Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Lutz: Production Volt Has a CD Between .27 and .28 and Battery Extreme Cold Performance is Good

August 20th, 2008 | Posted in: Battery, Design, Production

The second hour of Charlie Rose’ show was centered around an interview he had with GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz and an extensive discussion about the Chevy Volt. The video appears below the post. Some key excerpts:

Lutz said the Volt will be the most significant vehicle of his career.

He talked about the Volt’s historical development and how he intends for it to leap-frog the Prius technologically and make GM become synonymous with efficiency in the publics’ eyes.

Lutz said the roots for the Volt came when he was CEO of the battery company Exide and he wanted to do a demonstration electric car. He was spurred by the Prius’ success, and that it was VP Jon Lauckner who added the range extender idea, as Lutz initially wanted a pure electric.

He mentioned that GM is astonished with the public’s positive reaction to the Volt.

He said that by next year GM will be producing “substantial quantities” of Volts that are not for sale, and that by next year at this time GM will be able to put “selected media” into driveable Volts.

He said in early 2010 there will be a couple of hundred Volts on the road for testing in various climatic conditions, with cars for sale to the public in November 2010.

In terms of the battery testing so far he said “we have had zero concerns”…”no abnormal heating, the cycle life appears good, the extreme cold performance is good.” He says the team is surprised how well everything is working out.

Back at the design studio Lutz showed off the front corner of the vehicle, which is all the public has been allowed to see. He did go on to show how the wheel house is very flush with the wheel edge to minimize turbulence there.

Lutz explained that the Concept Volt would have only gotten 35 miles of range based on it’s wind tunnel performance. From the ensuing design changes that have been made in redesigning the production version, Lutz said for the first time in public that the current Volt has a coefficient of drag (CD) of between .27 to .28.

[flash http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5331337021910564036:120000:3241000&hl=en]

[UPDATE: Post corrected to say .27 to .28]

Posted by: Lyle

190 Responses to “Lutz: Production Volt Has a CD Between .27 and .28 and Battery Extreme Cold Performance is Good”

Morgan Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

stayed up last night to watch this. The battery center was pretty amazing and tells us pretty much exactly who has the battery contract based on the amount of black plastic battery packs in the tech center.

That EV1 pack is enormous and the Hybrid NiMH pack is tiny by comparison to all the others.
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Isn’t the Prius .26? Didn’t Lutz himself say the Volt was going to better?
john1701a Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

>> the extreme cold performance is good

Both “extreme” and “good” are relative terms.

Living in Minnesota, my definition of cold is sitting out in the parking lot all day with a temperature of only -10°F (-23°C), which happens every year in January.

Driving range is reduced by both the temperature itself and the need to power the heater & defrost. Are estimates of impact from this available yet?
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Terrible news on the Cd (.28-.29). That’s much worse than the current Prius (.26), and the new Prius will certainly better that. My 1985 Mercedes 300E had a CD of .28!

Seriously, unless Lutz mangled this number (it won’t be the first time), a CD of .28-.29 is profoundly dissapointing. Plenty of regular sedans out there have that, or better.
Gaurav Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

I am not at all surprised that they are moving ahead without any major problems. I have always believed in American engineering prowess but I think it was the unions holding them down. Why can’t the government announce a rebate for GM which would cut from the $700 billion going out for oil imports and keep fuel prices up for just another year or so. They should use the extra money for VOLT subsidies and make GM retrofit every vehicle in US in exchange for those subsidies. Of course, the retrofitting should be paid for partly by the user, and partly by the government.

Can’t wait to see the government pull its act together on this.
Frank D Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

The fact that the Volt’s wheels are driven by the electric motor, means as technology perfects, the electrification of the automobile will be complete. The Prius is a fine car but I think the big gamble for GM was to prioritize electric.
Talks Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Morgan..

The black packs that were placed side by side (around 4) appear
to be from Continental (not CPI). Looks like they have
coated the chrome color ones them with some black color. I have analyzed the shape of those batteries closely and I feel they are definitely from Conti/A123. Also the black glossy finish is different on
CPI batteries. The first two batteries in the Video and the one in small room is from CPI and the remaining ones are from Conti.
Sean Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

#2 & #4

the difference of 0.02 and 0.03 is small. This is like measuring a turd with a micrometer.
Morgan Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm

7 Talks:

I will take your word for it…my wonderful 3 year old Sony LCD TV is a piece of junk.

Good eyes
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Some other CD’s:

Prius .26
Lexus LS430 .26
Hyundai Genesis .27
Camry Hybrid .27
Mercedes C-Class .27
Civic Hybrid .27
VW Passat .27
Camry .28
Lexus ES .28
Saab 9-3 .28
1995 Mitsubishi Diamante .28
2011 Volt .28-.29

All of GM’s windtunnel work is really paying off. Were they running the fan backwards?
mitch Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

#5 Gaurav

“Can’t wait to see the government pull its act together on this.”

Ahhhh…HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

#8

the difference of 0.02 and 0.03 is small. This is like measuring a turd with a micrometer.

In an EV, aerodynamics plays a super critical role, at highway speeds. Range is much more dramatically affected by the aerodynamics on an EV than a regular car (think Aptera, etc). Lutz said the Volt would have better aerodynamics than the Prius. The EV-1 had a CD of .19!
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

“Lutz explained that the Concept Volt would have only gotten 35 miles of range based on it’s wind tunnel performance. ”

Hrm, thats odd…I remember saying it was only about 5 miles difference and they could have just added 1 more kWh to the pack…but then I got mathed to death, so I just let it rest.

I’m sure we can ‘reverse math’ the 5 mile difference and come up with the Concept’s cd…but sounds like it wasn’t the ‘brick wall’ of cars after all.

Anytime GM cuts anything, they say it’s not because they are cheapening the car, it is always for the sake of the cd…and 5 miles.

The concept would have had unprecedented demand, and blown any new EV/hybrid out of the water for appearance.

I think it is pretty clear that when GM sat down to actually build this thing they knew they could have just added a smidge more capacity to get the desired range, but when they ‘costed’ the vehicle it wasn’t high 20s, it was more like high 40s…so the easiest route to take was just keep cutting things in the name of efficiency.

It would have been nice if they just said, “We were way off costing this car, it would have been around 50K, we are going to make it more affordable, which means losing alot of the distinct features, but increase efficiency as well…it should allow us to be in the mid 30s.”

/could have saved us all some time/hope and we all could have moved on with the project…now it is just annoying whenever I hear them sticking to the company line
Jim Rowland Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I just want to thank Jon Lauckner for adding the range extender idea

Thanks Jon,
Good work!
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

#8 Sean

“the difference of 0.02 and 0.03 is small. This is like measuring a turd with a micrometer”

Sounds alot like 10 percent worse to me. And GM was telling us they were going lower than a Prius, that would be like .24/.25 or upwards of 20% failure.

Just because news is spoken in a upbeat tone, does not mean it is good. We have given up how much in the name of cd? How many unique features have been lost in the name of a missed benchmark?

————-

“In terms of the battery testing so far he said “we have had zero concerns”…”no abnormal heating, the cycle life appears good, the extreme cold performance is good.” He says the team is surprised how well everything is working out.”

If everything is so great why wasn’t a supplier chosen months ago, and on deadline? Why isn’t a decision being made now? What is the hold-up?

I’m a pessimist, so my gut says one of two things:

A) if they wait long enough they can use the battery as a excuse for a missed production timeline.
B) they just don’t want to pony up any cash right now on the Volt project other than engineering (that would also explain the lack of 3rd party contracts for the Volt and the fact that no machine fabrication or plant prep has begun)
noel park Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

#15 Statik:

One word. Weak.
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Ok, now the good news:

Bob is ROCKING THE PINK TIE again!

Lyle you have got to sell those ties, they would be hotcakes.
Jim in PA Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm

#5 Gaurav

I too believe in American engineering prowess. But that blame you want to lay on the unions has be laid equally at the feet of bad management. Bad business decisions had plagued GM for a while (i.e. devloping the H2 while Toyota was developing the Prius).
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

#16 noel park

“One word. Weak.”

Whats weak? My math? OR my timeline?
Jim in PA Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I find it fascinating that Lutz remembers a VP and a CEO of a company being the ones responsible for the ideas behind development of the serial hybrid. Does anyone seriously believe this? So their senior engineers are just a bunch of worker bees? So the EV1 range extender concept was never put to paper more than a decade ago? I don’t think so… As an engineer myself, it really ticks me off when executives try to make it all about themselves, when they would be nowhere without their technical staff doing all the heavy intellectual lifting.
Vincent Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I really doubt GM will let the competition know exact specs until it’s on the road. GM is masterful at leaking just what they want to tease you with.
For the really cold climates if you burn a few ounces of fuel to run defrost and heat…I wouldn’t sweat it. Even “ICE” engines get less mileage in extreme heat and cold. Maybe they can run it on 2 cyl. if it “Knows” it warming up the vehicle. I assume the “ICE” will have a radiator and water jackets and there is a heat source. Unless it’s air cooled to save weight.
Aspherical Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:01 pm

When they unveil the production version, the Cd will “miraculously” be .26. Remember guys, this is alot of hot air until the car is actually unveiled. They can say whatever they want for the next few months…
Tom Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Okay, I watched the whole show and it was GREAT. Charlie Rose is a class act. If you are not excited about the Volt, check your pulse.
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

#23 Tom

“Okay, I watched the whole show and it was GREAT. Charlie Rose is a class act. If you are not excited about the Volt, check your pulse.”

I like the show myself. Nice to have a good chunk of time to discuss a topic in a low key atmosphere.

Side note: Despite my negativity, I am still excited, lol. I know that doesn’t come through that much.

I think the fact of the matter is that I had ‘bought’ the Chevy Volt in my mind as soon as they said they were going to do it. Truth be told I went hunting on the net looking to put my deposit down and get on a waiting list the second I saw it a year and whatever ago…now I feel like I am fighting to retain as much of that dream as I can, hence my less than stellar reactions.

/thats how I am rationalizing it anyway, lol
noel park Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

#19 Statik:

Cd of .28-.29 is weak.

I was just agreeing with you. I guess I was a bit too terse. Partly because had been reading, and also agreeing with, your economic comments on the previous thread. And following the news too closely for my own good this morning, I guess.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Nothing to do with you or your spot on comments, as usual.
omegaman66 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Well it didn’t take long. Post #2, 3 and 4 is all I could read of the comments here.

People complain about the look and complain the aero isn’t low enough. He fools wake up and shake it off and decide what you want and stop thinking you can have something that will probably never exist!

Complain they don’t look like the volt concept. Complain that you would be willing to get a little less AER for the concept. Complain that the aero isn’t below the prius as if that matters at all. Complain the AER isn’t long enough.

Now come clean up the mess I made on the floor (vomit) after reading post 2, 3, and 4.
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

#25 noel park

Ok, I thought maybe my 5 mile ‘reverse math’ assumption that the concept wasn’t such a “brick wall” might have been off…guess it still could be, lol.

#26 omegaman66

“People complain about the look and complain the aero isn’t low enough”–well we really should be one or the other. If we are to give up design for function, we should, well…get function?

But I understand it is difficult dealing with the negative vibe of most of the comments/commentors (me? lol)…again I think it is just blowback from all the people who have mentally committed to the car feeling it is constantly under attack.

/don’t do janitorial work, maybe I could send someone over?
Van Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

A Cd under .3 is excellent. By having the car relatively narrow, wide enough for two plus battery, rather than 3, the frontal area might be low. So its CDa might compare favorably to the Camry. Time will tell.
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

#26

“Now come clean up the mess I made on the floor (vomit) after reading post 2, 3, and 4.”

I guess you were dissapointed with those aerodynamic numbers too.
Engineer Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Talks – you are mistaken.
DC Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

If I had to try and put a positive spin on things, which I hate doing , maybe a worse CD than we were expecting means a cooler looking, less Prius-like car?
cire Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pm

I hope you guys dont put bumper stickers on your cars, I heard they raise the CD by .001. Dont forget about the extra weight.
Mike Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

A simple way for the government to help us buy electric cars without adding to the budget deficit is end all the tax breaks to big oil. Every quarter they break the record with ridiculous amounts of profits which makes me think they don’t need the tax break.

Getting those oil companies to pay taxes like everyone else will help the country in so many ways. Lets help secure America by reinvesting in good ole American cars and electrons. Buying oil from the middle east funds our enemies and makes America less safe.
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Little FYI,

I was just watching the show again, and he actually says .27-.28 drag versus .43 concept.

So, still off, but a little better number than .28-.29 relatively speaking for the production car, and the .43 is a informative number for the concept…which makes it also far from a ‘brick’

…and looking at the video around 44:30, you can see that the definitive wheel wells, side bulges have been completely taken away, was hard to get a feel for it from the teaser pics
kent beuchert Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

I had never heard Lutz speak before and was quite impressed by his intelligence and wit. He’s obviously ahead of Charlie Rose in both departments – he could easily handle a show of his own. I didn’t expect his mental abilities. Makes those 50 year younger greenies look pretty senile, or should I say, childish.
Harry Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm

In the video, he said .27 – .28, not .28 – .29, so at least that’s a little bit better.

Just got finished watching it, and want my volt more than ever.
Lurtz Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Those of you who are upset over the Cd numbers — does that single number really matter to you? Did you ever base a car buying decision on that? Do you even know what Cd of whatever it is you’re driving now? (No fair going to google or wikipedia)

As long as the car gets enough miles of EV range for you, who cares what the nominal Cd is?

(My car’s nominal Cd is .36, IIRC. And then I have a bike rack on the roof and drive with the windows down and the sunroof open. So my actual Cd is something abysmal. Abysmaller.)
Charlie Rose Interviews Bob Lutz Video Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

[...] pkulak first collected Added 20 Aug 08 from gm-volt.com [...]
Gsned57 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I think people are over analyzing what they did. When they came out with the concept, they had a golf car with a cool body. They crunched some numbers and said with a 16kw batt and a CD about the same as a typical low CF car we can get 40 mi EV range.

They took their body into the wind tunnel and said OK new numbers suggest we’ll get 35 EV miles. What can we do to impact the style the least and get to the 40 mile promised EV range.

With the time constraints I think they just wanted to hit their benchmarks. If they wanted the concept volt they would have had to change their battery specs and possibly cause delays with the suppliers while they figured out what they wanted. If they wanted an EV to get the most out of 16KW hours, they could have had the driver sitting on the stick shift while laying horizontal and guessing about where to steer.

Working in the Aero field, you promise something to the customer (40 mi range and a cool looking car) and you make your numbers trying to mesh it all together as a system. They’re in a race against time so they left the battery alone (design similar to the EV1) and took off the hard edges from the body.

I think they did a great job and if they can pull this off in such a short amount of time I think it’s great.

Give it 10 years and Statik you may get your Volt concept body with 35 mile range and pauln I bet they’ll make you a car that looks like a street looge where you see the road from a monitor above your head and has a .05 CD. But for now get us the volt and get it now. Can’t please everyone so just try to piss us all off a little and none off a lot.
jped Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

You can’t directly compare Cd’s without a reference area!

Cd=Drag / (Dynamic Pressure * Ref Area)

Although the Drag Coef of the Volt might be slightly higher than the Prius, it still may have lower drag (which is really what matters). A 5% difference in the reference area of the Prius and Volt may more than make up the 0.02 difference in CD. Lutz throwing out a CD prior to anyone seeing the production model was absolutely pointless.
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Statik: “the .43 is a informative number for the concept…which makes it also far from a ‘brick’

Um, my gen1 xB, the ultimate “brick” has a Cd of .37.

Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but for GM to put out a concept for an (RE)EV with a Cd of .43 is really pretty dumb and embarrassing, when anyone who knows anything about EV’s realizes that aerodynamics are much more critical to an EV than a conventional vehicle. A .43 Cd would be atrocious for a regular car nowdays.

I just never got what they were trying to do with the (unaerodynamic) Volt concept; the EV-1 started with the spectacularly aerodynamic concept Impact. Why do an EV concept with such terrible aerodynamics?

I’m not “Volt-bitching”; I’m asking a serious question.
Lurtz Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

…and: “What jped said” (#39)
Aspherical Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

#32 Cire

Good point. The amount of bumper stickers you put on the car will make the difference if you getting home on all electric or not (hehe, j/k). Man, I know I shouldn’t have put that “I’m not speeding, I’m qualifying” sticker on my car!

I have a ridiculous idea. Instead of lowering the Cd, GM should endorse a weight loss program that should get this point across: If you stop supersizing your meals daily, you will get an extra 2 AER miles a day!
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

#40 paulin

“Statik: “the .43 is a informative number for the concept…which makes it also far from a ‘brick’…Um, my gen1 xB, the ultimate “brick” has a Cd of .37.”

I hear you, it is still pretty bad, similar to your average truck.

But your right, why do a EV concept at all with terrible aerodyamics? Unless you are aware of them and are going to power the vehicle sufficiently to overcome them…that was always my thinking.

GM knew the concept was not ideal by any stretch the second they sketched it out…I just think they were not concerned, there is no rulebook that says a electric vehicle has to be a jelly bean. As was mentioned by Gsned57 in post #38, we’d all be driving around in a ’street luge.’

I think the ‘non-jelly’ bean look of the Volt is/was one of its strongest features…the ‘non-Prius’ if you will. It said, “this car is better than a hybrid, has independant electric drive, is functional for 4 people and is a handsome/sexy car,” which up until that time was/is a oxymoron in this area.
MC Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Certainly a 0.28 to 0.29 Cd isn’t very impressive… I haven’t watched the whole video, but are we sure he implied the latest “production intent” design has that drag?
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

#43 Statik,

“I think the non-jelly bean look of the Volt is/was one of its strongest features”

But also the most mis-leading. EV’s NEED to be very aerodynamic, period. And they don’t have to all look like jelly-beans. The Fisker Karma is a good example of that.

I know I have an anti-GM rep, but over the five decades I have followed them, I have also been willing to respect their technical prowess. I was very impressed with the EV-1, despite its limitations.

I think that ballyhooing an EV concept with a Cd of .43, showing it all over the world and saturating the airwaves with it, as the saving redeemer of GM, was a collossal mistake.

It wouldn’t have taken that much to do a little bit of windtunnel work to make sure the concept was at least REASONABLY aerodynamic. Instead, they indulge in c*ck teasing, and not delivering (what they promised). The Volt is going to end up looking pretty ordinary, that’s obvious.

Is it better to lower expectations and exceed them in the end, or over-promise and under-deliver?

Ever notice how Toyota doesn’t indulge in c*ck teasing, but just puts out the final product when it’s ready? Any connection to the two company’s relative success?
Voltme Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Let’s start a poll…

I would sacrifice 5 miles of range to keep the concept Volt styling intact…

My vote: YES!!! (and keep that killer sunroof too!)
Michael Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

32 Cire – “I hope you guys dont put bumper stickers on your cars, I heard they raise the CD by .001. Dont forget about the extra weight.”

I was planning to put my new magnetic VOLT bumper sticker on my 2000 Diamante, but I can’t figure out how to make it stick to the plastic bumper.
Taser Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

I believe Lutz said the Volt would have a better CDa (Drag Area Product) than the Prius.

Big difference between the CD and the product of the CD and the frontal area (a) of the car. IIRC, the Prius’ CDa is .58m^2. With a CD of .26, that would equal a frontal area of 2.23m^2.

If the Volt has a smaller frontal area, it can be more aerodynamic than the prius.
Talks Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

#30 Engineer..

Why u think so ?
Tall Pete Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

#21 Vincent :
“GM is masterful at leaking just what they want to tease you with.”

It’s nice to see someone giving credit to GM for a change; reading the posts, most of them make you think the company can’t make any good decision … Hell, they are just behind Toyota and were first until last year for the market share.

Finally they are masterful at something. It’s a start.

I tend to believe that engineers are making decisions for a reason and that everything, in the end, will be well balanced. Cars are always about compromise. As for the price point, time will tell but novelty comes at a price. Good to know that it’s gonna work in the cold temperatures.

We’ll see.

Pete
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:51 pm

#48 Taser:

“If the Volt has a smaller frontal area, it can be more aerodynamic than the prius.”

Quite true, and possible, but quite unlikely. The Volt sits on the Delta II platform, which is bigger than the old Delta (Cobalt) platform. Why do you think they’re using Malibus for mules?

For what its worth, the production Volt does not look all that svelte. And it would have to have a substantially smaller frontal area to compensate for its worse Cd.

Meanwhile, the 2010 Prius will undoubtedly have an improved Cd; I’m guessing .24. The gen1 Prius had a .29; the gen2 has .26; the gen3 will improve on that.
base428 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

The extended range idea is pretty old……at least 15 years, probably a lot more. I drove one in 1993 (engineering senior design project). With the Volt’s lousy Cd, maybe we can ecomod it? GM apparently doesn’t want to move away from the standard, inefficient profile of today’s vehicles so your grandma will still buy one. Forget looks, give us performance. Doesn’t the Aptera have a Cd of 0.11?
Joe Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:57 pm

CD does not mean much to me. The total ownership cost (TOC) is everything. Compare costs: 1) An $18K Honda where a tank of gas delivers 400 miles at a cost of $50.00 a tank. X 100,000 miles:TOC=30,500, 2) A Toyato $24K Prius where the cost of fuel is 1/3 that of the Honda x 100,00 miles: TOC= 28,167 or 3) A $37.5K Chevy Volt with fuel costs of $.80 per/400 miles: TOC = $37.700. What do we not know? Total number of miles each car will perform before its retirement. Maintenance costs, etc. Still if people can’t afford it, it can have the CD of a brick. It won’t matter. We need something that goes 40 miles on a charge, does not requre replacement for 150K miles and costs $15K. All of that discussion about the psychological and sociological impact of design – that’s just a problem that Madison Avenue have given us. Get over it.
Peacmakr Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 2:59 pm

For all the Cd fans out there, some of us care what the car looks like too. All indications are that the Volt will be beautiful. The Prius – let me put it this way – don’t get a brown one and park it by a punch bowl.
Murray Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I still miss the concept … and would have happily accepted 35mi AER…but that is just an opinion
“this is more about the electrification of the car – not how cool it looks”
Once our precious Volt is finally unvieled…I’m afraid of seeing a Cobalt-sedan in concept Volt’s clothing
“this is more about the electrification of the car – not how cool it looks”
Early artist renditions of the re-design reminded me of an Acrua TL and made me miss the concept…
“this is more about the electrification of the car – not how cool it looks”
Cautious Fan Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

It’s good to hear the battery works well when cold. The life of current LION batteries is greatly affected by heat as well, cold makes them last longer, though reduces the available charge. Heat degrades the battery permanently though.
MetrologyFirst Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Lutz HAS to be joking.

All this angst and work and redesign for a measly 5 or so miles of electric range? Are you kidding me??

Everyone figure out how many times that extra 5 miles of range would matter to them, then do the math @ 4 bucks a gallon and figure out what it would have cost you.

Then decide if the Volt redesign was worth it.

I can’t believe that. Something just doesn’t make sense. Did GM put themselves that far into a corner by “promising” 40 mile electric range?

Just sell the concept as the Volt SS and they will sell a bunch. That would be the anti-Prius. I would gladly give up 5 miles of range to have the concept. NO PROBLEM.
Lunoir Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Prius has a CD 0.24 since 2004 and an old Tatra was doing even better… in 1935 was 0.21
Lutz probably had the “concept” numbers in mind.

I hope GM could do a bit better specially since they don’t need as much air to be used by the car itself. (no big hole in front to cool engine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_T77
BillR Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

I saw the show last night, and thought it was great! Bob sure is an entertaining guy. I like the analogy of why we don’t worry about the looks of our refrigerator versus our automobiles.

Regarding the Cd, he stated that the concept car had a Cd of 0.43. See this following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients

Note that a 1990 Toymota truck had a Cd of 0.44. Although not listed, the new Yukon/Tahoe hybrid Cd is 0.34. Therefore, I’m not convinced that the concept actually had a Cd of 0.43. Likewise, I think we have approached the point where GM knows their competitors are trying to develop similar cars to the Volt, and will probably disseminate false numbers to keep the competition guessing. The true Cd for the Volt may well be sub 0.25.

When Bob showed the front corner of the Volt, I was amazed at how smooth is was. The headlight, grill, and lower corner lights were all flush. I can see the Cd easily being better than 0.28.

With Bob Lutz 99% confident the Volt will be successful, Mr. Cruze in the battery test lab stating they are designing for a 40 mile AER at end of battery life, and Bob Boniface stating that they are on schedule, I believe that this car will exceed our expectations (another trademark for the cars from Bob Lutz).
mitch Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

as far as the CD numbers go…, I want 6 w/ in dash changer, and that is all I care about on the subject.meet the benchmark of 40 AER, and make it look cool and any other CD numbers mean nothing to me…
Engineer Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

#49 Talks, can’t really say.
Aspherical Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I know a number of you love the concept car style, but a Cd of .43 is semi-truckish. When the initial requirements of this project were documented, it appears that a 40 AER was the most important spec. I believe GM’s mistake is not producing the concept body, but showing the Volt concept as we know it to the public at all. A small scale wind tunnel test can show the concept style just couldn’t cut it. It appears that GM is doing an incredible job creating a product that meets their initial requirements, but I would like to know the answer to a couple of questions.

1. How much thought did the GM engineers put into the aerodynamics of the concept before they showed it to the GM execs?

2. Did they go with a super cool design to wow everyone so they didn’t remind themselves of the EV1 debacle, even though GM knew that the concept design would never work?

3. Did they really believe that this design will work when they started?
MetrologyFirst Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

BillR @ 58:

That is the only answer. Some of the released info must be false. That is the best competitive approach anyway, since their existance depends on this car.

But, when they do actually unveil the production car, they had better clear up a few issues about range and the reasons for the styling changes. Some of us neanderthal knuckle draggers who buy a car and consider styling and the emotional aspects important need to be addressed.

Unless the production Volt is a stylistic beauty, of course.
Dave G Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Listening to the video, I found 5 new pieces of information:

1) Bob Lutz said the gas engine will run at a single RPM. This is the first time I’ve heard this from GM. It would be nice to know more about this…

2) Referring to the Volt, Bob Lutz says “all of our major competitors are working on something like this”. I’ve heard nothing about an E-REV type vehicle from anyone else, so thats news.

3) The battery will be warmed in the winter and cooled in the summer. We knew the battery would be liquid cooled, but this is the first time they’ve talked about using battery energy to warm the battery.

4) The battery pack will have around 500 individual Li/Ion cells. Li/Ion cells naturally produce a little over 3 volts each, and the total pack voltage is reported to be 300-400 volts, so I would conjecture this means 4 groups of around 125 cells each.

5) The Cd is .27-.28. Not bad, but not great. Bob Lutz stressed that GM is a design driven company. The look of the car comes first, and then the look is modified as minimally as possible to meet reasonable performance specs.
Firefly Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Just so I have a elucidated understanding of everyones concerns-

The price of gas goes up, GM makes a concept called Volt. They say 40 mile AER and 50 mpg thereafter. The process has NEVER been done before and they predict 2010 and 30-40k. Responses range from-

Range sucks.EV-1 got 200!
(this ain’t the EV-1…get over it.)

Concept Cd is too high, GM! It’ll never do 40 miles!
(Testing, more testing. Nothing happens overnight except overnight)

1.4 L non-turbo is too heavy! We hate that idea!!!
(Do you have a scale @ home strictly for measuring GM engines?)

We do NOT want it to look like a Prius!!
(Then that alters the shape, which changes the form…which alters Cd…duh)

We don’t want it to be too heavy!!!
(but you want everything from solar panels to DVD in it which adds weight)

I’m not paying $40k for a Volt!!!No way!!!
(…but you probably paid in excess of $400 for an iPhone…that later became $200…that has been replaced by a 3G model one year after release…riiiiiight.)

The charging port has to be on the driver’s side/passenger’s side/front/behind license plate for it to work for me!!!
(So tell me-how many OTHER cars have the charging port in the location you desired?)

Stop your whining and either support the project and give positive feedback/suggestions to GM or just don’t worry about it and don’t buy it…there…problem solved.
Noah Nehm Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Statik: Bob is ROCKING THE PINK TIE again!

I noticed that too. What’s with the pink tie meme? Who knows, maybe they’ll start making the Chevy “bow-tie” pink too…
maharguitar Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm

From my understanding of the history, Lutz wanted to build an all electric car after hearing about the Tesla. Lauckner suggested making a more modest electric range and putting a range extender on it so it would have more utility for more people. That doesn’t mean Lutz claims that Laucker “invented” the idea of a range extender. It’s just that he is the one who suggested adding it to this particular concept car.

I’ve never considered a concept car that is shown at an auto show to be anything other than a device to express a concept. Hence the name concept car. Think of it as a 3D sketch on the back of a napkin with a caption “What if we built something like this?”. It certainly is not a contract with the customer. Usually the most you’ll get is some of the ideas of a concept car in some future cars. I doubt that they ever put the concept car into a wind tunnel before showing it. The concept cars that I’ve seen at auto shows always smell of wet paint. The reaction to the Volt was so overwhelming that GM decided to go ahead and put it into production. At that point, almost everything in the concept is subject change. They have to deal with the realities of building a production car. From an engineering perspective the production Volt as a completely different car from the concept.
Ryan Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I just had a fantastic thought on how GM could recoup some of it’s losses on developing this technology and at the same time how our government could overhaul some of it’s transportation costs and avoid further debt to the un-unionized and probably overseas automotive companies that provide us with larger vehicles.

Use the Chevy Volt’s technology to transform every bus, trolly and ferry if possible into a full electric if possible, partially electric if not possible.

Particularly in rural areas like Ohio and Nebraska. Mr. Lutz I KNOW that you follow the major business news websites so you must have come across the stories of multiple school districts and city buses losing money because of the cost of fuel.

The schools in particular are losing the money they need for basic school supplies like paper, pencils and glue because of rising fuel costs. If you offered to negotiate a contract with the states to refit their buses with Volt technology they would probably be able to pay you better than the average consumer.

A bus that can carry 40 to 50 people sounds better than a sedan that can carry only 4 people, 5 if you really use the space in the car.

Our public transportation systems need a revolutionary new energy source just to make ends meet and Volts new lithium battery system could satisfy that need. Won’t you at least talk it over with your engineering department to see if it can be done?

Actually a company called Phoenix motors already has a fully electric suv and pickup truck I don’t know what the weight and towing capacity is but it does demonstrate the VERY REAL possibility that a fully electric heavy vehicle can be built.
Firefly Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

What’s up, Statik? How’s everything up there north of the border?
dagwood55 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:04 pm

#35, kent beuchert, “I had never heard Lutz speak before and was quite impressed by his intelligence and wit. He’s obviously ahead of Charlie Rose in both departments”

Don’t make me laugh. Charlie Rose intelligently interviews all kinds of people, not just auto execs. What he gives away to Lutz on the auto industry, he regains with advantages on foreign policy, energy policy, theology, cinema, literature, you name it.

And if Lutz is such a genius, why isn’t GM making money? Why don’t they have an Anti-Prius on the road today?
BillR Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

For everyone who likes the concept vehicle, I believe it would not be built as designed for several reasons.

First, we are told about the aerodynamics. However, I have seen the concept car at the VoltNation event in NYC, and it didn’t appear to be that much of a “brick”. I sincerely believe the Cd for that vehicle is probably more like 0.34, not 0.43. See my previous post. The 2006 BMW Z4 M coupe has a Cd of 0.35. GM wants to provide “at least” 40 miles AER at the end of battery life.

Secondly, the overall length of the concept car is 170″. See the “Full Specfications” link on the GM-Volt homepage. I have scaled pictures of the concept car, and its wheelbase is approximately 125″! The Buick Lucerne has a 116″ wheelbase, and the Yukon XL (i.e. Suburban) has a wheelbase of 130″. GM needed to reduce the wheelbase to fit on one of their platforms, in this case, the Delta II. The wheelbase for the Delta II is between 103.5″ (Cobalt) and 112″ (Malibu). The 125″ wheelbase for the concept would have yielded a very poor turning radius.

Lastly, the concept is as the name implies, a special built car that is not in production. Bob Boniface stated in one of his interviews that the Concept Volt was put together in less than 1 year, and that it borrows heavily from the Camaro, and is sometimes referred to as the electric Camaro. I don’t believe at that stage of the game that GM was prepared to show a “near production” type car.

A lot more thought and innovation has gone into the Volt since the January 2007 Detroit Auto Show.
maharguitar Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm

[sarcasm alert!]

I don’t care if the AER is less than a 1 mile! If it doesn’t have bulging wheel wells, they lied to me and I’m not buying. In fact, just get rid of all that electric garbage get me my wheel wells!
john1701a Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:10 pm

>> 3) The battery will be warmed in the winter and cooled in the summer. We knew the battery would be liquid cooled, but this is the first time they’ve talked about using battery energy to warm the battery.

Actually, it has been discussed already… but was dismissed as just anti-lithium propaganda. Clearly, it wasn’t.

The need for warming comes from the shortcoming with Li-Ion tech since “cell impedance goes up and the acceptance of the ions on the anode is drastically reduced” when the temperature is below freezing.
MetrologyFirst Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Maharguitar @ 66:

Good points, but concepts of “production intent” cars are usually pretty close. The Solstice is a good example of a Lutz concept. Almost identical to the production car. The new Camaro is VERY close to the concept. The Volt was clearly production intended when is was unveiled. Lots of car show concepts are silly exercises in eye candy. Everyone knows that. Some cars are truely intended for production and it is evident when you look at them.

But GM is still using the concept in Volt commercials. To most of the public, the concept IS the Volt.

Although the newest commercials are only showing the frontal view. No side detail, rear detail. Based on what we have seen so far the frontal view will be close to production, and they can not be accused of a bait and switch on the Olympic commercials.

The fact that the rest of the car is no longer being shown is what worries me. That alone means the side profile of the car will be recognizably different from the concept.

That is a lot of stylistic changes for 5 miles of range.
Marcus Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Who cares if there are lower cd’s out there, the car will still go 40 miles on battery only. I say not bad for the first iteration. I’ll take .28 and not look like a Prius. I’d also take the concept and lose 5 miles, still better than my current situation of zero miles electric only.
I agree with Statik @13, GM should’ve been upfront about cutting for the sake of cost, not efficiency.
Still looking forward to buying though!
john1701a Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

>> Who cares if there are lower cd’s out there, the car will still go 40 miles on battery only.

It’s not a good idea to assume. In fact, a “climate” disclaimer is a fairly realistic expectation. After all, the demands of winter cannot be avoided. Energy from heat has to come from somewhere.
GXT Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Well, everyone take note. The previous interview said the aero changes were good for 6-7 miles of range over the concept. Now Lutz says the concept got 35 miles. So the Volt is apparently now at 42 miles of range.

53. Joe, not that it makes a huge difference, but the Volt will cost $.8 for 40 miles, not 400.
Jim I Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Firefly #64:

That’s about it……………
Jimmy Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

I stayed up late the last two nights and watched the Charlie Rose show. I thought both Wagoner and Lutz did an excellent job. I tuned in the first night only by accident while channel surfing. Bob B. and the battery guy also did a great job discussing the Volt.

We all have different tastes and opinions and are free to communicate them in this forum …thanks to Lyle. The bottom line for me is that I am thrilled the car is really going to be produced and will buy 4 of them when they are available. One for me, one for my wife, and one for each of my two kids. Hopefully they will come in different colors.
Voltme Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Along with Lyle’s wait list, we should start a petition to adopt #57 MetrologyFirst’s suggestion for a Volt SS. It would be clad in the concept’s body styling with production Volt internals. It would have a 35 mile range.

I will even offer a compromise, they can use the newly designed rear view mirrors and the .5 micron spoiler refinement from the production car (as discussed in Boniface’s video last week) and mate that to the concept vehicle. That should net them at least a mile more range without sacrificing any of the looks of the concept… And they would sell a ton of em.
Rashiid Amul Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

I didn’t expect the Cd to be that high.
I also am saddened to know that the beautiful concept would have gotten 35 miles and production car will get 5 miles more. I wish I could buy the concept. My 2¢.

Having said that, a smooth brick has a Cd of 2.1, so the Volt will be much better than that. Things are not that bad after all.
canehdian Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

#75 – I already get reduced performance in my car in the wintertime, the difference in electricity use would probably equate to that as well – I would end up around the same in the end – probably ahead of the ICE version if the climate-control-while-plugged-in feature is included.

Does anyone know why I get less fuel economy in the winter?
A block heater helps some, but not very much.
I see 22-24mpg in the winter and 28-30 in the summer, a pretty large difference.
The only thing I can think of is cold transmission/engine are harder to move and take a while to warm up, so the engine works harder and uses more fuel. And if your trip is short, the average fuel use is higher than normal.
Does that sound about right?
Or maybe it’s a complete fluke that I use 20% more gas in the winter? (doubtful)
Voltme Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Here’s the skinny on the comparitive .CD and range using Lyle’s interview with Bob Boniface last week…

[quote]
What’s different about the rear spoiler?
It is higher and further rearward in the production car. What I showed is how we applied a higher millimeter tall lip to the end of it and how that resulted in a 5 count reduction in aerodynamic drag. 10 counts of aerodynamic reduction is equivalent to .55 miles extra driving range. The new spoiler and rear view mirror each removes 5 counts of drag resulting in a half mile more range.

In aggregate from the show car to the production model we’ve taken a total of 120 counts out, which equals 6 miles more range. However that 6 miles is not added to our 40 miles. We’re not giving you 46 miles now. It’s just that the original show car surface would not have delivered the promised 40 miles of range.

So the production car has a CD .12 lower than the show car?
Yes. The point of the demonstration was why we had to change the show car and how it changed.
[/quote]

So here’s what we can deduce from Bob’s statements coupled with Lutz reveal of the .cd of the production vehicle…

The slight mods to the side mirrors and the spoiler netted a half mile’s range increase over the production version. OK, let’s do that and leave everything else the same. We get 5.5 miles less range and keep the Volt production styling nearly identical to the concept.
I don’t even care if you change the rear as indicated in the production shots we’ve seen, that should be good for another mile perhaps, but I’d leave the front, sides and top alone. The changes are too drastic a change from the likable concept styling.

Also, using Lutz numbers and Bob’s response to Lyle’s question, we can deduce that the .CD of the concept works out to be ~.39 to .40 (Lutz’s .27 to .28 + Boniface’s .12 figure in the statement above)
Jeff M Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

GXT Says: “the Volt will cost $.8 for 40 miles”

What the battery guy in the lab told Charlie was $1.80…. or a hypothetical $0.80 if you have dual rate metering (daytime and nighttime rates)…. I think most of us only have single rate metering… I could get dual rate metering but here in NH with PSNH then my daytime rate goes through the roof more than offsetting any savings during the nighttime (off peak) periods.

Still impressive to be able to go 40 miles on $1.80 (I assume that’s national average) and why I love BEV’s.
Aspherical Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

#81 canehdian

Your tires will have more of an effect on MPG in the cold than the engine. The material properties and design of the tire is heavily dependent on the temperature.
Estero Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

It is like I said 9 topics back. The 40 mile electric range has been stated so often by GM, the press and on this website that it has almost become the ‘minimum’ standard by which the Volt will be judged…Price, styling, options, etc. for the Volt v1 will take a back seat to the “range” issue.

Perhaps I should have included CD as another that will take a back seat to the range issue.

I’m like most of you. I want the Volt to be and look special, perhaps one day becoming a classic like the ‘57 Chevy. But, ‘range’ is #1 with me, ’style’ is a little further back but still near the top and ‘CD’ is much less important.
Jeff M Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Vincent: Even “ICE” engines get less mileage in extreme heat and cold

fwiw, in extreme cold a liquid fuel vehicle could actually get more mileage… because it will be more dense when you fill up, so each gallon will actually have more fuel. I’m guessing though that you’d still pay for it in such climates as the stations would factor that into the price. Maybe they should sell gasoline by mass (weight) instead of by volume
Joe Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

My guess is we have a bunch of immature people on this blog who sound like a bunch of kids. Hey, I don’t claim to be running a popularity contest like some are doing here, so I don’t care what you think about me. Just blog like an adult instead of complaining about every little thing. Be constructive!
Steve Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Ryan (#67),

Electric buses with range extenders are running in many major cities. See:
http://www.orionbus.com/Projects/c2c/channel/files/270346_Orion_Hybrid_Transit_Presentation_Q2_2008.pdf
stopcrazypp Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Here’s the direct quote starting from around 42:27 in the video: “Instead of having a, I don’t know, like a .43 drag coefficient, we had to get down to .27 or .28, which is where we are now”

Sounds like he was just guessing on the 0.43 part and the CD he quoted was .27 or .28, NOT .28-.29 as it says in the article.

And the last talk with Bob Boniface said the improvement was 6 miles, not 5 miles. Lutz only said AROUND 35 miles for the old design, not exactly 35 like the article implies.

It’s on target and not as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

#83 Jeff M
I think he is talking about the negative impact on efficiency. Most cars tend to get worst MPG when in extreme cold conditions.
Frank D Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

#87 Joe. Here’s an idea that could be constructive. What if everyone here (and all over this country) were to pull ALL their assets from any oil investments. Now, especially from emerging markets, look whats happening in Russia. Then if all American’s invest in alternative energy instead. This would take the profits out of selfish regimes, speed up the benefits in having more efficient means of transport and mainly, get us off oil. The Volt is a big factor in this equation of independence from oil. I say, let the dictatorships keep their dirty sludge. This is something I can do, starting now.
Harrier1970 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Hmmm…

Overall, I think everything is shaping up to be a nice car.

40 miles on a charge….CHECK

Cool electric vehicle with range extender….CHECK

On schedule to be delivered late 2010….CHECK

Everyone on the project seems to be on top of the details. We, here in the peanut gallery can do nothing but watch and cheer them on and put away money to buy a Volt in 2010.
Jake Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Drag coefficient is not the same as drag force.
Drag coefficient is not the same as drag force.
Drag coefficient is not the same as drag force.

Yes, the Cd statement is a bit disappointing, but we do not necessarily know what the net effect on the Volt’s performance will be. I’m not trying to make excuses here. I’m not clinging to false hope and I’m not committed to buying a Volt. I’m just saying…it is what it is. As stated multiple times above, drag force on a vehicle is dependent on the drag coefficient AND frontal area (plus a couple other constants). Saying “my 1975 Mack truck had a Cd of .XX” does not necessarily tell us much.
WKD Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

Additional important news from last week’s conference

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/08/gm-provides-a-few-more-details-about-chevy-volt-lithium-ion-battery.html

“…..from GM battery guru Denise Gray, is that the lithium-ion battery pack for the extended range electric car (also called a plug-in hybrid, and both terms are correct) will weigh-in at about 400 pounds, have fewer than 300 cells and pack 16 kilowatt hours of energy.

Denise Gray, director of hybrid energy systems for General Motors Corp., divulged the info during last weeks Management Briefing Seminars sessions in Traverse City, Mich.

She said the T-shaped pack will take six or seven hours to fully charge and is being designed so it can fit into a number of different compact models that GM offers worldwide……….”
Van Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

I think computer modeling has established using realistic drive cycle modeling, the the Volt would get 32 city and 27 highway AER. Now you improve that by 3 miles city and 6 miles highway by reducing the Cd, and voila, you get an AER of 35 city, 33 Highway. Recall the study where only 3% of the folks would get 40 AER driving slowly and carefully, like the Prius drivers that get 60 MPG when the rest of us get 45.

I expect the software to be changed with the Volt using 10 of its 16 KWH of capacity, so it will be able actually achieve a city AER of 40.

Time will tell.
omegaman66 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

If you can’t beat them… join them. Figure I will try it out and see how it feels.

Why are they not using wheel motors that would be sooo much better than what they are doing.

Why don’t they have a bigger battery so we can do away with the range extender all together? How stupid!

Why don’t they use a smaller battery to bring down the cost? How stupid!

Why don’t they just add a few batteries and give use the concept volt? How dumb can they be.

Why don’t they lower the drag and give us more AER, after all this car is about saving the world from all the toxic CO2? How stupid.

Why don’t they have a real grill… how stupid.

Why don they cover the wheel wells… how stupid.

Why doesn’t GM sell it at a loss to start? How stupid.

Why don’t they have solar cells on the roof so I can get an extra quarter of a mile at huge cost. How stupid can GM be!!!

Why don’t they let us use more of the battery??? How stupid!

They aren’t really going to make this car. Just another concept car that will never see the light of day!

Why aren’t they incorportating this into more makes and models? If this design is so good why wait??? How stupid!

Why don’t they use EEStor and bypass lithium ion??? How stupid.

Why don’t they use a proven technology like NIMH? How stupid.

I don’t know where are how many charging ports there will be but GM is soooo stupid for not doing it the other way!

I don’t know why I am restricted to 110 charging… I want 220! How stupid.

I don’t know why GM insisted on putting a 220volt charger my house can’t handle the load when the AC or Heater and drier and oven are all running. How stupid.

Why did GM change the tires the other size was so much better. How stupid.

Why don’t they make more the first year. How stupid don’t they want this too be a success? How stupid.

Why haven’t they decided on a battery maker. Stop the negotiations now it is more important that I know now even if it ends up being the wrong choice at to high a price! How stupid.

Why are they going to jack up the cost so high.. that is unjustified. How ignorant.

Why such a limited roll out only in selected areas? I cdon’t care if they people that service the car know anything about it?

Why aren’t they pushing harder for tax incentives? Why did they kill the EV1? Why are they pushing for incentives? How stupid.
Jeff M Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

First let me say that the interviews (w/Lutz, the battery guy, and that other guy) went relatively well. And Lutz does come across relatively well, and still with it for his 76 years.

However it still makes me cringe when he (and other GM execs) still spew mis-(and incorrect) information. Take the comparing the EV1 battery pack to the Volt’s…. he shows the EV1’s NiMH pack and says it’s a 16kwh pack… however the EV1’s NiMH pack was 26.4kwh, off by a whopping 10.4kwh. I thought maybe the EV1 pack shown maybe was the original lead acid packs, but even those were 18.7kwh. Giving Lutz the benefit of the doubt maybe he meant to say 26kwh but was confused because he had Volt on the brain and it’s 16kwh pack (surely he didn’t mean deliberately try to pass them both off as 16kwh packs to exaggerate the difference in size of the EV1 and Volt battery packs)?

On top of that of course what he completely ignores usable capacity of the two packs and only mentions raw capacity…. the Volt’s 16kwh pack of course only uses 50%, or 8kwh, or it’s capacity. I don’t know the actual usable capacity of the EV1’s 26.4kwh NiMH pack, but I think it’s closer to 100% from what I’ve read (recharge time to go from 0% SOC to 100% SOC was 6-8 hours).

It doesn’t mean that the Li-ion packs aren’t smaller and lighter compared to NiMH, because they are… so there is no need for GM or Lutz to compare the two packs as apples to apples when it’s not.

And never mind the misinformation regarding the sales of the EV1…. (GM never offered them for sale, so obviously they sold zero of them as Lutz said)…. or the fact that demand far exceeded supply, etc.
Jeff M Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Another thing I remember from the interview…. when Lutz was showing Rose the front of the car, he pointed out that they have a fake grill on the front so it looks like a Chevy….

Personally I don’t want a vehicle that looks like a Chevy or any other GM vehicle… what I would recommend is no painted on grill look… it would look way cooler to have the car show that it has no grill… that it’s a new bread of cars, make it clear it doesn’t need it (a front grill).
David Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

They could easily use something like ceramic insulative paint / coating to insulate the battery container (if needed). Could use solar cells in the roof to heat/cool the pack as needed as a supliment to using the battery pack itself.
Firefly Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

#95 Omegaman66

Flattery will get you nowhere…

with normal people…I couldn’t have typed it better myself. I’m glad that someone here understands my point. Why gripe? This car will obviously have things that don’t appeal to everyone’s liking. Having said that, one could say the same about every other car on earth. But I have been wrong before…
Koz Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Lots of talk on this thread about Cd and missing benchmarks, etc. Lyle quotes .27-.28 and other posters list .28-.29. Realistically, it could be 100 and not matter as long as AER and MPG meet their goals. Obviously not possible with 100 but the point is Cd by itself is not a meaningful goal. Perhaps they didn’t stray as far from the design concept as some have thought. Keep in mind it is CdA that affects aero drag. The Volts A may be enough less to make the Volts CdA less than the Prius. This is certainly possibly since the Prius has a relatively high roof and the Volt will be low slung.

On a negative note, even if they meet 40 miles AER, that would certainly not be for driving 75mph. So, the AER in these conditions will lose out with the higher Cd.
Rashiid Amul Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

#95 Omegaman66

Point taken.
DaveP Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

#81 canehdian:
Just to add another thought. Does the fuel formulation change between the summer/winter where you are? That can have an impact, too.

One more offbeat thought… The air density and stoichiometry may be at play, too. If your car is normally aspirated then in the cold more oxygen will enter each cylinder and in order to keep a 3-way catalytic converter operating efficiently more gas must be used to offset the increased oxygen. (Basically, you can’t have much extra gas OR oxygen leave the cylinder for the 3-way catalyst to operate). So, if your air temp is REALLY cold it might also be contributing to your poor winter mileage.

Just a thought. Don’t really know. Personally, I like #84 Aspherical’s tire explanation, best, myself.

What were we writing about? Oh, yeah, Cd. My 1996 Eclipse GSX has a .29 cd and I personally think that is a hot car. It’s not terribly practical or comfortable, but it’s low drag gives it a drag-limited top speed of about 145 on just 210 hp. If it had an electric drivetrain like the \Volt, it would be very quiet on the freeway as there is little wind noise (the current drivetrain sounds like someone is torturing the squirrels, I’m afraid).
So, I think I will like the low drag of the \Volt if for nothing more than to be able to have a really, really silent driving experience. (All the better to listen to that killowatt stereo powered off that 6 miles of charge they reclaimed.

And for those asking for a \Volt SS, I’d really prefer a \Volt “syclone” with another motor on the rear wheels.
ttommy Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:35 pm

A CD of .27-.28 sounds like a mistake to me.

Personally, I’m guessing the production design (and many other cars) might eventually end up looking a lot like the ESX3 diesel-electric hybrid that Chrysler created 8 years ago. It’s CD of only .22 helped it get 72 MPG.

http://www.autoweb.com.au/cms/A_52172/title_ESX3-Next-Generation-Family-Car/newsarticle.html

Personally, I prefer the Volt concept, but the ESX3 isn’t nearly as fugly as a Prius.

And David, I don’t get your comment about painting the battery; since the battery generates its own heat, the last thing you’d want to do is insulate it, no? And I seriously doubt solar cells can generate any significant amounts of power. At best, I think they’d only be useful to add a little bit of charge whenver you could park the car in the sun for a few hours.
Reginald Wintworth Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Are You Kidding Me !
This has got to be a typo or misspoken words.
A Honda Element or Nissan Cube has a better CoD than .28 !!!
This just cannot be correct.
This will not help the Volt in any way shape or form.
We need some urgent clarification on this issue.
I am sure the EV-1 had much better than this.
Every dawn brings on a new ERROR.
Wilson Livermore Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

.28 does not sound good. Something is wrong here.
Sonic Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:49 pm

It must be that fake closed grill. I am sure it is a contributing factor. Something needs to be done quick.
bruce g Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

“it was VP Jon Lauckner who added the range extender idea, as Lutz initially wanted a pure electric.”

Well..
As some of us sadly find out, the best ways to get things done is to convince someone more important that your idea is really their idea.
It seems to work and I am pleased that these gentlemen think that e-flex was their idea.

And it is a great idea!
Cindy McCainless Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

They must have used the wrong claydoh model to get those ridiculous numbers. If I remember correctly the old EV1 was below .2
bruce g Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

I wouldnt mind betting the Detroit Electric had a cd of about 0.28, it certainly is thin, but arguably excessively upright.
http://www.detroitelectric.org/
Brad Brickenhouse Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:06 pm

The Volt may not be a brick, but it sounds like it is at least half brick. I thought they used a wind tunnel to test scale models with. Maybe they never got around to testing the actual full size car yet. I sure hope so.
pauln Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

This 1921 Rumpler was tested in a modern windtunnel and has a Cd of .27

http://tinyurl.com/5whjmn
John Glenn Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Who went to lunch during the aeronautic testing of this vehicle ? Heads need to roll on this one.
bruce g Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Pauln,
That car is a work of beauty.
I guess the message is a car should look like a racing yacht.

lol
Tom Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

Between .27 and .28 ???
That can’t be right.
A Ham Sandwich can do better.
Bruce M Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

To y’all Volt fans out there.

Prepare for a _BIG_ disappointment!

Bwahahahahaa!
Spin Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

I am sure that Lutz misstated the CD. He has misstated numbers before. Those of you that attended Volt Nation probably remember him stating that the Volts 0-60 time would be about 7 seconds. About 10 minutes before that, Weber said it would be about 8 seconds.
omegaman66 Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Bang… bang… that is the sound of GM engineers and managers commiting suicide. Why? Because they had a big board meeting were the decision was made to give the GM-Volt.com readers what they asked for… a Volt that looks alot like the concept Volt even if they have to sacrifice a little on the aerodynamics, since the readers here have said that looks is very important. Now that they gave us what we asked for we attack them!!! Bang.. bang… there go a couple more.
jabroni Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Wow, what a liar Lutz is. He claims that they couldn’t give the EV1 away. What? And he said the lease was for 300 bucks a month. WRONG, it was 599, then 499…

It is extremely difficult to believe anything he says due to his never ending mendacities…
Ricky Constanza Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

In the video Bob Lutz said GM wants to leapfrog the competition and then some. With a .27 you are not going to be leapfrogging much. If this is true he may start being known as Minimum Bob.
jabroni Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Omegaman 66:

This is a quote from yourself that happens to be TRUTH. There is no doubting the success of the Toyota RAV4 EV’s NiMH battery pack.

“Why don’t they use a proven technology like NIMH? How stupid.”
Roy Tarpley Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

They must be testing with the tarp still on.
Michael Brodenbacher Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:50 pm

They may need a wedge or cone shape in the front to knock those numbers down some. Or maybe the wind tunnel just needs to be calibrated. Also, I would look at modifying that spoiler, it needs to be much larger in my opinion. Whatever they do it needs to be done fast because final lock down on the design is mid september, after that no more changes will be allowed.
Dave G Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

#66 maharguitar Says: “From my understanding of the history, Lutz wanted to build an all electric car after hearing about the Tesla.”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, the way I hear the story, Lutz was already trying to get GM to do an electric car for a year or two, and the rest of the GM execs weren’t listening, or said it would never work. So when Tesla announced the Roadster, Lutz went ballistic saying “if a little startup like Tesla can do it, then GM can certainly do it”. So Tesla did help Lutz make the Volt a reality, but Lutz was pushing the idea before anyone knew about Tesla.

In addition, Lutz reportedly had a meeting with the guys from Tesla, and told them about the Volt. Now Tesla plans for their 3rd model $30K family sedan(Bluestar) to be a range extended electric vehicle (they call it REEV). So the influence seems to work both ways…
NOMAD Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

#104 Reginald

ERROR DETECTED!
Must sterilize in case of typing error
Error is inconsistent with my prime functions.
Sterilization is correction.
Everything that is in error must be sterilized.
There are no exceptions.
Faulty!
Faulty!
Analyze … error …
Must … sterilize.
Robert Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm

A blind man could see that this car will not be cutting through the wind very well. They should have spent more time analyzing birds and planes to come up with a better shape if CD is really as important as they seem to make it out to be. I personally think weight is more important.
Statik Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

#68 Firefly:

“What’s up, Statik? How’s everything up there north of the border?”

Pretty good. Unfortunately every able bodied man now has to put in 10 hours a week working on our giant fence on the border to keep the Americans from coming up and stealing our jobs and getting our free drugs.

#95 &#117 omegaman66

I know what you are saying and yes, we are a little harsh (mostly me, lol) and more often than not, unhappy. C’est la vie. You have to live with us being negative, and we have to live with you on the flip side. It’s all good, all part of the ‘online community’

However, it was GM that rolled out the Volt and said, “Here it is, it’s going to be virtually identical to the concept, get 40 miles electric, have a 640 mile range and it’s going to cost comfortably under 30K.” It’s not really my problem they were either outright lying or unbelievably incompetant. They put the standard up, I am holding them to it.

I’m the customer…I’m GM’s customer, I have a new GM car in my driveway and it’s the 5th new GM car I have bought in 10 years, they need to sell customer’s like me.

Personally, I have never asked for a feature that was not offered in the show car, or any upgrades…just merely to deliver what they promised, on time and on budget.

I think if they did what they said they were going to do, and the only ‘but’ was it was only going to get 35 miles at ‘end of life’ instead of 40, (it would still get 40+ on initial possesion), we’d be ok with it…or at least been able to get over it a year ago.

So, I’ll keep crabbing everytime something is dropped, or a timeline is missed…I will also eat crow when GM outperforms my expectations happily. Hopefully you will be along for this long ride to keep me honest, hehe.

/salut
Paul Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

I’m hoping for color adjustable LED interior lighting.
I don’t care what the outside looks like, I tend to drive from the inside most of the time.
And…..
Toys!!! Lots of toys! And touch screen displays! And a “GEEK” setting on the displays so we can watch all the engineering parameters that the GM geeks (respectfully stated of course) get to look at when they are doing their cloaked, real world testing. You know, that time when Brenda Pritty will be hunting you down in Death Valley for those elusive first pictures. :O)

Rock on GM….
Rock on….
ThomC Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

e-Flex Corvette

This thread is all over the place, so, what the hell…

When the e-Flex architecture has pulled GM out of the financial swamps and GM can afford to start playing again, I’d like to see “the next Corvette” using a high-performance version of the e-Flex architecture. GM’s got so many really neat toys in their closets:

1) e-Flex with a flat-six diesel (bio-diesel?) range extender (aluminium cylinder and crankcase). The engine would be mid-mounted behind the passenger seats. The batteries would be in sills on either side of the passenger compartment. Forget AER, I’m looking for high performance.

2) All-wheel-drive through four electric motors, each dedicated to a wheel, driving through tubular axles. Dynamic distribution of power based on weight distribution, axial and lateral G forces, slip-rates (i.e. traction control), etc.

3) All plastic body & chassis. Back in 1973, GM had what is probably the coolest chassis ever created. It was an ALL fiberglass two-seat sports car that bore a striking resemblance to the C4 Corvette. The body/chassis panels were made out of a sandwich of inner and outer fiberglass panels bonded together with expanding foam (like the foam insulation in cans trade-named “Great Stuff”). The hard points for drivetrain and suspension components were bolted to steel plates that were bonded into the plastic body. Other than the attacment points, there was NO STEEL in the chassis.

The principle reason for building the car was to explore the crash worthiness of such a body. Occupants of an XP-898 were anticipated to be able to survive a 50 mph crash (in 1973). In addition, crash damage to an XP-898 would be localized to the impact point. This is in contrast to a steel frame where the impact’s kinetic energy is transported through the steel until it hits a pinch point, causing damage romote from the impact point.

Car & Driver magazine did an article on the XP-898 in the early ’70s and the GM engineer told the journalist that they had put road racing tires on the car and ran it to 1 lateral G on the skidpad to determine how much the chassis would flex. As I recall, the engineer related that story to the journalist while they were in the car on a skid pad with the journalist pinned to the door

Wish List
GVW – 1800 to 2200 lbs
Power to Weight ratio: 1 hp to (6-8 lbs)
Total HP at the wheels – 180-220 hp
Electric-only range – 20 miles
Total range – 200-250 miles
Lateral G force – In excess of 1 G
0-60 mph – Less than 5 seconds
60-0 braking distance – Less than 130 ft
Cd – .20 to .24

XP-898 links
GMNext Wiki page about XP-898
http://wiki.gmnext.com/wiki/index.php/1973_Chevrolet_XP-898_Concept_Car

Photo of XP-989 (in a parking lot! its a real car!)
http://motortrend.automotive.com/32983/112-0608-2006-woodward-dream-cruise/photos1-0.html

Discussion of XP-898 fabrication techniques… note the isometric drawing of the chassis & major body components in the lower right corner of the page.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4PZxakNhjT0C&pg=PA350&lpg=PA350&dq=xp-898&source=web&ots=kT6Ip62g5j&sig=XxVITL4vZYB8ugs9UUegDdB0kwI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result
Lurtz Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Dear GM:

I second ThomC’s (#128) wishlist.

Except cross everything off and just make a good plug-in hybrid electric car like you’re planning. Thanks!
Dave G Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

#96 Jeff M Says: “…he shows the EV1’s NiMH pack and says it’s a 16kwh pack… however the EV1’s NiMH pack was 26.4kwh, off by a whopping 10.4kwh…”
————————————————————————————–
Actually, the EV1 pack shown was Lead Acid, 16KWh.

660 Generation One EV1s were produced for the 1997 model year. These all used the 16KWh Lead Acid batteries.

GM later built 457 Generation Two EV1s (1999 model year) with nickel metal hydride batteries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev1
Dave G Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:35 pm

#120 jabroni,

There are 3 problems with NiMH batteries:

First, a 16KWh NiMH pack would be about twice as big and twice as heavy as the Volt’s Li/Ion pack.

Second, NiMH batteries have a significant issue with self discharge. For example, if you leave you car parked somewhere away from a plug for a month or so, a NiMH battery will have lost it’s charge.

Third, and most important, Chevron now owns the patents for NiMH, and they won’t let anyone build NiMH batteries for cars that don’t use gas. We can blame GM for that, but it’s water under the bridge…
JonP Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

For the battery experts:

If the Volt will have a AER of 40 miles, and the generator will kick on at around 15-20% SOC.

What would the actual range of the Volts battery be if you drove it on electric till it sputtered out? (winded down??? i guess)

Assuming normal landscape and driving conditions.

My reason for asking is i’m sure there will be guys “cracking” the software code, and “chipping” the car to use every ounce of battery power before firing the ICE. How does the generators output compared to the batteries draw play into how low you can discharge the battery. Also i think i remember some discussion on Li-ion saying that if you fully drain a li-ion cell it degrates alot faster.

CD is mute to me at this point, it has been thouroughly over opinionated in this thread.
JonP Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

PS:

Did you guys see the post i made in the comments under the video on the Charlie Rose site.

What did you think, how did i do?
I felt like it was important to be informational as possible, since readers of that post will have alot more questions than the readers of this forum.
It’s #8 from the bottom under the name Jon Phillips

To all of you make it a point to “inform” the public about the volt as much as possible, and give as much detail as possible. Particularly on sites like that where it will be seen by a far greater number of non-volt followers. Also it dosen’t hurt to mention GM-volt.com either.
Dave G Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

#132 JonP asks: “If the Volt will have a AER of 40 miles, and the generator will kick on at around 15-20% SOC.

What would the actual range of the Volts battery be if you drove it on electric till it sputtered out? (winded down??? i guess)”
————————————————————————————–
The Volt’s ICE generator actually turns on at 35% SOC. The changing port turns off when the battery reaches 85% SOC. So the Volt normally only uses 50% of the battery’s available 16KWh, or 8KWh to go 40 miles.

So if you ran out of gas or had engine problems, the 35% SOC remaining in the battery would drive you about 28 miles.

Note that if the battery drains significantly below 35% on a regular basis, then it will wear out much sooner. Anyone that cracks the software and runs down their battery will void their warranty and have to pay $10,000 for a new battery. Not very smart.
Dave G Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 9:05 pm

#132 JonP asks: “How does the generators output compared to the batteries draw play into how low you can discharge the battery.”
————————————————————————————–
If you accelerate or go fast uphill, the gas engine output will not be enough and the batteries will drain. But note that you can’t accelerate or go fast uphill forever. So acceleration and going up hills represent the peak horsepower which the remainging battery charge can handle in limited bursts. The gas engine is only required to output average horsepower. This is part of the beauty of the series hybrid design.

As for battery drain, the worst case scenario is if your daily commute has one or more very long, very steep mountain grades. In this case, your battery will probably wear out faster than the 10-year, 150,000 mile warranty, and GM will have to replace it at their expense. But how many people’s daily commute has one or more very long, very steep mountain grades? Statistically, this is not a problem for GM.
Will Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

I just watched the entire video and loved it. Many people here have some negative things to post about the CD of .27-.28, but that really doesn’t upset me at all. The goal was never to have a CD that beat the CD of a Prius. The goal was ALWAYS to have a CD that allowed a 16Kwh Li-ion battery to propel the car 40 miles. They have achieved that.

Again there are people posting that the original Volt concept is constantly under attack, and I disagree with that as well. They made it public knowledge that the concept was not what the production car would look like. Didn’t Lutz say the concept would have done better in the wind tunnel if it was put in backwards?

GM is not compromising, or cutting, or underdelivering on anything. What they are doing is making sure that they DO deliver on the 40 mile AER at a reasonable price.

Remember, this car is already a $35,000 ride. Possibly $40,000. The battery alone costs 10 grand. If they make a bigger battery to power the concept the full 40 miles, that’ll make it a 45 or 50K car. Somehow I think GM wants to ensure that they can actually sell the thing (in mass quantities), and unless they keep it in a reasonable price range, that won’t happen.

Once again, I’m absolutely thrilled that the Volt has come so far. I can’t wait to put my money down come Nov 2010.
Talks Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

I think Bob is bluffing on coef of drag.
After all this hardwork and sacrificing the grill, coef of drag worse than competition (Prius 0.26 and Civic Hybrid 0.27) ?

It just can’t be.. I think he just don’t want to reveal it to the competition. Looking at the shape of the car and the modifications explained by Boniface, I suspect coef of drag to be around 0.25.
mikeinatl. Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Just watched the whole interview.
Great stuff.

Lutz understand how important the emotional reaction to the car is to its success in the marketplace.

I strongly believe the car will look and feel like a $35,000 car if not better. He is betting the ranch on that. And its a very big ranch.

Lets not get too attached to the look of the concept car. It could not deliver the car’s primary purpose.
We have not yet seen a real VOLT. I think when we do, most of us will like it. Lutz is driven to make that happen and has had many years of success at it.

What is introduced with be just the first of a long line of EV’s that will eventually take many exciting shapes.

Looking forward to the September intro.
Mike Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 9:43 pm

If the new Volt design looks like a civic then I would have gladly given up 5 miles on the range to drive a car that looks like the original concept. Especially if this thing’s gonna cost mid to high 30’s. And seriously, I better get leather for $35k too which is way over my budget anyway.

I have a sneaking fear that they’re trying to roll out an electric civic and then upgrade to the electric camaro 4 years later.

Hoping I’m wrong,
Mike
Whistleteeth Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Frankly I would rather of had the bigger battery pack and an all electric vehicle with a shorter range, but then I never fit the mold.
George K Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

#95 omegaman66
“If you can’t beat them… join them.”

At first I reacted negatively to your negativity. Then I became positive that your negativity was indeed positive.
Jeffhre Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Don’t you wish Lutz would have slipped to the floor with a loud “whoops” and pulled the whole cover from the Volt!

All these negative vibes and they’re hitting all their benchmarks. What would everyone say if they were failing? Look there are 37,000 opinions of what’s good and important in the Volt. Folks this isn’t a custom car and it’s not a 15k econobox. And it’s not a combination of both plus a Prius killer priced like used Civic. Lighten up, stop killing your braincells and hardening your arteries.

Jeez tough crowd.
Grizzly Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Talks Says #7

“The black packs that were placed side by side (around 4) appear
to be from Continental (not CPI). Looks like they have
coated the chrome color ones them with some black color. I have analyzed the shape of those batteries closely and I feel they are definitely from Conti/A123. Also the black glossy finish is different on
CPI batteries.”

*** *** ***

My first reaction with my paleontological 32″ CRT TV was that it was a “no brainer” that CPI won the contract. All I saw from start to finish were “black packs”. Lutz made it clear a month ago in his T-shirt w/water bottle that basically this thing has been decided. I find it interesting that you have evidence that there has been some camouflaging of the packs. I’d certainly like to hear more and will definitely review this again in digital since this link was captured in digi, but I’ve only reviewed it on my analog TV.

Can you please be more specific?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUcJ921tNg
canehdian Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

#85, Jeff
“because it will be more dense when you fill up, so each gallon will actually have more fuel. I’m guessing though that you’d still pay for it in such climates as the stations would factor that into the price”

They’re way ahead of you on that one. They figured out the cold = more dense thing a ways back – all the pumps say right on them: “volume corrected to 15c”

AFAIK the gas formula stays the same for winter except for Petro Canada – they do “Winter Gas”, But I don’t buy from them. (Maybe I should? Lol)

It may very well be a combination of tires, air, gas, engine – everything, really. I can’t really be bothered to test. All I know is the volt should perform better at least
Grizzly Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

kent beuchert Says # 35

“I had never heard Lutz speak before and was quite impressed by his intelligence and wit. He’s obviously ahead of Charlie Rose in both departments – he could easily handle a show of his own. I didn’t expect his mental abilities. Makes those 50 year younger greenies look pretty senile, or should I say, childish.”

*** *** ***

One of the points he makes that Rick Wagoner reinforces is the economics of producing cars. The point speaks long and hard not only to the enviro-nuts that chide GM about the Ev-1 but those that criticize GM for being the purveyor of large cumbersome SUVs. I thought the commentary was true and to the point and I’ve got to say it’s quite in line with the arguments I’ve been making for quite some time on this site.
I thought this was a very good CR segment and the second half with Bob Lutz covers the Volt quite extensively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUcJ921tNg
Bobstar Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 10:59 pm

Voltme @#46.

My vote would be a resounding “NO!!!” I would not give up 5 miles AER to get a Volt that looked like the concept.

I don’t understand the mindset of most posters on this site.

I don’t want a car that looks like the concept. I liked the “concept” (40 mile AER, range extender). I did not like the look of the concept car. It reminds me of the ghastly huge bricks, like the Corvette looked like in the late 60s/early 70s. Overpowered, gas-guzzling, bricks.

Give me a car that looks fast, elegant and sleek. Not large, lumbering and HUGE!
Talks Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

#143 Grizzly..

Watch the below video and pause it when the remaining time is 1:44.
You can clearly see the flattened edges of the battery , dull and non-uniform coating with some black color which definitely appears to be some type of camouflaging. Actual CPI packs are glossy and doesn’t have flattened edges, only the Conti’s pack have flattened edges. Just look at some high resolution Contis and CPI packs that
were posted many times in our website, you will see flattened edges only on Contis Packs. Hope this helps.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5545196
Gary Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 12:00 am

125 Robert: “They should have spent more time analyzing birds and planes to come up with a better shape”

If that happened, we would be getting another ridiculous looking three-wheeled Aptera clone. There are enough people who don’t want to drive a Smart car or Prius because of how it looks… I’d hate to see how it would fare in the marketplace if one wheel was taken away.
Talks Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 12:59 am

Off topic:

Go to the below link and watch the video, you can see design of
the large format LG Chem/CPI individial Cell. Its nothing like what we were shown earlier.

http://engineeringtv.com/blogs/etv/archive/2008/05/20/lithium-ion-electric-race-car.aspx
Ryan P Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 1:43 am

Yes, this is “profoundly disappointing”. My 2000 Chrysler Concorde LXi has a CD of 0.26
I’m not a fan of lumbering bricks, nor of “jelly bean cars” either. What I do want is for form to follow function, without ending up with another Aptera.
stopcrazypp Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 2:10 am

#150 Ryan P
“Yes, this is “profoundly disappointing”. My 2000 Chrysler Concorde LXi has a CD of 0.26″
I found 0.29 for the 2000 Chrysler Concorde LXi, and 0.31 for the newer Concordes, so you might want to check your numbers.

I don’t get why everyone is still so “disappointed” by the CD. GM never really put up a CD target for the Volt, and as others mentioned the only real goal was to get the CD down for 40 miles AER. They are doing that while keeping the looks as close to concept as possible. .27-.28 is already VERY VERY close to the competition (civic hybrid is .27 and prius is .26 as mentioned), even assuming Lutz wasn’t just guessing. As long as the car looks good compared to the civic & prius (both of them look wierd in shape b/c of changes to get higher CD), a slightly higher CD isn’t a problem, esp considering that the Volt might have a small frontal area given the car overall is lower.
NZDavid Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 5:38 am

Volt engineer “Hi Mr Lutz, we have the final Cd from the wind testing programme it’s 0.275.
Maximum Bob Great, is that better than the Prius?
Volt engineer No sir, the Prius is 0.26
Maximum Bob Not good enough, I want it to be at least 0.25 if not lower.
Volt engineer OK sir, but, we won’t be able to make the November 2010 production deadline if we do that.
Maximum Bob As I was saying, 0.275 is fine with me. What is it about November 2010 you don’t understand?

Statik
MARKETING was in charge of the CONCEPT Volt & its performance/cost figures.

ENGINEERING is in charge of the PRODUCTION Volt and its performance/cost figures.

It’s all Lyle’s fault really. Without him the Volt might have died a quiet death & marketing would not have been caught out lying.
NZDavid Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 5:55 am

Does Hyundai & Honda count as major manufacturers?
Still, not Plug in though, so does not count for me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN2048157320080820?sp=true
MarkinWI Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 6:47 am

For those who can’t read 150 posts – Summary of Posts:

(1) Many posts complained about the cd, because the cd number is so critical, but more than 1/2 of these got the cd number wrong.

(2) CD v. Cool was summed up at #150 by Ryan P. who said: give me low cd, but don’t let it look like low cd. No jelly beans, no space ships. Me want cake, me want eat it too.

(3) Statik finds the glass 1/2 full. Shocking.

(4) Whose packs are those? Good question. Doesn’t rule out the possibility that GM will buy from more than one supplier.

Next article please, Lyle.
BillR Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 6:49 am

Given the fact that the Volt is no longer a concept but destined to be a production car, I believe we will no longer get as much accurate technical data and answers from GM as before.

Therefore, I do not believe the concept car had a Cd of 0.43, but probably more like 0.34. The new Camaro SS (which looks somewhat similar to the concept Volt) has a Cd of 0.35.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/22/chevrolet-camaro-ss-laps-the-ring-in-8-20/3

Now if we believe Bob Boniface’s numbers that they have taken 120 points (.120) off the Cd, we arrive at a Cd of 0.22 for the production Volt, similar to the Chrysler ESX3 (thanks to ttommy #103).

Maybe for lower speed driving in the urban driving cycle, a 10 point reduction adds 0.55 miles of AER, but for highway driving, this should be more significant. See the attached link for the EV1.

http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf

Since drag is proportional to velocity squared, by examining the EV1’s drag at 45 mph and 60 mph, we should be able to corelate the linear component of drag (rolling resistance) from the exponential component (aerodynamic drag). Having done this, it appears that over 90% of the drag is aerodynamic!

The EV1 had a CdA of 3.95 ft^2. The Volt is slightly wider and higher, and with a Cd of 0.22 has an estimated CdA of 5.0. This is a nominal 25% increase. Therefore, since the EV1 required 168 Wh/mile at 60 mph, the Volt would need about 210. However, the EV1 had NiMH batteries, older power electronics, induction motor, and a double gear reduction. The Volt has more efficient Li-Ion batteries, modern power electronics, a permanent magnet motor, and a single gear reduction. I will assume a 10% increase in overall powertrain efficiency.

Therefore, at 60 mph, I will estimate the Volt to require 190 Wh/mile. For the usable 8 kWh in the battery pack, this equates to 42 miles AER.

Since the drag at these speeds is almost all aerodynamic, the effect of going from a Cd of .22 to .34 would be a nominal 50% increase in drag. Therefore, the AER would be reduced from 42 to 28 miles. This equates to 1.25 miles of added range for every 10 points of aerodynamic drag that is reduced.

This is why the original concept vehicle had to be made more aerodynamic.
Statik Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 7:15 am

#154 MarkinWI

For those who can’t read 150 posts – Summary of Posts:

(3) Statik finds the glass 1/2 full. Shocking
—I bring balance to the force…

————————
(1) Many posts complained about the cd, because the cd number is so critical, but more than 1/2 of these got the cd number wrong.

I’d like to take a moment and pat myself on the back…for TWO things:

A) most importantly – noticing Bob and his pink tie…again (post #17)
B) for pointing out the the cd number in the article was wrong (post #34)

/cookie please
Statik Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 7:40 am

Speaking of cd/aerodynamics as it relates to working out the Volt’s range (either concept or prototype):

I actually finally took the time to ‘learn the math,’ to be a little more educated on it, however once I did, I came to a big roadblock it actually trying to work out the numbers when it comes to expected ranges. (not so much comparitively of course)

How can we start to do the math when we are trying to work out ‘end of 10 year range’ range, when we have no end of range data on the lab tests themselves. It seems like it is a ‘cart before the horse’ type of scenario…GM must be facig the same issue.

I believe they said they only had 17,000 bench miles on the constant run battery in the lab…thats 340 days at ‘maximum’ use.

Allowing for 40 mins driving at 60mph (and a lets give out a ambitious estimate of 8 hours to fully charge). GM would need to run the bench test for 31,655 hours straight(8.6hrs x 3652.5 days—allowing for 2.5 leap year days, lol) or 1,318 days (3.61 years) to get a accurate 1 charge per day/maximum usage baseline…and that test would be flawed due to the unrealistic nature of the test.

At first I realized saying people will drive over 40 miles per days is improbable, but then thought many may commute near or over 40 miles one way to work…and will recharge it again during the day. Under that scenario, those customers would charge even more aggressively.

This is actually one of the things I am not too concerned about, but I thought it was interesting. I have yet to own a car for more than 4 years personally, (other than the ones my business runs into the ground…and a Stealth Twin Turbo in ‘92 I had for about 6) so odds are my Volt will be flipped in 4-5 years tops…the residual should be hella good!

I don’t think they can reasonable factor ‘end of range’ mileage…either in capacity or physically how well the pack hold up over that period of time. I think maybe they are just putting as much load on it as they can, and as fast as they can to try and extrapolate their best guess.
BillR Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am

Statik,

GM can accelerate battery testing by performing their tests at higher temperature. Listen to the podcast with engineers Turner and Matthe at the attached link:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/07/the-april-2008-chevy-volt-update-a-visit-to-the-battery-systems/

Essentially, at higher temperatures, battery life is shortened by a known factor. By performing tests at these temperatures, the batteries will last for fewer cycles, but then this data can be extrapolated back to expected life at normal temperatures.

Hope this helps.
mitch Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 8:22 am

Statik..I believe you went beyond your self imposed 5 posts.

#95..second last line you forgot to add”how stupid” (how stupid lol)

#136 RIGHT ON> (See mine at #59)

#154 sub line 3..hilarious!!

ALL.

What matter the CD.. they could likely get it to be 0.1 but you will drive something that looks like a wedge of cheese and you whine cuz you love the concept version.
..and you will wine (mis spell intented), or it is .27 and looks cool!!

WHo the HELL CARES?!?! micro analyzing numbers from an exec (NOT the ENGINEERS) who may or may not be correct (Look through all the posts for all the criticism of Mr. Lutz’s accuracy) and you can agree that you are quibbling over dog drool…its MEANINGLESS!!!

I want a volt that gets 40miles (60km) AER, and bout 400 miles (600Km) overall and looks cool (think NOT prius) and I don’t are if a ham sandwich has a better CD,

Think about it folks IF GM NEVER told you the CD, and met the 40 aer and LOOKS cool would you complain? likely not..

If they said the CD is 0.2, better than a prius, but it looks NOTHING like the concept..would you buy it? LIkely NOT..

Quit your whining….all this..”My god that CD certainly is dissappointing..take me off the list” crap is friggin nauseating..like you care…the VOLT made us passionate because it looked COOL!!! not because it rolled on stage with a big friggin neon sign flashing “CD=0.2!!”

get your head out if it and like the song from one on Canada’s BEST rock trio’s ever (Triumph) “Follow your heart!!”
MetrologyFirst Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 10:05 am

Mitch @ 159:

If GM never told us 40 AER and produced a near concept styled Volt that gave us 35, would you have still bought it?

Of course.

The only reason this argument exists is that GM told us 40 AER upfront. That was their mistake. That is the number that a lot of people are clinging to and are using to judge the Volt a success or failure.

As someone said a while back, many here are becoming the very beancounters that we all say we dispise.
TED in Fort Myers Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 10:16 am

I don’t care what the numbers say get me one of those first few hundred on the road next year.
Take Care,
TED
MikeD Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am

.27 to .28? the 2009 Audi A4 will have a .29. What have they been doing in the wind tunnel for so long? Is that all the better they can do after all this talk of aerodynamic efficiency? Wow, disappointing.
mitch Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 10:50 am

#160.

No Aurgument from me.For me the 40 AER is more than I need..I bike to work right now only 7km.

Thing is GM gave 40 as a benchmark they would meet, and many here will hold them to it

My point of the post is because a LOT of posters in theis thread are moaning how bad the CD is…WHO CARES? that is not something that made you love this car!!

it could have the CD of a ham sammich but if it LOOKS COOL, and has the 40 AER..they have a winner.

If they have 40 AER, and a CD of .1 but looks like a prius..then it is an EPIC FAIL. (and I doubt that many moaning her about the CD would buy it either even though they got their wish of great CD!!)

as stated in #59..the only CD number I care about is 6, with an in dash changer and a killer sound system.

I agree that with a 35 AER, hell even a 20 AER and COOL LOOKS and I would still buy it.

It was the LOOK that hooked us, not the CD that soooo many are crying about…(and whining, moaning etc…) you didn’t know, you didn’t care, you saw the concept and wanted one…because it LOOKS COOL!!!

Go Volt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW ted..I think you are getting a wee bit ansy here..I think that you posted you want one of the first hundere in every thread this wekkLOL..know how you feel man
Statik Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am

#159 Mitch

“Statik..I believe you went beyond your self imposed 5 posts.”

Yeah, that was for my ‘hiatus’ days…unfortunately for the board, it seems with me blowing over yesturday I am back on the regular schedule.

/enjoy
pauln Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 11:41 am

Here’s what most of you don’t quite get about how important a low aerdynamic drag is: the Volt may get a 40 mile AER, but at what speed/driving cycle??? That’s the critical issue.

Higher highway speeds take the toll on an EV disproportionately so. It’s already clear that at continous 70 mph the Volt’s range is likely well down in the 20’s or so.

You may get 40 mile AER, but you better be ready to brush up on your “high efficiency” driving skills. Hit the freeway and be prepared to see that range melt, DEPENDING on the aerodynamic drag. That’s why it’s so important: Real world driving vs. GM’s 40 mile AER claim. KInda’ like the old EPA mileage numbers.
dagwood55 Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 11:45 am

Dave G.: “Actually, the way I hear the story, Lutz was already trying to get GM to do an electric car for a year or two, and the rest of the GM execs weren’t listening, or said it would never work. So when Tesla announced the Roadster, Lutz went ballistic saying “if a little startup like Tesla can do it, then GM can certainly do it”. So Tesla did help Lutz make the Volt a reality, but Lutz was pushing the idea before anyone knew about Tesla.”

I have heard this before and believe parts are true…

You’ll never get me to believe that Lutz was so forward thinking as to be pushing an EV or hybrid in 2003/4. And he was their Car Czar, so, if he pushed it, why didn’t it happen?

Of course, what this episode actually reveals about GM as a whole is more interesting… Toyota’s multi-billion-dollar commitment to hybrids, their appearance in JDM in production in 1997, their arrival here, courtesy of Honda in 1999 and the FIFTEEN THOUSAND CARS PER MONTH THAT TOYOTA WAS SELLING IN THE U.S. BY LATE 2004 DIDN’T WAKE ANYBODY AT GM UP BUT THE PROSPECT OF TESLA SELLING A FEW DOZEN CARS PER YEAR BROUGHT GM TO BATTLE STATIONS.

In other words, what the heck is wrong with GM? And why are the guys who were running it in 2004 still running it today?
CDAVIS Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm

______________________________________________________
Mr. Charlie Rose,
You did a very professional (honest) job in interviewing Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Lutz so as to put the VOLT program and GM into balanced context. Thank you for adding visibility to the very important VOLT program.

Mr. Lutz,
Great interview; two thumbs up! Thank you for the VOLT.

Lyle,
Thanks for making that Charlie Rose interview available on GM-VOLT.com. You are doing a great job keeping this blog interesting each day; I know that is not an easy task. Please make the Lutz pink necktie (w/ VOLT logo) available in your VOLT GEAR store.

General Observation: I could tell Charlie Rose is genuinely pumped up about the VOLT program. A media guy like Rose being excited over the VOLT program is an indicator of just how much potential the VOLT has in capturing America’s attention. I’m very pumped up after watching the interviews!
______________________________________________________
Mr. T Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm

The pack’s in the video at the 1:44 mark are all CPI.
Steel Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm

#165

I am fairly sure everyone who can grasp the concept already understands how important Cd.

In fact, Cd is not even the thing that determines soley how much drag the car will experience.

But in the end, Cd is not the thing that will make people buy a car.
Its the balance of cost of with usage. A little more range (due to lower Cd and A) of the Honda Insight didn’t make it a market success compared to the Prius. The Prius won because it offered the utility that people needed.

I agree Chevy could have done better with the Cd, but until I see the final dimensions, capabilities and Specs (including Cd), I think its a bit premature to be roasting them that they couldn’t acchieve a certain Cd.
jan Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 2:46 pm

#167 CDavis
Charlie Rose has mentioned repeated on his show his investment in Kleiner Perkins (KP) the Silicon Valley VC, perhaps the Venture Capital Co. that created the Silicon Valley, so to speak. I think KP has money in A123, Tesla & EEStor among money others. Charlie’s interest in the Volt no doubt has many levels to it. I’m kind of wondering what company is going to buy GM between now and 2010. The Volt is a very interesting story but not the only story.
Talks Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 3:39 pm

#168 Mr. T

Could you please explain why you think they are from CPI ?
Grizzly Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Talks #147

Thanks, I think you’re right. Watching the 2 episodes of Charlie Rose in digital you can even see where on a couple of the beveled packs (Conti) it looks as though they used some rubbing compound. Definitely camouflage.
jan Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Would A123 be in a “quite period” before they IPO, so GM can’t talk about anything business wise with A123, that’s my guess.
The Grump Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 7:39 pm

#166 dagwood55 – I think you know why GM corporation’s exec’s didn’t care that Toyota was selling all those Prius in 2004. In 2004, gas was still somewhat reasonably priced, and GM’s Big Truck / SUV sales were still keeping them afloat financially.

This year, the GM money machine got turned off – quite a big shock to the GM exec’s. Now that gas prices are dropping again, we’ll see if Mr and Ms America go back to their old buying habits, and Truck / SUV sales pick up again. If so, GM’s old school exec’s are saved (for now).

However, if Mr and Ms America have learned their lesson (that OPEC can rape us any time they feel like it), GM’s exec’s will have no choice but to go with the Volt concept, and hope Toyota doesn’t make a better battery before the Volt is ready.

That’s why Bob really needs to hurry up with the Volt – not because we’re impatient, but because a better Toyota battery could kill the Volt project deader than a crushed EV-1. Run, Bob, run.
—————————-
Yeah, I would have taken a Volt concept that got only 35 miles AER. It looked that cool. I may still buy a Volt – maybe – ok, a BIG maybe – but it isn’t the same. The magic is gone. The more aerodynamic the body, the more it will look just like every other aerodynamic econobox on the road, fake grill or not.

Remember the old “Batmobile” bonneville from the TV series. It was so un-aerodynamic, it couldn’t be driven fast. But wouldn’t every guy back then just love to have had their own jet turbine powered Batmobile ? I thought so. Five miles aer is NOT worth sacrificing the Volt concept dream. Special edition, anyone ?
John Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

My guess is we have a bunch of immature people on this blog who sound like a bunch of kids. Hey, I don’t claim to be running a popularity contest like some are doing here, so I don’t care what you think about me. Just blog like an adult instead of complaining about every little thing. Be constructive!
——————————————————

Makes you want to vomit every time you come here. It’s so disgusting to read all of these armchair engineers that know little about cars or aesthetics shooting rubbish from their hips:

“GM is so stupid! Why don’t they put in a soap generator to make the car more slippery in the wind?”

“GM is so stupid! I can go 100 miles without gas on my bike! What’s so hard about 40?!”

“GM is so stupid! They could have made a perpetual-motion car but they colluded with the oil companies to hide the technology!”

Childish in mind and mannerisms–a real drag and shame!

(If you’re fed-up like me, remember that when the Volt comes out, the wheat will be separated from the tares. All the loudmouth posers and 1-minute “engineers” will fall to the bottom of the barrel; and the regular car-buying public will have the final say.)
John Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 8:43 pm

jabroni jabroni Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Wow, what a liar Lutz is. He claims that they couldn’t give the EV1 away. What? And he said the lease was for 300 bucks a month. WRONG, it was 599, then 499…

It is extremely difficult to believe anything he says due to his never ending mendacities…
———————————————————-

Enough!!!!!!!!!!!!

The EV1 was a FAILURE. Get over it!

Did you buy one? Did YOU try to buy/lease/rent one when it came out?

Go read something by Milton Friedman. Just because you want something doesn’t mean you’ll get it. No does it mean that it exists, and that there is a Grand Conspiracy to keep it away from you. Everybody wants a hoard of diamonds you know!
John Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 8:46 pm

jabroni jabroni Says:
August 20th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Omegaman 66:

This is a quote from yourself that happens to be TRUTH. There is no doubting the success of the Toyota RAV4 EV’s NiMH battery pack.

“Why don’t they use a proven technology like NIMH? How stupid.”
————————————————————————

The vehicle was NOT successful.

It is no longer with us today; and never did well. Come back to earth now. In fact, don’t bother. Lyle should block the Martian servers.
Mr. T Says:
August 21st, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Talks,
shipping racks in light blue and the CPI associate in the background.
Brady Turley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 am

Ryan

An electric heavy vehicle is entirely possible with “Volt” technology. Actually “Volt” technology is more like train technology. Where else do you think they got the idea?
A look at the new GM Volt with designer Bob Lutz (video) - GM Inside News Forum Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm

[...] Lutz and others. (A 56 minute interview courtesy of Charlie Rose) There is also a summary here: http://gm-volt.com/2008/08/20/lutz-p…mance-is-good/ __________________ —————————– View the 74-minute, Channel 4 documentary [...]
Andy Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Ummm… Did it occur to anyone else on this board that Lutz isn’t excatly going to tell the press (and Toyota, Honda, and anyone else watching) the REAL Cd of the Volt. D’uh.

Hang tight. I’m sure the Cd is excellent.
Bo Snerdley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Lutz is either a LIAR or an IDIOT (maybe both?). The CD sucks, it’s overpriced and this guy worked for EXIDE BATTERY for Christ’s sake!
Boycott this overpriced hunk of junk!
Bo Snerdley Says:
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Charlie Rose is hyping GM cause he took a BIG SHELACKING on its stock!
jbfalaska Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:01 am

At that price, I’m interested in buying two Volts. Anyone care to pass along their waiting list number if that turns out to be used, a fellow Volt Nationer is standing by.

CHEVY VOLT: American-made, American-FUELED. Send a message to the Middle-East, not a soldier. As a retired US Air Force veteran, I despised every time we went to do no more than protect the Oil Highway and Protect the American wallet lining the pockets of Mideast Sheikdoms and Mideast Oil Barons.

Go GM!
jbfalaska Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am

The Volt is a sure thing, a guaranteed hit when the first mass market No 1 rolls off the assembly line. Other manufacturer’s as Bob Lutz stated in the Charlie Rose program is working on competing against the Volt. For something outside the mainstream, take a look at the Venture Vehicles website. I’ll have a Chevy Volt and Venture One in my garage some day.

Bring on the electrics – Goodbye Middle East Oil Barons.
Prototype66 Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 am

#69
The Volt tech does come from the fleet of public bussed (in larger form)that GM developed!
It would be great to get this to schools as well but keep in mind that every school has a very tight budget, they cant pay their teachers and supply the schools much less buy a ton of retro fitting equipment.
Lutz is blowing smoke so the other guys are in the dark about the real specs on Volt. All you naysayers will be eating your words in 2 years when GM and the Volt kicks every ones @ss!
It will change the world.
Freemon Sandlewould Says:
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm

East & West coast educated people …………translated — effete liberal NJF MSG’s.
Steve Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

So we’re being told that the reason the production Volt has unbelievably bland styling is for aerodynamic efficiency, and the Cd is only 0.27-0.28?? My Lexus IS is 0.28!! Friggin GM, can’t do anything right, when are they going to start outsourcing more styling? They did it before with Cadillac.

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Volt Test Drive by Vancouver EV Association February 8, 2010
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- General Motors issued a very special invitation to the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association last week to drive the... […]
WopOnTour
gasoline cars are like smoking . . . . February 8, 2010
interesting article, better presenting what I've had a hard time putting into words (which is why HE's a writer and I'M... […]
prowler
A common European strategy for electric vehicles February 8, 2010
I coudn't resist to cut and paste the next excerpt : Link :... […]
Jean-Charles Jacquemin
Run flat option or standard? February 8, 2010
I suspect that run flats might be standard because they get rid of the space and weight taken by a spare tire and may result in less fatal accidents... […]
1nk
Engine Thermal Management in a Series Hybrid February 8, 2010
I've just recently discovered how different the environments under which a conventional (even parallel hybrid) ICE and series hybrid ICE are... […]
XGC75
electric car with wind generator February 7, 2010
My design of ELECTRIC CAR WITH WIND GENERATOR: http://velkovelkov.blogspot.com/ I think this conception is original and realistic. The low position... […]
Velko Velkov
Please provide complete home solar systems. February 6, 2010
Please provide both a volt charging solar system and a complete whole house solar system that takes the user completely off the grid and stays on... […]
1nk

Lutz: Production Volt Has a CD Between .27 and .28 and Battery Extreme Cold Performance is Good

190 Responses to “Lutz: Production Volt Has a CD Between .27 and .28 and Battery Extreme Cold Performance is Good”

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts