Grab our RSS Feed

AND

The Hows and Whys of the Volt Concept Redesign

October 19th, 2008 | Posted in: Design

Its very common knowledge around here that the original Volt concept was considerably redesigned for production, and was unveiled on September 16th.

The Ohio Plain Dealer has a discussion of that process as it was explained members the Volts designs team, including design chief Bob Boniface.

Boniface indicates the car doesn’t look like the “electric camaro” some people may have expected, but explains that concept cars are built purely for looks and have no practical limitations. It was indeed those limitations that caused the concept to change.

It was explained that the concept car’s long hood and big wheels would have led to 10 to 20 miles less range. The concept’s wheelbase was as large as GM’s biggest SUVs, and therefore if used would have actually wound up handling like a truck.

Volt aerodynamic engineer Ken Karbon acknowledged some people feel the production Volt shares some similarities with the Prius. It turns out the “arch-like” body shape is the most aerodynamic, and he said “the laws of aerodynamics are the same if it’s a Toyota or a Chevy.”

Another key factor underlying the design change was the fact that the Volt would have to sit on the global compact delta platform, which restrained it some more.

In the end, Boniface said, “I’m more proud of this car than I am of the concept car. To make the car still good looking after putting on all of these restricting criteria was tough, and I think we delivered on it.”

Source (The Plain Dealer)

Posted by: Lyle

125 Responses to “The Hows and Whys of the Volt Concept Redesign”

John C. Briggs Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 8:23 am

I sure this was a real engineering challenge, and it looks like GM has done a good job.

(Quote)
Dwayne Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 8:27 am

Boniface is right – makeing the car beautiful and functional was the real challenge and he has a right to be proud.

(Quote)
Eric C. Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am

I agree. GM’s presumably done a good job keeping with their 40 mile EV range promise without even more battery weight, while keeping the car looking good.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am

The redesign was totally expected. What it would end up looking like was too. In fact, if you take a good look at Malibu, you’ll see the family resemblance. That’s how automakers operate. Wanting a mainstream vehicle (high volume sales) requires a look that caters to the mass expectation. Isn’t Volt intended to be an everyday family car?

You’ll still get goodies, like better lights. But essentially, the front view will share aspects seen in other GM mainstream sedans.

(Quote)
Brewster Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:00 am

The production version looks like a car.

The prototype looked like a toy – at my height, I could never fit in it.

(Quote)
drG Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am

Classic bait and switch.

Hype the concept while they have no intention of ever building it.

Production turns out to be a tarted up Cruze.

(Quote)
Art Fougner Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am

I do hope GM reconsiders their pricing … Toyota will now simply ramp up their Prius Plug-In for $10,000 less.

(Quote)
Canuk Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am

Can anyone imagine if the concept became the production car? Everytime you got in and out of the thing, you’d crack your head on the door jam. Boy, would the alure of that design quickly wear thin!

(Quote)
heyIMmike Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am

When the concept car first was unveiled, I was sold. It was exciting to look at and even more electrifying that it will help us move beyond Oil. The first spy shots did get me down, however, like Bob said, they just were not very flattering. Since that time though, I’ve fallen in love with the car all over again.

However, statements like ”The concept’s wheelbase was as large as GM’s biggest SUVs, and therefore if used would have actually wound up handling like a truck” seem misplace. A Cadillac STS wheelbase is 115.6 and a GM Sierra regular cab, Standard Box wheelbase is 119 (figures from GM.com). Both are nearly the same length, but one rides like a truck and the other like a car and that has nothing to do with the wheelbase but the suspension (my opinion).

I totally get that the shape and even the wheels would reduce the range, but give me a break. Leave the questionable statements (at best) to the politicians. Don’t apologies for what needed to be done to make the vehicle better.

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am

The concept was strikingly beautiful.
The production car is fine but ordinary.
I feel sorry for Mr Boniface, having to try to justify what was done. Whatever merit there was in the change in terms of cost of production did not improve the car in his area of responsibility, design.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:58 am

Listening to GM talk about how the Volt was designed, is almost like a wikipedia entry…it can be changed and re-written anytime:

Here is some questions I would just LOVE someone to answer when these stories dribble out of the sides of their mouths:

Bob Lutz then -”It will look unmistakably like a Volt”–”It wil not be a Cobalt with a battery”

Ken Karbon now – It turns out the “arch-like” body shape is the most aerodynamic, and he said “the laws of aerodynamics are the same if it’s a Toyota or a Chevy.”
(I guess that was a unknown component to Bob or ANYONE else at GM right up until a month of two ago)

How come you led us on all the way up to the leak shots of the Transformers? You totally misrepresented your position. How come you guys at no point came clean?

Remeber this gem?
Regarding the show car’s transparent roof, (Lutz) “I wont comment on the appearance of the roof right now, there are still content decisions that have not yet been made.”
–that was April…of this year…and a total lie…sorta, you can see the elegant two step in there

http://gm-volt.com/2008/04/06/production-volt-exterior-design-and-appearance-when-will-we-see-it-all/

…and there is endless other quotes and non-admissions along the way

Now we get a new lie as a excuse, “Keeping the long hood and big wheels could have cost 10 or 20 miles of electric-driving range”

20 miles less range? Because of a longer hood and a 20″-255 tire instead of a 18″-205 one? This is from Ken Karbon, Volt aerodynamic engineer too? By that metric the Chrysler electric mini van would get about a 5 mile ev range?

I want to keep going and throwing out stuff, but I just can’t…it makes me feel ill when I read these.

(Quote)
David Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am

Ok, I understand this is the inaugeral version of an electric car with range extender and it’s a pretty big deal, but people act as if this is the design that will forever define such a car. First, since it is the first, let’s be a tad bit forgiving on the design elements and two, when the technology has proven itself, we’ll look back on this discussion and think it much ado about nothing.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am

The last quote in this article, which Lyle omitted from the synopsis is the one that really gets me:
———————————————-
Exterior designer Gary Ruiz, another Parma native, said two things became clear EARLY on as his team worked on the car’s shape. The aerodynamics would have to improve, and the car would have to use the same basic frame as the Chevrolet Cruze, a small car that will go into production in Lordstown in 2010.

Automakers share basic body structures to cut down the costs of developing new vehicles. Those decisions set the basic shape of the vehicle, Ruiz said. After that, the team’s job was to keep things as cool as possible.

So the car got a short hood instead of the long, sporty one. Boniface said people interested in buying the car WON’T CARE. The car leaving the design studio can hit its target mileage numbers and still has artistic flair.

“I’m more proud of this car than I am of the concept car,” Boniface said. “To make the car still good looking after putting on all of these restricting criteria was tough, and I think we delivered on it.”
——————————–

Thats basically a big middle finger from GM to us all this time. So yes, not a Cobalt with a battery all this time…a Cruze with a battery. Spin, spin, spin.

/and people wonder why I’m so pessimistic

(Quote)
Brian Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am

Boniface said “concept cars are built purely for looks and have no practical limitations.” Hmmm, I wonder what the 2010 Camaro team would say about that.

(Quote)
86mcss Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am

I think the actual car looks alot better, especially in the interior.

I’m sure those who would have liked to have seen the production car be the concept car would’ve had something else to complain about, like the price it would have been, or you the fact you couldn’t get it in the exact color the concept was.

GM is gonna do what it thinks will sell the most cars.
As the concept was, it would have been only a niche car. As the production car is, it has a chance to be a game changer.

(Quote)
Arch Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:19 am

Statik #s 11 13
Some time back we started getting a PURE company line. The Volt as it stands today was not designed to be a fresh car or even a good electric car. It was designed to fit on the company unified platform. It was not designed to be the BEST electric car. It was designed to fit within the GM program. I hate that kind of DESIGN work. JMHO

Take Care
Arch

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:28 am

I’m beginning to believe that the biggest causualty of the tight schedule was the redesign. It had to be completed years before the production start. Fortunately, other E-Flex variants won’t have that time constraint and won’t be bothered by chasis and power system issues to any great extent, making the styling the prime operation.
Will produce a differnt shape, you can depend upon it, especially after the somewhat tepid reaction to the Volt redesign.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am

/and people wonder why I’m so pessimistic
__________________________________________

My attitude has been one of curiosity.

Knowing this was coming from having closely followed the hybrid market since 1999, it was just a matter of patience. There was a lot of history available to compare to… clearly indicating there would be a big departure from the original ideal as production neared. Achieving high-volume success requires a careful balance of need & want.

Enthusiasts were only cheering “want, want, want” without explanation of how that could actually be quickly & affordably achieved.

Supporters were focusing on “need” instead, which differed significantly… and is now getting the attention it is due, much to the dismay of those tantalized by the original ideal.

(Quote)
jan Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am

Yes, the design process has been tiresome and I’m glad it is over. I never paid any attention to the car design process before and probably won’t again. The production Volt looks fine, not exotic but not boorish either. With all that’s going on in the world the design of even this game changing car has faded in importance. It looks like the Democrats are taking power soon and I believe that is favorably for the automotive industry in it’s efforts to electrify the automobile.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am

Arch #16

Statik #s 11 13
Some time back we started getting a PURE company line. The Volt as it stands today was not designed to be a fresh car or even a good electric car. It was designed to fit on the company unified platform. It was not designed to be the BEST electric car. It was designed to fit within the GM program. I hate that kind of DESIGN work. JMHO

Take Care
Arch
—————————————-
Sorry Arch, I’m going to disagree with you on this one, nothing personal, hehe…but just your first sentence, lol.

I think we only got the ‘PURE’ company line starting on August 28th, 2008 when we got the Transformers leaked shots…then again September 8th, 2008, on the ‘leaked’ company shots.

We never got a accurate representation of this production model…at any point. If you look back at the original Transformers leak thread, or the ‘Production shots Leaked thread’ and see the reaction…you can see honest shock at its appearance. Some people liked it more, some people hated it…no one said, ‘yupe, thats what just what GM told us, or what I expected’

(Quote)
law Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am

The concept was the typical dumb “greedy american” vehicle. “cool” looking and not efficient and the superficial crowd is angry that it changed. Personally I like the new production version because it is smaller and more sophisticated, better looking, less wasteful. If it’s the same size as the cruze, BOOOO-HOOOO.
[btch slap] Shit you people are burning away your future and your children’s future right now in your SUVs and pickups and cars that get 20 miles per gallon [/btch slap]

(Quote)
Rick Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:11 am

The production Volt is what I expected, and I like it.

The practical issues of aerodynamics, passenger space, ease of access, manufacturing, serviceability, and cost will continue to be the biggest influences on the design of modern mass-produced vehicles. Some unique and innovative designs can be found today, but affordable automobiles will not be returning to tailfins and acres of chrome.

Those on this forum who continue to whine about the look of the production Volt are probably children, or adults thinking back to when they where children, forever hoping every vehicle they desire will resemble the countless drawings scribbled in notebooks and on desks. Grow up, people.

Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, you want this car – and GM – to succeed.

(Quote)
Rooster Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am

Statik 11 & 13,

Get over it buddy — it’s a done deal on Gen 1. Life’s too short to be carring such a grudge and it’s not going to change anything.

You have to decide if you want the Volt in it’s production form. If yes – great. If no, well then that’s the great thing about markets, you still have Toyota & Honda.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am

I’ve been saying from day one that the concept model and the final production model will look nothing alike.
I know a little about aerodynamics, and I could tell just by looking at the concept that it needed a total rework.
But here’s the thing, it can still look awesome and futuristic while at the same time being super aerodynamically efficient.
The Volt does’nt have to look like a Prius to be aerodynamically efficient, it could very well look like a fighter jet and still be just as efficient & awesome looking; like something right out of Star Wars.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am

I’d like to ask anyone just how many concept cars they think actually turn out looking exactly the same in production form? The answer to that is few if any, and that’s for regular ICE vehicles. So before we start talking about “bait and switch” people need to understand just how tough a challenge this is. It’s also a very good thing that they’re able to base this car on the Delta II platform or does anyone want to venture a guess how much more it’d cost if they didn’t?

(Quote)
Curt Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:17 am

I agree with drG (#6). What? All of the sudden GM realized that the original concept wouldn’t work? Is this GM’s first rodeo? They deliberately hyped up a car that they had absolutely zero intention of producting only to deliver a Prius clone. To hell with GM, and I hope they go under.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am

One more thing. For all of you who don’t like the Volt, why don’t you give up your place on the wait list so that all the people below you can move up a slot? Some of you might even have a lower number than I do.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am

A local friend owns a 70’s Chevy Nova. It’s about 75% restored and is a daily driver. It has a 350 engine with a four barrel carb and mag 60’s on the rear. Hi Jacker shocks, headers with heat wrap…ect. He installed a 6 speed transmission that he claims was ‘the first to be placed in a Nova’.

To him it is a thing of beauty. Where as I see a muscle car of average looks. Let’s face it…it is what it is.

The Volt can’t be a thing of beauty to everyone. GM realized this along the road to it’s birth and went for an 80% focus on function.

If you think about it, GM had to deliver on the specs. And I understand the production look which resulted. It is what it is.

I could list changes I would like to see inside and out, but this isn’t the point. This is GM’s second presentation to a world which seeks freedom from gasoline use.

BTW: My friend is selling his Nova with plans for a new 6 cylinder Camaro. I hope he gets a good one as he deserves it. He is an Iraq war vet of two tours as a Humvie gunner. And is a survivor of a roadside bombing wherein his Hummer lost a front tire and sustained a cracked windshield. The GM product kept him safe and sound inside.

——————-

NEWS FLASH:

CAIRO, Egypt – A crude oil production cut of even 1 million barrels per day at OPEC’s upcoming emergency meeting is unlikely to reverse slumping prices in the short term, analysts said Sunday, amid mounting calls by several cartel members to take action to keep prices at the $80 per barrel level.
=D~

(Quote)
Ernie V Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am

grow up people . you have absolutely no idea about car design and manufacturing . i bet more than 1/2 of you have not been in a car company at all especially the ones who wrote as if they know it all.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am

#25 Grizzly
The only concept car that actually turned out looking exactly the same in production form, that I’m aware of, is the Dodge Challenger Concept.

I’m in total agreement with you on this, I just pointed out the Dodge Challenger thing because its a fluke.

Concept cars rarely ever go into production, & when they do, they look nothing like the initial concept.

(Quote)
AlexUkr Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am

I like the production design much more than the concept. I’d even say I wouldn’t buy Volt if it looked like the concept. The production version looks like a real car should look.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am

I’d go as far as saying that those that won’t buy a Volt because they expected the concept weren’t really interested in an electric vehicle after all, they were interested in a bad a** pony car. Maybe if/when GM assumes Chrysler Lutz will bring back the Prowler and those that wanted the concept will have little to complain about.

(Quote)
George K Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Turning back the hands of time, when the concept car was first a , well, concept – 2006, they were designing the body of a futuristic car. This car is so different, that it would take a while to even explain to the public, how its propulsion system works.

So when Bob’s team designed its body, it was nowhere near being a production vehicle. Instead it was almost like a Disney version of the “car of tomorrow”, great strong looks, and no gas required. Yet, they didn’t even have battery shape specs yet.

But then as it became a sure bet, and production was finally approved by the board (June 3, ‘08), they, of course were showing the same concept car.

GM drew a line in the sand with the 40 mi. electric range, and “Lutz told the media last week that the Volt should be on sale by November 2010″(1). So you can begin to see the constraints. How do you turn the “car of tomorrow”, into the car of today, now that we know what our constraints are…battery size,weight and balance, safety, cost, aero restrictions, etc..

Given all that, I think they did a great job on the redesign, and I can’t wait to drive it.

(1) The Torque Report, Nov 19, 2007

=D~~~~

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 12:22 pm

statik Says:@ 13

Thats basically a big middle finger from GM to us all this time. So yes, not a Cobalt with a battery all this time…a Cruze with a battery. Spin, spin, spin and people wonder why I’m so pessimistic

*************************************************************************************

I don’t think your a pessimist. I think you are not smart enough to understand the inner works of a large company like GM. I can say this because I spent many years working for GM as a senior engineer and that’s a lot more than what you can say about yourself.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

#23 Rooster

Statik 11 & 13,

Get over it buddy — it’s a done deal on Gen 1. Life’s too short to be carring such a grudge and it’s not going to change anything.

You have to decide if you want the Volt in it’s production form. If yes – great. If no, well then that’s the great thing about markets, you still have Toyota & Honda.
——————————————

Actually, I am over it. I’ve come to grips with it anyway…made my peace, etc.

It is not really about the ‘production’ vs ‘concept’ anymore, or what the cost of the concpet would have been, or the ‘realities’ of car making. My issue here is the re-writing of history, and just flat out lying (like the hood had to be shortened because electric range would be cut down 20 miles).

/it is kind of like opening an old wound…then throwing salt in it, saying it was never a wound in the first place

I would say to the people defending GM’sposition, to be prepared for the future.

Take a hard look at the way this played out, the half-truths, the subterfuge. Then look at the last piece of the puzzle, THE PRICE…and tell me the exact same thing is not happening even right now.

Tell me they are not talking out of the sides of their mouth right now, when sometime in the future they will be saying, ‘we knew this was going to be the price all along.’

Tell me there will not be a thread here, with GM trying to re-write the history of the pricing in a few months. Tell me there will not be someone then saying, ‘well it was always going to be this’ or ‘you don’t understand the complexities of the product’

/thats really my problem

(Quote)
Casadore Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

This EV-2 (VOLT) will work. Leave the design to the experts. You all have no experience of what it takes to design the many parts that go togeather to produce a car.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Had GM not said a thing about this car publicly and worked on it underground and released it in 2010-11 people would be shocked and grateful that a company took a chance and produced a car that was needed. If there is anything that GM’s openness has demonstrated is that just about anything that goes though the design process goes through umpteen changes and redesigns, even products a fraction of the complexity of the Volt. Do you have any idea what people would have said about Toyota had they been open the same way about the design process of the original Prius? So when I read what I’m reading on this site, I have to forgive the naivety of the posters.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

#34 Joe

statik Says:@ 13

Thats basically a big middle finger from GM to us all this time. So yes, not a Cobalt with a battery all this time…a Cruze with a battery. Spin, spin, spin and people wonder why I’m so pessimistic

*************************************************************************************

#34 Joe: I don’t think your a pessimist. I think you are not smart enough to understand the inner works of a large company like GM. I can say this because I spent many years working for GM as a senior engineer and that’s a lot more than what you can say about yourself.
————————————————
Actually, I am.

I understand a company has to put out a ‘wow’ concept and then manage expectations into the smallest box that maximizes reality and profitability.

However, this is my problem here; GM is trying to re-write the history on the Volt and omit all the promises, lies and half-truths they made up along the way. They intentionally overstated their position all the way to maximise the hype UNTIL they got caught.

As for you working at GM as senior engineer, no clue what that is supposed to prove, or why I would want to say that about myself.

All that shows me is that you have a personal bias. I don’t invest in companies/stocks that I have a personal interest in (good or bad)…for just that reason, I realize impartiality is impossible. That is a hurdle you can never jump.

(Quote)
Frank B Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Though most people here won’t admit it, GM had a pure winner with the concept car, now they don’t! Their stories have changed as the negative comments come in. If you recall, the Original story was that the concept car could only achieve 35 miles and they had to reach the 40 mile mark, now they say say it’s 10 to 20 miles short of their 40 mile mark. Strictly GM SPIN!

GM blew it, maybe Chrysler won’t.

(Quote)
kubel Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Ever since the concept was unveiled, GM claimed it would be based on the Delta platform. Now they are saying that one of the reasons why they couldn’t use the concept is because it doesn’t fit on the Delta platform. That tells me they either had no intention of using the concept Volt from the start or the person giving the explanation is BSing.

Either way, with the exception of the bold sports car front-end, I really didn’t like anything about the concept Volt. The interior was ugly, the see through plastics looked cheap, and while there were many individual design features I liked, put together- they just didn’t blend well. It’s like someone took bits and pieces from different concept cars and threw them together.

The production looks like a real car. And it looks nice. But except for the rear end and side black panels beneath the windows, there’s really nothing unique about the production Volt. It lost the boldness it once had, and that people were really attracted to.

Let’s put it this way. If GM were secretive about their Volt program and not release the design until they had it tuned, people would fall in love with it when it was unveiled. It still looks better than even the new Prius. This is the drawback of having a transparent design process. People fall in love with version A and are disappointed when version B comes out.

I was never really attracted to the Volt for the design, but rather, the underlying technology. If another company comes out with a EREV that looks better, is a better deal, or is more efficient, I will probably “switch” and follow their progress instead.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I am rolling my eyes right now. Get a grip people, please! At this point (maybe because I have never been fully invested in buying this car) I don’t really care how the Volt turns out as long as it’s reliable and helps lots of people stop using gas. Water under the bridge guys, water under the bridge. I know we all want a perfect car for the perfect price right now, with no spin, but that’s not always in the cards. Is it possible to be OPTIMISTIC and REALISTIC at the same time? For the sake of so many Volt-heads, I hope so.

I for one am grateful that ANY major automaker is taking EV’s seriously. If some of the usual (even unusual) hype accompanies the release of the Volt, I think that’s a small price to pay for witnessing the beginning of the EV revolution.

Just my $.02. Keep it classy people.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm

Statik is right – why is GM so defensive about the Volt, and why are they re-writing their own history, saying they knew the Volt would look like this, after their repeated past promises that the Volt would not stray far from the concept ? Either they knew it all along or they didn’t – GM can’t have it both ways.

1) If GM knew the concept was doomed all along (that’s what GM is telling us now), they were lying in the past about “the Volt not straying far from the concept”.

2) If GM discovered the concept was doomed only after they ran the wind tunnel tests, then they lying to us now.

3) Before now, the concept only lost 5 AER miles in previous GM-Volt.com interviews. Apparently, GM changed that history as well, and now, the AER dropped between 10 and 20.

If GM is lying to us about the concept range and styling, how far can we trust GM concerning the production Volt’s AER and purchase price ? When a corporation like GM lies to its customers about its own products, it shows an inherent disrespect for its customers. It will be interesting 3 years from now when some GM insider writes a tell-all book about the Volt – what GM knew, and when GM knew it.

If the concept failed the wind tunnel test, GM should have owned up to being wrong about the concept. If they knew the concept would fail from the beginning, and GM only used the concept to get people excited about the production Volt, that is TRULY bait and switch – and a personal slap in my face. It’s that is true, I have only 2 letters for GM – F U.

I have all but given up on the Volt – GM has jerked me around too many times. Maybe Chrysler’s EREV Town and Country minivan would be a better choice for me – more interior room. I can’t wait. Go Chrysler !

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

27 Grizzly – No you can’t just “have” my Volt – you’ll have to fight everyone else who wants to move up on the waiting list. It will be a Cage Match (gonna need a bigger cage), all weapons allowed, last man standing moves up on the Volt list. I’ll be in the stands, watching, with my chili-cheese dog, box of Cracker-Jack, and a diet Pepsi. This is gonna be good !

(Quote)
Shaft Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 3:16 pm

I’m sooooooo tired of this theme.

I’m perplexed that people still get up the passion to write about it. The feelings of some sort of betrayal must be deep.

Just repeat after me:
The Volt concept is EREV.
The Volt concept is EREV.
The Volt concept is EREV.
The Volt concept is EREV.
The Volt concept is EREV.
The Volt concept is EREV.
The Volt concept is EREV.
The Volt concept is EREV.
….

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

21 law – Why waste your time with these American idiots ? There’s a country that’s just right for you – China. No greed allowed, everybody gets only what they need, nothing more. China has an sound enviromental policy second to none – a true paradise to a man like you.

Quick, call American Airlines and catch the next plane out.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pm

kubel Says: @40

Kubel, You are a man who can see things in it’s proper perspective. If only others could see as you do instead of bitching all the time. I find you commendable.
The bottom line about this Volt thing is, nobody is twisting anybody’s arm in buying the Volt. If you like it, buy. If you don’t, don’t buy it.

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

if we look at the Volt concept versus production, a lesson that we learn is that GM’s statements about the future are not to be trusted. –> see documentation by statik.

But on another axis we can just look at the success of the final design, or the lack of it. Raymond Lowey, the famous product designer, said that between two products of similar capability the customer would immediately choose the one with the better design. (Lowey designed the Coke bottle, the bp logo, and the streamliner train, among other things.)

In cars, right at first, there will be only the Volt, for a customer that goes electric. But the design creates no benchmark of excellence and displays no suggestion of a revolutionary powertrain. It seems to aspire to be ordinary. That’s going to make it easy for competitors to put out something that looks every bit as good as the Volt, or even better, even if the competing vehicle actually does not work as well.

Such a design is not a smart thing for GM to do. A revolutionary vehicle needs a revolutionary (or at least a strongly distinctive) design that tells the customer “I am the real Volt with the real Electric powertrain.” GM had that with the concept. With the production Volt, it’s not there. It might have had to change from the concept, but it did not have to change to the ordinary.

Mr. Boniface is a designer and knows all these things,and Mr Lutz knows them too. I think they both are in pain. You can feel it in their “yes but we had to” remarks.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

I’ve never seen so many cry babies and you know who you are. Who are these cry babies? Maybe a bunch of know nothing kids, Sure looks like it to me. Why not encourage GM instead of putting them down. Give GM credit for building the Volt. Give the engineers a little respect who happens to be some of the best in the world,. Unless you are are involved with the project, you don’t why certain decisions are made. But from the sound of it, many on this site thinks they are smarter.
Chill it!!!

(Quote)
JEC Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

48 Joe,

I can understand your passion for GM engineering, but if you were a senior engineer working at GM, I think you would be most interested in hearing opinions of others (both engineering and other).

This forum provides the best “Voice of the Customer” you will ever experience. There are many voices on this site. Some are full of it, but also you will get to hear some extremely interesting and valuable conversations about many aspects of the Volt and GM.

I would not jump to conclusions on who knows what and to what expertise they posses until you have listened for a few months.

Just a thought…

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Ok folks, pure and simple. The Volt is a moon shot even if it were just an RE electric Malibu. The technology and the timetable make it so. What I don’t understand is why so few understand this and want everything in it. It’s like ordering pizza at a gathering. There are always those who insist on artichokes, spinach and anchovies for toppings that throw the order into chaos. Can’t they just understand that they’ll just have to give a little and accept 20 half cheese half pepperoni pizzas because there is no pleasing everyone and they order has to go out?

(Quote)
BillR Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, the Volt is the first E-REV. Its purpose is not to be an electric Camaro, but to demonstrate the utmost in efficiency from an alternative energy vehicle (electricity comes from many sources).

Combine this with a projected EPA rating of 100 mpg, and nothing else on the market even comes close.

I like the production version of the Volt, however, I would be more inclined to look at another E-REV that was larger, and maybe could seat 5 or more passengers. Maybe the Buick Invicta in an E-REV.

In summation, the Volt is designed for efficiency. If you want something more, all you need is a little patience.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

he said “the laws of aerodynamics are the same if it’s a Toyota or a Chevy.”

————
Sounds very logical to me.

(Quote)
tom harwick Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

#10 RB

Whatever merit there was in the change in terms of cost of production did not improve the car in his area of responsibility, design.
——————————————————————–
In a company which produces engineered products such as cars, the design chief bears responsibility for producing a design which can be manufactured at an acceptable cost, considering the market space into which it is sold. The design chief can propose anything, but he cannot get acceptance of his design if it looks great but cannot be manufactured at the target price.

(Quote)
tom harwick Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Arch #16

The Volt as it stands today was not designed to be a fresh car or even a good electric car. It was designed to fit on the company unified platform. It was not designed to be the BEST electric car. It was designed to fit within the GM program. I hate that kind of DESIGN work. JMHO
——————————————————————————-
If you want a car that is designed to be the best it can possibly be, and not one designed to fit into a mass production based, platform sharing program, you should be shopping for a Rolls Royce,

But the Volt is a Chevy. Chey’s are built on unified platforms and priced to sell into the mass market.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

BillR #51

I like your comments, a 5 seater will be on its way once the Volt proves itself.

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm

#53 Tom Harwick says “The design chief can propose anything, but he cannot get acceptance of his design if it looks great but cannot be manufactured at the target price.”
======================================

Yes, I agree. Reading the comments of Mr Boniface, I think that he was on the losing side of some GM internal disputes about what was possible. No doubt these were driven in part by the poor financial situation of GM,.

I’m sure Mr Boniface is a talented person. I think he feels bad about the outcome. He feels good that he did as well as he did within the constraints that were forced on him.

(Quote)
tom harwick Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

I love this site. Interesting discussions, dueling points of view, and a lot of good information. Its a privilege to read the comments of some of the smart people who post here.

But this design thread is something I simply don’t get. At 100-300MPGe, looks seem to me to be a minor consideration. Some of these comments read like a bunch of girls reading vogue.

I have seen the fashion in cars shift from sleek to boxy and back and fourth about 3 times in the decades I have been driving. We seem to be more focused on what is currently fashionable than a new form of family transportation which will break the grip of foreign oil.

(Quote)
Brett Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Anyone see this, the Mini-E?
http://gizmodo.com/5065689/mini-e-electric-car-perfect-for-al-gore-remake-of-italian-job

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

#54 tom harwick says “But the Volt is a Chevy. Chey’s are built on unified platforms and priced to sell into the mass market.”
===========================================

True, but Chevrolet has historically been the origin of some dramatically different cars and trucks.

At its best, the “mass market” factor has meant that the cost of innovation have been spread across many vehicles, so that the “per vehicle” costs of innovation was lower.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm

tom harwick #54

“But the Volt is a Chevy. Chey’s are built on unified platforms and priced to sell into the mass market.”

*** *** ***

Is anyone on this board aware that a good portion of Toyota’s success has been because they are good at sharing platforms? Actually, they’re not just good at it they’re masters. Or did you miss that certain Lexus sedans were shared platforms with Toyota etc. etc. etc. ? I would hardly consider any Lexus “mass market”. Platform sharing is universal amongst successful large car companies….there should be no surprise here.

(Quote)
Phil Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

What really cracks me up is the interview with luts on the colbert report.. He was asked if it would be nice enough looking to pick up women with… The response was yes, but they will probably be crunchy older enviornmentalist type women with hairy legs.. at least luts was honest about that..

GM.. can keep their battery operated cookie cutter car …. I don’t see this vehicle as being GM’s saving grace.. so if this is all they got.. uh oh…

The concept was a real car.. this thing is trash… too bad..

oh yeah.. All you talking about the waiting list and moving up spots.. their IS NO WAITING LIST.. its just an outdated email list.. so call GM and get put on an actual REAL official waiting list.. just a suggestion..

(Quote)
tom harwick Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 7:21 pm

#56 RB

Yes, I agree. Reading the comments of Mr Boniface, I think that he was on the losing side of some GM internal disputes about what was possible. No doubt these were driven in part by the poor financial situation of GM,.

I’m sure Mr Boniface is a talented person. I think he feels bad about the outcome. He feels good that he did as well as he did within the constraints that were forced on him.
—————————————————————————-
Thanks for responding to my post. We can only speculate about how Mr, Boniface feels. But having been a product manager myself, it is by no means clear that he would feel bad about evolving a design which looks good to many people, and can be mass produced in an actual factory.

(Quote)
BRUCE Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHY ONE WOULD ASK TO GIVE UP THEIR PLACE IN LINE FOR THE CAR WHEN PEOPLE EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS. YES WE WANT THE ELECTRIC CAR BUT IT STILL SHOULD BE EXTRAORDINARY ON THE SKIN. LIKE MANY PEOPLE I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE DESIGN CHANGE. I ALSO KNOW THAT IN YEARS TO COME NEWER DESIGNS WILL COME. LETS GET THE CAR ON THE ASSEMBLY LINES BEFORE GM GOES TO THE CRAPPER. #25000 AND COUNTING

(Quote)
RB Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm

#62 tom harwick says “We can only speculate about how Mr, Boniface feels. But having been a product manager myself, it is by no means clear that he would feel bad about evolving a design which looks good to many people, and can be mass produced in an actual factory.”
=====================================
Yes, I agree that we just speculate about his feelings, although we get some good hints from his reported comments with their emphasis on constraints. Also,my guess is that you are quite right that he feels good about having a design that is moving forward into production and hopes it does well as a product. I do too, even though it won’t be sold around here, apparently, so it will be up to a different group of potential customers to decide.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

I think people need to get over it. No, it’s not an impractical “toy” concept car. It’s a beautiful, aerodynamic, modern car with a revolutionary and paradigm-shifting drivetrain. No apologies are needed.

GM: hold your head up high on this one. This car shows why you should remain in business.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

phil # 61

“The concept was a real car.. this thing is trash… too bad..”

*** *** ***

The way I see the barometer is that you would probably not be able to get your hands on one in 2011 even if your opinion did a 180 and your pockets were deep.

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

“the laws of aerodynamics are the same if it’s a Toyota or a Chevy.”

BS. This is obviously a hoax perpetratted by liberal engineers. More than 60,000 engineers have debunked laws of aerodynamics.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Build the concept with an efficient direct injection engine.
Sell the hell out of it and make money.

Please send 1 million to each of us that has told GM over and over to build both.
Holy Crap…just build both.
Tell the engineers that built the SR 71 Black Bird that the arch is the most efficient shape…stop with the lame excuses.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Do you have any idea what people would have said about Toyota had they been open the same way about the design process of the original Prius?
__________________________________________

That did happen. The “people” were happy.

Prius was altered before debut here and then again with the next model.

Read about that history. You’re in for a surprise. It was one of the earliest things that impressed me, an automaker quite receptive to consumer feedback. Obviously, GM is attempting the same… though remember the audience is joe-consumer, not enthusiasts.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pm

After having seen the Volt in person I can tell you that it not only looks good, but it out classes most popular Japanese cars. And, in my opinion, the design of the Volt is closer to BMW than to Toyota.

The Volt honestly has an American feel to it.

Add the near silent, smooth, high torque drive. The 50%~50% front/rear weight balance. The low CG platform. And phenomenal efficiency.

______________________

I had a surreal experience this weekend.

I sometimes drive one of our 25 company cars. One is an electric GEM e4. As I drove a side street next to our facility a Prius and a hybid SUV drove past at the same time. We were all moving along at about 20mph. The total noise was so low you could hear a cat walk by. It felt good.

=D~

(Quote)
GmsAJoke Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:42 pm

I don’t know how many here have been in a choptop car, but the visabilty is low and you get the feeling of being in a cave. The concept would not have sold well to the most common car buyer. They made the right business choice.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:45 pm

48 Joe said – “I’ve never seen so many cry babies and you know who you are. Who are these cry babies? Maybe a bunch of know nothing kids, Sure looks like it to me.
————————————————————————————
That explains why GM is doing so badly – their own engineers think that GM customers are cry babies and know-nothing kids. Joe believes we should take whatever GM decides we need, and be grateful. Listening to what customers want has never been one of GM’s strengths, and Joe just proved it in spectacular fashion. Thanks, Joe. The truth from GM’s own engineers is refreshing.

This whole thing reminds me of a religous battle, between the GM zealots (who launch personal attacks if you question the Volt) and the GM heretics (who question just about everything about the Volt). With engineers like Joe at bat for the GM zealots, it’s gonna get nasty, real quick.

Personally, since I can’t get a sexy EREV (Volt concept), I would rather go for more interior room (Chrysler EREV Town and Country minivan). If I have to drive a boring vehicle to get 40 AER, I opt for more interior room and 7 passanger capability. I hope Chrysler has the sense NOT to use flat touch controls on their EREV. I like my push buttons and rotary knobs, thank you very much.

I do check in here every once in a while, just to see if all of you are tearing each other apart, while you wait 25 long, l-o-n-g months for whatever the Volt turns out to be. At least the bloggers on the Chrysler site are a little more friendly. Of course, Chrysler hasn’t ripped the hearts out of their customers by promising one thing and delivering something entirely different (yet). This should be an interesting 25 months.

I hope Chrysler rolls their minivan out first. Go Chrysler !

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

john1701a #69

“That did happen. The “people” were happy.”

*** *** ***

Why don’t you document on how a company that has never been open to the public was once so in your revision of history. It’s just too easy to paste to this forum, but the ball is in your court…

PROVE YOUR POINT.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

The Toyota I.Q.

1.0L VVT-i engine with manual transmission set to return 65.7mpg

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/toyota-IQ.jpg

=D~

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Why Lutz is Electrified by the Volt

http://vodpod.com/watch/1012841-why-lutz-is-electrified-by-the-volt

=D~

(Quote)
Wayne Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

The new one is ugly… I doubt it would have cut the MPG in 1/2!

Heck my Jeep gets 20 and it’s a brick with a 2 1/2 lift, Dana 44s and mud tires.!
I can see 2-5 mpg, not only that they could have redesigned it just a little to make it better.

Sigh.

(Quote)
frankyB Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

At the end we will be the final judge… If GM can’t deliver on EREV specs, looks or price, in 2011, they will not be the only one to offer the same type of car and we will make our choice…

At the end sales numbers will tell who got it right, no matter what GM have said, if the Volt is the best then they will get my money if they can’t deliver, my money will end up else where.

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 12:23 am

Chevy Volt: American-made, American FUELED.

God bless our country and the beginning of the end of a salacious addiction to oil. Thank you General Motors. Another hundred years please.

(Quote)
JBFALASKA Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 12:39 am

Although I was drawn to the unique and very eye appealing design, the car had limits from this design. The new design clearly is more toward the main stream appeal for a car; a car design now exudes a 100,000 or more per year car, rather than the Ford Mustang type of appeal, which would prove far less in sales numbers. Although I prefer the original design the redesign with more headroom and better aerodynamics, therefore electro-fuel efficiency, is a better choice.

Now the great play – the elections brought us the $7500 tax credit. Time to buy, time to help America break it’s horrifying addiction to Middle-East oil. Time for America to follow a new path back to a Detroit-driven future where everyone can afford to buy and FUEL their autos.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 1:49 am

Why don’t you document on how a company that has never been open to the public…
_________________________________

Two of the executives participated in online discussions. They changed that “never” when Prius debuted. It is documented in the blogs. What would you like to know? From our point-of-view, all we cared about was getting confirmation that they really were hearing our requests. You already know that with GM.

(Quote)
GmsAJoke Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 2:56 am

“The Toyota I.Q.

1.0L VVT-i engine with manual transmission set to return 65.7mpg”

I don’t care if Toyota gets it up to 100mpg it is not good enough for me. I do not want to pay for gas at any price for my daily commute or Costco runs. PERIOD. And I want a range extender for longer drives, not the added insurance, and maintenance of an extra ICE car.

(Quote)
Dave K. Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 4:50 am

hi GmsAJoke #81,

I agree. There is no way I would drive a 1.0L micro torture box. Although the audubon beak nose-cone on the 09′ is sexy.

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/Toyota%20IQ%20sexy.jpg

They really should have gone with a 4′ 10″ tall eye candy model.

=D~

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 6:01 am

#21 law says,
The concept was the typical dumb “greedy american” vehicle. “cool” looking and not efficient and the superficial crowd is angry that it changed. Personally I like the new production version because it is smaller and more sophisticated, better looking, less wasteful. If it’s the same size as the cruze, BOOOO-HOOOO.
[btch slap] Shit you people are burning away your future and your children’s future right now in your SUVs and pickups and cars that get 20 miles per gallon [/btch slap]

—————
I have never owned a pickup, SUV, minivan, etc.
I have always owned small cars.
I am still interested in the Volt although I like the looks of the concept better than the production model.

I’m sorry to have offended you with my opinion…………….NOT

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 6:21 am

#67
nataraj Says:

“the laws of aerodynamics are the same if it’s a Toyota or a Chevy.”

BS. This is obviously a hoax perpetratted by liberal engineers. More than 60,000 engineers have debunked laws of aerodynamics.
————–
LOL. Thanks for cracking a good joke in a thread filled with anger from both sides.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 6:28 am

#72 The Grump.

Well said. I had my own comments for Joe, but decided to keep them to myself. This thread is one of the few nasty ones we’ve had, and I have already added one retort. I don’t need to add more.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 6:42 am

Dave K #74, 82
GmsAJoke *2

The Toyota I.Q.

1.0L VVT-i engine with manual transmission set to return 65.7mpg

http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/toyota-IQ.jpg

—————
Although the MPG is great, I have to agree with the both of you. I want off gas also, and my next car will have a plug.

But about this Toyota. The 1.0L sounds small. I wonder how it will do getting on the highway and going up the Rockies.

(Quote)
OzoneLevel Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 6:53 am

People, keep in mind that the only benefit of your postings is to make you feel good about your self, as if your opinion matters. It doesn’t. No one cares about your opinions, and all your postings are meaningless, including this one.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 7:26 am

#85 Rashiid

#72 The Grump.

Well said. I had my own comments for (…..), but decided to keep them to myself. This thread is one of the few nasty ones we’ve had, and I have already added one retort. I don’t need to add more.
———————————————–

Indeed, at some point you just have to get off the train and catch the next one.

/catch you on the next one
(=

(Quote)
Jay Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 7:27 am

This is and open comment to GM and Mr. Boniface.

Your efforts to continue the “Bait and Switch” policies of the American auto industry are a well known joke. The European auto industry does not subscribe to this practice as does not the Asia auto industry. I will admit that6 in some cases GM has not done this, such as the Solstice from Pontiac. I have one and my wife loves the car. As an engineer who has sent men to the moon and been part of other cutting edge design work I have to wonder why it is that you can do such a good job on something like the Solstice and screw-up on a simple little hybrid electric when you have a clean sheet of paper to start with or could in be that the lady who designed the Solstice didn’t want to get involved with Chevrolet? Don’t know?

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 7:54 am

Here’s how to make everybody happy: as soon as the merger goes through, take the concept Volt and put a Hemi in it. Hey, the gas crisis is over now, anyway.

(Quote)
john1701a Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 9:33 am

Hey, the gas crisis is over now, anyway.
______________________________________

We are in the eye of the hurricane. You’re in for quite a surprise.

Future spikes to $4 gas may be rare, but the expectation of $3 gas being normal is extremely realistic… especially when you consider the entire lifetime of a vehicle and how long it takes the automotive industry to deal with change.

Becoming complacent is how history repeated itself. No one wants to see a third chapter in the efficiency disaster. Twice is more than enough.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 10:44 am

“We are in the eye of the hurricane. You’re in for quite a surprise.”

Yes, of course. I was attempting to use my dripping-with-sarcasm voice when I said the gas crisis is over.

As a guy who wears my VW fanboydom on my sleeve and just bought a Fit, I’ve been on board the efficiency bandwagen since before Gas Crisis II, when people were offering me more-than-sticker for my ‘74 Rabbit.

That Concept Volt sure would be awesome with a Hemi in it, though!

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am

Fahrvergnugen Fanboy

That Concept Volt sure would be awesome with a Hemi in it, though!

Agreed.
===================
I was attempting to use my dripping-with-sarcasm voice when I said the gas crisis is over.
Sarcasm is difficult to pull off successfully in print.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 11:08 am

87 Ozonelevel says,
People, keep in mind that the only benefit of your postings is to make you feel good about your self, as if your opinion matters. It doesn’t. No one cares about your opinions, and all your postings are meaningless, including this one.

—————-

This is simply not true. I care about my opinion and it matters to me.
Also, everyone has a right to my opinion. This only thing I feel bad about is that all 6 billion people on planet Earth won’t be able to hear or read my opinions. It is a shame because everything and anything I say is vitally important to all of them. They just don’t know it.

Wow, what a load of bunk I just spewed, huh? heehee.

(Quote)
joe Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am

We have to be realistic. It was inevitable that this car would have to
change its look from the concept. The first time out you play it safe
and try to appeal to the most number of people. I hope Cadillac or
another division gets a chance to build something that actually looks
closer to the concept. The interest is undeniably there and so would
the sales. Just do it, please! Do not waste such a nice design or
someone else will simply steal it.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

#52 Rashiid Amul:

No !@#$. And only mentioned here about 2-300 times in the past.

I had the pleasure of seeing the “production” Volt in Santa Monica. I think it’s fine. The challenge is the get the !@#$%^& thing to the market before it’s too late. Let’s keep our eye on the prize.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Noel, #96,

Yes, but people are screaming that it looks like the Prius.
I have to be honest. I love the concept.
But when I look at the Production Volt next to the Prius,
I really don’t see much of a resemblance at all. You?

(Quote)
noel park Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

#97 Rashiid Amul:

As a devotee of “form follows function”, I don’t have a problem with the Prius. The marketing success of diffrentiating it as a stand alone “green” car speaks for itself. Even Honda has said that! They are selling all they can make, so I doubt if they are too concerned about people who don’t like the styling.

I think that there are basic similarities, but that the GM designers have made the Volt enough different to have its own distinct personality. I don’t think that anyone is going to mistake a Volt for a Prius, going down the highway.

Recently I have been neglectful, and Tagamet has not been around to remind me, so let me just hasten to add:

LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!

(Quote)
va_volt Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

In hindsight, the concept is a bit over the top. I think the production version has won me over!

(Quote)
Art Fougner Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

On the horizon, the BMW MINI-E.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/10/17/revealed-electric-mini-e/

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I want to give GM credit for designing a very nice car in the Volt. It does not meet the needs of everyone, but what car does. Good work, GM. Now get those Volts on the road.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

For those of you saying the Volt looks too much like the Prius, I am here to tell you that you are wrong. There is a world of difference between the two. I have not seen the Volt except on the web, but I have been all over several Prius cars lately. The Prius is a fine car, no doubt about it. The exterior is better looking than the interior. The Volt has it beat on both counts. Especially the interior. The Prius interior is a little cheap looking, as are a lot of Toyota’s products. Not all, mind you, but a number of them. But, Toyota is selling to a market and being very successful about it.

One of the reasons I purchased a 2009 Honda Accord EX-L over the Prius was styling and quality of the interior. The interior is where I spend all my time while driving (as we all do, of course). The interior of the Honda is top notch. Way better than the Prius and most other Toyota vehicles. The Avalon is also top notch, in my opinion.

The Prius and the Volt will serve two different markets for the foreseeable future. At some point, if Toyota decides to compete directly with the Volt, they will be judged more against one another. But right now, they are too different to really affect each other.

(Quote)
Johnny I Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

The concept car was edgy, stylish and modern. The production car looks like another GM dud. I think this article was meant to battle back much of the disappointment expressed by people who were sold on the concept car and believe Gm has really droppped the ball on this one. Who would pay $40k for this plain Jane car? Why didn’t GM try sharing the frame from the Corvette, which is made to be light and handle well? Its possible GM hoped that the popularity of the Volt would bring about more popularity in its other vehicles. But now, most people don’t like the Volt, so its just another loss for GM. Someone in management needs to put their brain in “D” before doing things like this.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
October 20th, 2008 at 11:09 pm

N Riley #102

“For those of you saying the Volt looks too much like the Prius, I am here to tell you that you are wrong. There is a world of difference between the two.”

*** *** ***

I’ve never thought the Volt looked anything like the Prius. Anyone who thought so was probably spurned by the Photoshop pro’s who rendered photos from the taped model. There was plenty of that on this site some months ago. If the production Volts looks like what we’ve been shown, I’m convinced that no one will complain.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 10:43 am

#102 N Riley

For those of you saying the Volt looks too much like the Prius, I am here to tell you that you are wrong. There is a world of difference between the two. I have not seen the Volt except on the web, but I have been all over several Prius cars lately. The Prius is a fine car, no doubt about it. The exterior is better looking than the interior. The Volt has it beat on both counts. Especially the interior. The Prius interior is a little cheap looking, as are a lot of Toyota’s products. Not all, mind you, but a number of them. But, Toyota is selling to a market and being very successful about it.

One of the reasons I purchased a 2009 Honda Accord EX-L over the Prius was styling and quality of the interior. The interior is where I spend all my time while driving (as we all do, of course). The interior of the Honda is top notch. Way better than the Prius and most other Toyota vehicles. The Avalon is also top notch, in my opinion.

The Prius and the Volt will serve two different markets for the foreseeable future. At some point, if Toyota decides to compete directly with the Volt, they will be judged more against one another. But right now, they are too different to really affect each other.
——————————————————

I’m in your camp. The Volt certainly has some aerodynamic similarities with the Prius…but the Prius is a basic, stripped down car in my opinion.

You are bang on about the interior (and the outside still holds my highest ‘nerd’s shoe rating’, I would have owned a Prius if not for the driving environment in the interior. In Canada, like the US, the Prius goes for 28K (23.5USD). I’m sorry, but I’m not going to drive around a car that feels like a entry level car and drives worse…thats not worth the $15,000 (12K usd) premium to me.

Now the new Honda Insight is another story. I put my money down sight unseen, price unknown. It is good looking inside and out and it is already on the record ‘under Prius pricing’

(Quote)
AD Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 11:46 am

From the Fisker Automotive Site ( http://www.fiskerautomotive.com)

Fisker created cars for BMW and Aston Martin… enjoy

element was considered in the overall design – to deliver a beautiful car that makes environmental sense. Environmentally friendly, plug-in hybrid cars don’t have to be bland in design. The focus was to creating a design which delivers the ECO-CHIC factor – an environmentally friendly car with a futuristic design delivering sculpture, dramatic proportion and all without compromise.

The stance of the first design, the Fisker Karma, is wide and low. It delivers such dramatic proportions for a four-door sports sedan that one would not anticipate. The height of a Porsche 911, length of a Mercedes Benz CLS and the width of a BMW 7 Series. The sleek design accents the long hood and is a direct result of our breakthrough chassis. Fisker was able to incorporate many of the aspects a designer would dream of in designing a car – the design takes the technology and proves that the best technology can be wrapped up in a beautiful package.

In traditional Henrik Fisker fashion, the first designs showcased to the public are what the customer will own as an end result. Fisker doesn’t believe in wowing the audience and then changing the design when it comes time to produce the car. The development approach is to focus on creating sketches, which are then carried into the clay model phase. We couple this with the latest in digital tools for high efficiency and optimal
development time turn around.

You don’t have to make an environmentally friendly car look butt ugly.

Don’t get mad because you see a new generation stand up that’s not willing to compromise on either side. And we don’t have too. Concept Volt, Productions Volt it doesn’t matter. Stand up for what you believe in AND what you want, and go out and make it happen.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 12:22 pm

I heard somewhere in the last day or so that Fisker was broke. Anybody know any more about that?

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm

#107 noel park

I heard somewhere in the last day or so that Fisker was broke. Anybody know any more about that?
—————————————–

I haven’t hard anything like that…as a matter of fact though, I haven’t heard a whole heck of anything since mid July when they said that Valmont in Finland was going to do all the assembly.

I know Tesla is pushing hard on them with lawsuits…in those types of cases amongst start-ups, rarely anyone wins.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Speaking of Tesla:

Autoblog has a full road test of Tesla’s Roadster. Version 1.5 they call it, lol.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/10/21/driven-2009-tesla-roadster-v1-5/

Bummer is that it doesn’t have any ‘hard’ numbers, just clears up some issues with the first version. Transmission, etc.

(Quote)
kc_eric Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I never understood the people who got all upset about how the production version looked. I still think it looks great. Plus, it’s like he said, “the aerodyanmics are the same” for GM and Toyota.

People are just going to have to have a paradigm shift and change the way they think about cars. The ICE’s days are numbered.

Now to the real question: When can I get me an electric Camaro? Or an electric Dodge Challenger, for that matter. Conceivably the technology could advance to the point where we could see an electric Camaro someday, right?

(Quote)
GasPath Says:
October 21st, 2008 at 6:02 pm

I knew there would likely be a change in the final design, but I didn’t know it would go from sports car to family car. While I totally understand the family car appeal, I was hoping for the sports car look. I’ve been holding out for years (I’m currently driving a 1988 car) for an American Electric.

I guess I’ll just have to be disappointed driving around in my “family” car with no family.

(Quote)
statik Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 am

#111 (doghouse) GasPath

I knew there would likely be a change in the final design, but I didn’t know it would go from sports car to family car. While I totally understand the family car appeal, I was hoping for the sports car look. I’ve been holding out for years (I’m currently driving a 1988 car) for an American Electric.

I guess I’ll just have to be disappointed driving around in my “family” car with no family.
—————————————–
I have never heard it expressed this way…and it has been expressed alot of ways, but you are exactly right.

That is the problem and why there is two completely different camps on the concept vs production car. It is not that the Volt in either form was not a great looking car, but it jumped classifications overnight when the production car was revealed.

The concept Volt wasn’t exactly in the ’sports car’ category because it was a 0-60 in 8 second car, but it appeared like it was (and it was electric), so I would call it a ’sport-cute’ car. (I’m thinking along a similar fanatical following as the Miata when it came out…its own little niche of a class)

Whereas the production is clearly now hitting the small ‘family sedan’ market hard…and to people who are in that market for a car, the production Volt is a great looking sedan and fits the bill to a ‘T.’

/nice point GasPath

(Quote)
Mario Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:02 pm

The front grill is the most boring one I know, like in all Chevys.
Is this car gonna be a plug in?

(Quote)
muscularman Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am

actualy, I was very dissapointed by the redesign, some of the concept should have been left in, this is a car for the future, not a run of the mill prius wanna be, therefore it should have had incredible looks, no this does not chage the fact that

this redesigned car = massive fail from GM once again, it seems the engineers have been lobotomized

(Quote)
Mark Dubose Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 pm

I bought GM stock based upon my expectations for the Volt. My problem with the redesign is that if they expect to get $40K the car needs to look like a $40K car. If they can sell it for the price of a Prius, then it can look like a Prius. If there plan is to produce and sell a massive number of cars, at a lower price, then I understand the redesign. But, if they will only sell a relatively small number of Volts the first few years, then they should have waited to make it a “family” car. People with families tend to be concerned with both price and price to operate. Which is why diesel doesn’t sell here with a $3K premium. The savings don’t outweigh the initial cost. The Volt, at a significant premium, will be hit with the same dismal sales, unless it has a visual aspect to go along with the savings of electric. This redesign takes away that visual edge.

(Quote)
Lorenzo Pina Says:
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:48 pm

I understand certain changes that must be made to concepts with regards to design but Chevy took a concept that made a HUGE splash to get alot of publicity and then revealed somthing thats kind of so, so when compared to the concept. I mean come on, i thought to myself; Finally, a cool looking GREEN car. Production car really doesn’t look bad, but its So, So different from the Concept.

But whats DISSAPOINTING about the car is that it went from an Awesome concept, to what looks like a HONDA CIVIC with a CHEVY emblem on it.

Oh yeah, and $40k for that thing, Chevy must be OUT OF THEIR MINDS!

(Quote)
Adam Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 12:18 am

Hey everyone. I read just about every post on here (took a bit). I was one of those who perked up and found a glimmer of hope with the Volt. I told my friends, I sent email links, pics, etc. But geez louise! a Saturn? Really? I agree and disagree and agree again with most of what everyone is saying about this car. Sure GM has restrictions. There is a practical side to engineering and even styling. But this thing no long “Looks” as this savior to the gas problem. I’m looking for a superman type car that boldly puffs out it’s chest (in a manner of speaking) This car might have the meat underneath but 50 designers can’t see this is a blah, blah car?

There was a comment by the designer saying something along the lines of we were faced to limit ourselves to a platform and some other regulations and aerodynamics etc. But still create something that looked good and he was proud of what it is now. The world thrives on great ideas not re-worked turds. I am positive if i was given a challenge in my career and this is what I came up with I would loose the account and probably get fired. Keep something from the concept. Give me some cool small windows or tricked out side mirrors. My goodness the whole soul of the car is gone. I’m not bitching here, just making simple observations on the styling. The back end is cool, but the profile, front end, Yikes. I’ll drive less and enjoy my new BMW 1 series.

(Quote)
Kenkros Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 7:00 am

Ick…..can you say ‘econo-box?’

(Quote)
Les Says:
October 25th, 2008 at 7:15 am

I am not an engineer, so I won’t try to make claims that GM could have kept some of the concept’s styling cues and still reached their objectives (e.g. mileage, cost containment, etc) However, I will be hard pressed to spend $40,000 + on a vehicle that looks like a compact economy car knock-off. For a few months, this car really held the promise of raising the heartbeat of America. Now, I can barely feel a pulse.

(Quote)
Bryan Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 12:28 pm

This is the first production car with a battery that I would consider buying. The flexibility of being able to make my daily commute with the option of electricity, e85, or gasoline provides the sort of energy flexibility that will ultimately lead to a more stable marketplace. I hope GM can pull this one off, although I worry the company is too close to bankrupcy (thanks UAW).

(Quote)
Paul Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I’m sorry they are going to have a hard time selling what looks like a Camry for $40K.. If that is the final production design it will not sell well, and be like the Honda Insight(looked like a rocketship), without GM subsidizing the price like Honda did… If that car comes in around $25k, then you will see it sell a lot, at $40k you will only have people who had to have the PRIUS eventhough the economics of the car made no sense and the gas money savings didn’t backup the extra cost of the car…

Same with the Civic Hybrid that cost almost $10 more than the basic Civic but got like 15mpgs more…

(Quote)
Paul Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

To Mark who bought GM stock because of the VOLT.. I hope you got in at around $5.50 a share, if it hits $7.. sell and lock in your profit..

(Quote)
dan Says:
October 27th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

so we may get a few less miles on the volt concept design because of the big wheels. but the way i see it, we’re still getting a lot more miles out of it than we would with an ordinary gas car. so i myself dont see any problems with the original concept design.

(Quote)
TC Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 9:01 am

The volt concept was cool. GM hyped it, put it in regular TV adds, etc. Actually had me thinking, maybe I will check it out when it is available. The production car is BORING. No chance will I be interested in it now. Now I realize that GM is hoping to go beyond a niche car. But, they could do both. Other niche cars have made it to market fairly close to the original concept (the recent challenger, isuzu vehicross, etc.)

tc

(Quote)
Johnny I Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

The Corvette is aero-dynamic and it’s a nice looking car. It’s unnecessary that the Volt should wind up looking like this. There was no reason for GM to make the car look like this for aero-dynamic purposes. GM brought us a “breathe of fresh air” in their Volt concept design. Now with the redesign production car, all we have is a $40,000 fart.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

The Hows and Whys of the Volt Concept Redesign

125 Responses to “The Hows and Whys of the Volt Concept Redesign”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts