on with this. The story says that the company could get it on the road in 3 years which would be a contender for the volt if another car company bought it. Here is the video
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/01/11/hunter.extreme.hybrid.cnn/quote
The primary drawback of the AFS Trinity system is gas mileage. After your 40 miles of travel (from the small battery/electric motor in the rear of the vehicle), your back to the 22 mpg ICE engine up front thereafter.
The E-Flex system will shine at this point with twice the mpg.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
[quote comment="26339"]
You’re right. I wasn’t thinking about the people who don’t have access to a garage or plug. I would think that for them, the Volt isn’t an option. Maybe in Canada where they have to plug in there car during the winter months, but not here in the USA.[/quote]
Not all places in Canada are that cold!
I live on the west coast where the climate is similar to Seattle/Portland. Many parts of the North East US are just as cold as Canada in the winter (at least my friend from Wisconsin assures me of this).
When I was visiting Calgary a couple of summers ago, I noticed that the parking lots at the University of Calgary have an electric plug in each parking stall (used for plugging in engine blocks in the winter). Just imagine being able to plug in your car to “recharge” if you parked a Volt there!
January 13th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I think rear wheel powered cars with the weight distribution forward tend to spin out, like my 57 Chevy. My front wheel drive, weight distribution forward Olds held the road ok, but certainly not like a mid engined, rear wheel drive vehicle with a driver that uses power to come out of a curve. 50/50 is going to be fine, especially if electrically powered AWD is offered down the line.
I suspect, but have not studied it, that low rolling resistance tires do not feature the gummy texture of high road adhesion tires.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:12 am
According to Ron Tauranac the ideal is within 1% of 40/60. If you don’t know who Ron Tauranac is google him.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Does this 50/50 weight distribution thing mean I will need to start going to the gym again if I’m going to sit next to my wife?
June 25th, 2008 at 2:21 am
Sacre Bleu! Why don’t WE (as Americans) do something like this:
Electric cars RACING in the French Alps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkOzGQ9NllY