Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Volt Chief Designer on the Public Reaction to Chevy Volt Redesign

December 29th, 2008 | Posted in: Design, Public Opinion

I recently had the chance to ask Bob Boniface who is the Chevy Volt’s design chief about how he perceived the public’s response to the cars redesign from concept to production form.

How do feel about the public’s response to the unveiling?
It depends which day. When the Transformer photos leaked people went crazy for it, but when the day the ones with us standing in front of it..it was the same exact car, people hated it.

When they saw the actual car, most people liked it better than the show car. I worked on both cars, I ran the concept car and I ran this one. This car compared to the show car is a much more sophisticated piece of product design. When you park the two of them next to each other, once you get over the fact that the other one had huge wheels and the wheelbase of a Chevy Tahoe. People don’t realize it bit that car had a 116 inch wheelbase, and a slanted roof. Once you get past those proportional pieces, you realize that this car, the integration of the volumes and the surface vocabulary is much more sophisticated. I love the concept car too, but I like this one better.

Design is two-fold. Styling is only one component to fit. Design has a problem solving component too. The problem we had to solve here was get 4 full sized adults in here comfortably, safely, in a sporty silhouette, and still provide on the promise of 40 miles of petroleum-free driving. That’s difficult.

Building a good looking concept car is very easy to do. There are no constraints.

Did you intend for the car to have more of a mainstream appeal, since it is intended to be a high volume car?
It had to have mainstream appeal, but it didn’t want to be plain vanilla or generic. Were talking about tens of thousands of these that we want to sell. I don’t think that the other car wouldn’t have done it. And frankly the other car, the layout, the powertrain it was the best we knew at the time. Remember it was a concept, we didn’t know it was going to go anywhere. We took an off the shelf gas motor and an off the shelf traction motor and placed them in tandem, and that’s what shoved the wheels forward. As we got into it, we have a much more efficient powertrain here, a much more efficient shape of the body, and a much more efficient interior package. It has more popular appeal. This is going to fit into more people’s lives.

There are those people who have not seen the car in person and say ”Oh they just built a Prius.” This doesn’t not look like a Prius at all. We’ve many times had them parked together, and its crazy but they don’t look alike at all. Yeah they both have four wheels and a smooth shape, but that where the similarities end.

What people can’t tell from photographs is the stance of the car, the width of the track versus the height of the car. The size of the wheels and tires. These are 18 inch. The base will be a 17 inch with an optional 18 inch. This is the production overall diameter. This roof is about 2 inches lower than a Prius. And our wheel diameters are about 2 inches greater than a Prius and the track is wider. So this car has this hunkered down stance in person that our competitor’s just doesn’t have. This car is athletic.

Posted by: Lyle

129 Responses to “Volt Chief Designer on the Public Reaction to Chevy Volt Redesign”

Dick G. Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:35 am

“This car is athletic.” Let’s hope it’s a Widely Receiver.

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:36 am

Personally, I like the production version better than the concept.

Does anyone know what effect wheel size has on miles per charge/gallon?

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:43 am

I think you’ve done a great job, Mr. Boniface!

Too many people who look at the car don’t realize the complexity involved. I’m sure the car must look good, but also must be aerodynamic, fit over the chassis (which is constrained by the powertrain, battery, and other systems), meet safety regulations, as well as be compliant with the best manufacturing processes (i.e. easy to manufacture).

I for one look forward to seeing the Volt on the road in 2010.

Again, my compliments to you and your team for a job well done.

(Quote)
Bruce Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:46 am

My question is if I were a customer would this wow me into buying it. Emotion plays a big deal. None of us have seen the car. Here in S. Florida GM did not even present a concept this year at the auto show. Are people going to be brought in? Is there a transformation in looks or another generic car? It looks great under the hood. The green people will love it. How about the younger people who want looks also. Remember you only have a certain number of green people. Is this going to be the Mustang to save GM. Either way I wish you success

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:59 am

What people can’t tell from photographs is the stance of the car, the width of the track versus the height of the car. The size of the wheels and tires. These are 18 inch. The base will be a 17 inch with an optional 18 inch.

A late Christmas present for Statik and nasaman. hehe.
Hell, I will be happy just to get the ‘base’ version.

LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am

Note, I’m sure GM could have built a car similar to the concept.

However, I believe that the Volt is going to make both an environmental and efficiency statement, and GM wanted that more than the “Electric Camaro” look. This was a decision that GM management has made.

So now the Volt, although not so much of a gangster car, is more mainstream, can replace a conventional ICE driven car (no range anxiety), uses non-petroleum alternate energy for most of its range, and reduces emissions. It will have an EPA rating in excess of 100 mpg.

Sportier versions with more performance and less efficiency are sure to follow.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:29 am

It’s one thing to have a concept car and then move to a production version. But, I believe that GM touted the concept version of the Volt very heavily, while knowing that the production version would not be anything like the concept.

When concepts come out, I understand they are concepts, but GM overplayed this concept, and then made the drastic changeover to production. I think people were just shocked.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:03 am

Good questions, Lyle. It is great to get everyone’s perspectives on their piece of the development, before, during and after.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:12 am

Remember the days when we only had the concept? I miss those days, where almost every post people were saying things like:

“Why can’t the concept just be a basic sedan?”
“I hope when GM makes it, they just give us smaller wheels”
“Look how big the wheelbase is! I just love the wheelbase of the Cobalt, I hope they change it”
“I hope those polymer see through window sills don’t make it, I have meaty arms I don’t want people to see”
“I hope they really shrink down the hood…I think that really makes it ‘athletic’”
“I’m really worried about that panaromic roof, I don’t want the kids in the back getting skin cancer from the sun…what the heck is wrong with sheet metal? How about just a sunroof that I can buy as a option?”
“Hopefully, we don’t get a unique interior in this car…I just want something similar to their entry level offering…but give me a big white center stack as the cherry on top”

/GM really listened to what the public wanted…and delivered.
//Mission Accomplished
========================
========================
#5 NZDavid said,

“What people can’t tell from photographs is the stance of the car, the width of the track versus the height of the car. The size of the wheels and tires. These are 18 inch. The base will be a 17 inch with an optional 18 inch.”
—A late Christmas present for Statik and nasaman. hehe
——————-
17″ wheels!!!!! Huzzah!
STANDARD on a $40,000 sedan? How will the competition compete?

…AND we can buy 18s as well?!?
–Your just lucky I was sitting down when I read that GM, you might have had a ’slip and fall’ lawsuit on your hands.

/GM…you are too good to us.
==================
Bottom line is GM represented the concept as being the production. For over a year and a half we had Lutz/Wagoner (et all) grandstanding about it, and statments like, ‘It will be unmistakably the Volt’…all the way until the ‘de-pants-ing’ with the Transformer leaks. They never came clean.

There is nothing wrong with the production vehicle, I like it fine. I wish I had never seen the concept and GM never represented it as what we were going to get…but I did see it, and that is what they did.

Now if they would stop feeding us meatloaf and telling us it is steak…that would be nice.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:14 am

What does the GM E-REV truck look like?

Many here at gm-volt dot com have asked this question. I think it’s a safe bet that GM has a working concept that is being kept secret.

The proportions of the Volt look good in person. The 18″ wheels fit the scale of the car perfectly. I believe the rear quarter of the Volt will look squat with 17’s.

Many manufactures offer an upgrade package from base which includes bigger wheels, deluxe cabin accents, better brakes, .. ect. Some charge as much as $4000 for these mods. We’re already near nose bleed level at the current projected base price for the Volt. I hope the “base model” costs somewhat less than the projected sticker.

=D~

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:24 am

“When they saw the actual car, most people liked it better than the show car.”
===================================

In your dreams, Mr Bonniface. In reality, the concept made my heart beat faster. The production car leaves my heart rate rock steady. The styling is not as good as plain vanilla, because vanilla is an exotic and extraordinary flavor, and the production Volt is not extraordinary in how it looks. The production car is a replica of Honda civic, almost exactly the same dimensions and appearance, but to the degree there is any visual difference, the Civic is marginally nicer. Maybe the Volt is sophisticated in its integration, but as for appearance it is generic. If Mr. Bonniface thinks otherwise, he is living in dreamland.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:35 am

Dick G. Says: @1

This car is athletic.” Let’s hope it’s a Widely Receiver.

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

If it had the name Toyota mark on it, it would be widely receiver.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:41 am

From the article: “It had to have mainstream appeal, but it didn’t want to be plain vanilla or generic. Were talking about tens of thousands of these that we want to sell.”
————————————————————————————–
This is disappointing. When Bob Boniface says: “Were talking about tens of thousands of these that we want to sell”, keep in mind that there are 40 million cars in the U.S.. This Volt has to sell 400 thousand units just to have a 1% market penetration. The Prius has already sold a million.

“Tens of thousands” of Volt sales, that would be greenwashing.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:49 am

#13 Dave G.

I think Bob was referring to the first 10K GM said they were going to sell in in the first year of ver 1 of the Volt.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:50 am

If I remember correctly, a survey taken on this site a while back showed the production model of the Volt was voted about an equal to the concept car. I wish I could find that survey in the archive..

(Quote)
Tony Gray Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am

#7 JEC: You nailed it buddy. The concept was so widely publicized by GM that any significant deviation would be seen as a cop out. That would be so regardless of the reasons, as scientific or practical they may be.

Perhaps if the concept would have been less “neat-o” and they would have concentrated more on publicizing the guts over the look, it would not have been such a shock.

As it goes, I think any reasonable person would see that the concept was totally unworkable from a practical standpoint (too low, too long a wheelbase, too large wheels, etc).

After my first hesistation, I too agree they did a pretty good job with the real world vehicle, and I hope to see it in person at the New York show if not before.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Maybe GM should just scrap the Camaro and throw a V8 in the Volt concept instead

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am

Yes! Concept vs. Production argument again. I love this.

Concept was beautiful.
Production is not.

But the Production is what we are getting. It’s okay with me.
I didn’t buy my Elantra for its sex appeal. Trust me on that.

I will buy the Volt so we can stop giving money to people who are trying to kill us.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am

GM, as you can see from these comments, you can never please everyone. The transition from concept to production Volt was quite a change and some people will never get over it. But I, for one, like the production model and never expected the Volt to stay looking like the concept. I do wish you had those 2 inches in roof height though. (Like I said, “you can never please everyone” – me included.) More head room is always nice. The Prius has great head room for my 6 foot 2 inch frame.

Good information Lyle. Now, let’s get the wheels on the road, GM.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am

Lyle – I dont know when you talked to Bob Boniface, but was there any new info on the interior? It seemed last we left off, they were still “tweaking” things. Will the Volt at the Detroit show be updated from the last photos we saw of the Volt interior?

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am

The car guys (they’re almost always guys) say you have to see it up close and personal. Like many people it doesn’t photograph well. Apparently the fit and details make it stand out and appealing to buyers who want heads to turn as well as to buyers who want the technology.

But really at the end of the day pretty is as pretty does. Regardless of the exterior, it will reduce oil consumption and emissions, and it will drive prospective customers who would not otherwise think of GM into GM showrooms.

#9 statik says “17″ wheels!!!!! Huzzah!
STANDARD on a $40,000 sedan? How will the competition ompete?”

You know I love you but sometimes you’re not reasonable. $40K is a lot but compared to what? A Th!nk at $35K? Your beloved i-Miev at $40K? (How can someone love the design of the gangsta Volt concept and the anime inspired design of the i-Miev?) A Fisker Karma at $86K? We’ll have to wait on the fit and finish, but if it’s as good as a Prius then GM will have a huge hit, at least on the coasts. Keep in mind that the Volt is not really a $40K car. It’s a $20K car with $20K of technology. If you accept that fact you’ll probably like the car. If not you won’t. Just depends on your reference.

However, did you notice he says “Were talking about tens of thousands of these that we want to sell.” Tens of thousands? I was hoping for hundreds of thousands.

Still no word on GMAC, eh? I wonder if they’re going to file a bankruptcy petition. If the Fed would provide DIP financing this would be the way to go.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:27 am

I agree with you, Rashiid. Those bad guys receiving all that oil money and passing some of it on to fund terrorist don’t need to get any more of our money. We need to make this happen as fast as we can. Every penny sent overseas for purchasing oil is a penny not circulating here at home creating jobs and supporting America. Same for Canada, Europe and all other countries buying oil.

(Quote)
KUD Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am

As much as I liked the concept, I think the production VOLT will look great when I stop at my usual gas station JUST for my morning cup of Joe. No GAS needed …. Thank you very much.

=D~~

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:32 am

#21 DonC

It was my understanding from the news this weekend that GMAC was offered federal money with strings. GM and Cerberus (not spelled correctly) have to divest some of their control over the company. I don’t remember all the details. But funding has been offered.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:43 am

#19 N Riley

GM, as you can see from these comments, you can never please everyone. The transition from concept to production Volt was quite a change and some people will never get over it. But I, for one, like the production model and never expected the Volt to stay looking like the concept. I do wish you had those 2 inches in roof height though. (Like I said, “you can never please everyone” – me included.) More head room is always nice. The Prius has great head room for my 6 foot 2 inch frame.

Good information Lyle. Now, let’s get the wheels on the road, GM.
==================

I don’t really think GM went so far off the map that it scared the people away that were serious about buying the concept…just annoyed about half of us, lol.

The car as it stands is fine, I’m ok with it…I’ll still buy it.

If anything, the part that will scare people away is the price tag….you can love the production 10 times as much as the concept, but if you don’t have (or are not willing to part with) the ’scratch’ to buy it, it matters little.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:44 am

#24 N Riley

Yes the Fed did offer a loan but it was conditional on GMAC getting its bondholders to take equity for their debt by some deadline on Friday (I think it was midnight but I can’t remember exactly).

The deadline has passed. No word from GMAC.

So the question: What now in the next episode of “How Detroit Turns”? (This is a big deal actually, not trying to be too flip).

(Quote)
BiodieselJeep Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am

Statik et al:

What odds do you give to the Volt being produced (at all) and on schedule, in quantities outlined in schedules?

I’m giving less than 50-50 at this point. I highly doubt now that GM will be in any shape to ramp up production and expand availablity….much less survive. This makes me sad, but I’m a realist.

Curious on your takes on this.

(Quote)
Frank B Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:54 am

I still like the Concept much better than the production, This is a bold car and should have a bold look! The production model looks like 90% of the 2008 model cars, but it will be coming out in the 2011 model year. I think it’s a giant GM blunder.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:54 am

#21 DonC said:

A bunch of stuff, then … “Still no word on GMAC, eh? I wonder if they’re going to file a bankruptcy petition. If the Fed would provide DIP financing this would be the way to go.”
========================

Good morning. Not going to comment on our car differences…I think we have established our boundaries there, hehe.

No clue about GMAC…very weird. They should have has a release just after friday at midnite if they hit swap ratios. Only thing I can think of is they missed it and they are lobbying to try and break the US banking system rules.

Did you see the GM ‘talking head’ lady’s quote (Gina Proia) when she said they would release it ’soon’ (like 48 hours ago)?

“…the bank holding company approval was not contingent on the bond exchange, but the debt swap was contingent on GMAC getting the bank holding company approval.”

What? Say that again for me? That makes no sense. She makes it sound like maybe there is already some kind of back room deal out there…maybe they are trying to figure out how to spin it to the general public?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINN2829074220081228?rpc=44

I really don’t know…I’m completely lost on these kinds of issues now when the gov’t is just randomly sticking its fingers into the economy as it sees fit.

(Quote)
Daveo Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:58 am

RB #11

Have you ever heard of car classification? It’s been obvious for a while now that the Volt is meant to compete with cars like the Civic. If the dimensions are too different, then it is classified accordingly.

As for styling, everyone has their preference, but I strongly disagree that the 2009 Civic is marginally nicer. Keep in mind that arguing opinions won’t get us off fossil fuels.

Eyes on the prize folks….eyes on the prize!

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:12 am

#29 statik

I think she’s saying that they can do the debt swap after getting bank holding company status. That wasn’t my understanding but she should know. I do know that GM and Cerberus were on the hook for a capital infusion and that the debt swap was hung up on negotiating that amount — the bondholders wanted more and GM and Cerberus wanted to give less. (How unusual! LOL)

I wouldn’t be too hung up if the deadline was moved. It was after all artificially imposed in the first instance. Even better, I’d like it if GMAC went into bankruptcy with DI or a plan to liquidate with a new entity. If nothing else it might make everyone wake up to the possibility of this happening with GM and Chrysler.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am

#22 N Riley

I agree with you, Rashiid. Those bad guys receiving all that oil money and passing some of it on to fund terrorist don’t need to get any more of our money. We need to make this happen as fast as we can. Every penny sent overseas for purchasing oil is a penny not circulating here at home creating jobs and supporting America. Same for Canada, Europe and all other countries buying oil.
=============
We are a net exporter of oil in Canada.

Actually, we are the US biggest supplier of oil…we just can’t get you enough of the stuff…and right now at around $40/barrell we don’t really make any money on it (at least not from the sands), so we are not ramping up to pull any extra ‘black gold’ from the ground.

Statistics of US Imports of Crude Oil
(YTD through October 31st, 2008):
(Thousand Barrels per Day)

CANADA 1,912
SAUDI ARABIA 1,520
MEXICO 1,322
VENEZUELA 1,221
NIGERIA 1,184
IRAQ 490

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:18 am

#25 Statik

As you said, some people will pass on the Volt if the price is not right. I agree, more or less. I think it also depends on where the cost of gasoline is at the time. If it goes back up to $4.50 or over per gallon, that is one thing. If it stays below $2.00 per gallon, that is another. I know my interest in fuel efficient vehicles goes up with the price of gasoline. I am sure I am in the majority on this.

But, yeah, I would buy the production Volt just on principle at this point. Assuming I have the ’scratch’, of course.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am

#32 Statik

After I submitted the comment with Canada included, I realized I should not have included your great country. I got busy at that point and did not have time to edit out Canada. We are very grateful for Canadian oil and your people’s friendship. The friendship preceded the oil, which is a good thing.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am

#2 MDDAVE says “Does anyone know what effect wheel size has on miles per charge/gallon?”

Wheel size (rim size) per se doesn’t have a lot of effect, if any at the sizes we’re talking about here. You have a lot of variables. You have the width and height of the tire (aspect ratio) and the section height (the difference between the tire diameter and the rim diameter). Plus many more. You can read about this stuff here:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr286.pdf

How these variables play out is complex and not linear. Some 15″ rim tires have low RR and some 17″ and 18″ rim tires have low RR. The only constant is that newer tires have lower RR (no tread wear) and inflated tires have lower RR.

My guess is that it won’t be a significant difference.

(Quote)
Chad S. Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am

More athletic than the Lions, I hope.

Oh, wait…that doesn’t take much.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am

#35 Don C

I also seem to recall wider tires being an issue w/the aerodynamic drag.. seems like this was posted a few months back when the production model was revealed.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am

#34 N Riley said,

#32 Statik

After I submitted the comment with Canada included, I realized I should not have included your great country. I got busy at that point and did not have time to edit out Canada. We are very grateful for Canadian oil and your people’s friendship. The friendship preceded the oil, which is a good thing.
====================
I figured that.

I wish we didn’t produce all that oil, it is not something I take pride in, actually the opposite is true. I guess the only ‘good’ thing is if it comes from us, at least the money doesn’t go to nations with ‘questionable’ motives/morals.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am

#37 k-dawg

Actually I think I was the one suggesting that GM had ditched the larger tires (thinking the production tires were 15″ or 16″) because they would have increased rolling resistance (no obvious effect on aero drag). But nasaman set me straight with the report I’ve cited above!

(Quote)
BiodieselJeep Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:56 am

Statik:

Hmmm, so if the Saudi’s use oil money to fund terrorists, the Nigerians oppress their people, the Mexicans build drug cartels, the Venezuelans use it to agrandize their communist King, and the Iraqies, well, you know…then what are you sneaky Canadians up to? That’s a LOT of this dangerous oil money going to one place…you are BOUND to be up to no-good if you are on that list.

I’ve got my eye-on-you.

George, there is still time for one more invasion.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am

#40 BiodieselJeep

Funny. Funny.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm

#26 DonC:

Flip is good at this point. Otherwise we’re gonna cry.

#28 statik & #31 DonC:

Yeah, which shell has the pea under it?

#32 statik:

Thanks for the interesting and educational statistics. And I can only agree with N Riley at #34. Thanks for you friendship.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm

#40 BiodieselJeep said:

Statik:

Hmmm, so if the Saudi’s use oil money to fund terrorists, the Nigerians oppress their people, the Mexicans build drug cartels, the Venezuelans use it to agrandize their communist King, and the Iraqies, well, you know…then what are you sneaky Canadians up to? That’s a LOT of this dangerous oil money going to one place…you are BOUND to be up to no-good if you are on that list.

I’ve got my eye-on-you.

George, there is still time for one more invasion.
====================================

/stockpiling back bacon, butter tarts and making thousands of oddly shaped football fields (and balls)

(Quote)
Stacy Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm

I think a more pressing quesion would have been to ask – how are they going to get the next 150 billion they need to get through 09, to even get to a point to be able to make the Volt.

(Quote)
BiodieselJeep Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Mmmm bacon. Fat back and strip-o-lean are the foundations of any recipe with predigree down south. Gives you the …insulation… needed to make it through the winter.

Mmmm. Now I want some bacon. If you think about it, you want some bacon, too. I KNOW that’s what some auto exec’s are thinking.

Let’s all go get us some bacon.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

#44 Stacy:

No s**t!

Even so, I have to say that this pairing of the photos is the most striking comparison I have seen. I convinces me, once and for all, that the “production” Volt is actually much better looking than the “concept” Volt.

Next case.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

The prod version looks more aerodynamic and looks easier to get in/out of (Watch your head).

Just build my Volt Dangit!

(Quote)
KentT Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Holding judgement until I get to see this car at my local Chevy dealer!

At least it is not a direct ripoff of the the Prius. Honda should be ashamed of themselves! The new Honda Insight, at least in photos looks identical to the Prius! Maybe it IS a Prius with a Honda badge!

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I guess I’m in the minority here but GM’s bait-and-switch didn’t really bother me. Companies always juice up their products beforehand to get a buzz going. GM is trying to build-a-buzz and I guess they figured the longer the concept car image was out the better. Nothing wrong with that. It’s marketing.

Ever see pictures of the Boeing 787. When the first pictures came out, as an enginerd I knew the mold line features weren’t practical, they were just cool artists conceptions to get a buzz. When the real thing was rolled out, it looked much more practical.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Ah, finally a thread for people to vent their frustration at everything that hasn’t turned out quite how they wanted it. Well, have at it, that’s what the internet is for.

My take: I like the production car better than the concept. I think the concept looks strange and completely dysfunctional as an all-purpose car. And I love sports cars and everything, I’m a car person. But personally the concept doesn’t look like a muscle car I would want to buy, let alone a “normal” vehicle that I can actually use on an everyday basis to carry people and gear around. Did anyone, even the Volt die-hards around here, really think that the production car would look much like the concept? The concept looks like a Camaro with two awkwardly-shaped doors squeezed in behind the front two, and the car itself was marketed as a practical (if revolutionary) sedan, competitive with various other smallish cars on the market. Surely these two competing influences must meet somewhere in the middle, right?

I don’t know about anybody else, but the production Volt will still be “unmistakable” to me when it finally hits the streets. For people who care about what cars look like, the Volt is distinctive enough to at least catch their attention. For those who aren’t concerned with a car’s looks….well, it doesn’t matter, because they don’t care. I think GM struck a good balance between looks and utility.

(Quote)
D.L. Klein Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm

With today’s design technology, there is no reason for the production car to be so far off from the concept? Actually I see no similarities, the Volt now looks like all the other cars on the road. There’s nothing “unique” about the design. The Chinese could do just as good of a job copying the competition . . . where’s the good old American ingenuity here? (Oh yea, you left it with the concept car)

I have followed the Volt from day one, this is a huge disappointment for me. If this is the way it’s going to be, stop wasting money on these concept cars and direct the time and money towards production cars. If all the “Corrections” were needed to make the Production version “work”, then who was doing the thinking while designing the concept car?

Also, the “Plug-in” thing is stupid with all the wireless charging technology, like induction. “That” should be the basic charging standard. The “Plug” should only be an optional method. Parking pads, bumpers and other hands-free apparatuses to get the charge make more sense.

Come on, get it together GM, it’s easy to see why YOU are in this mess! I want a smart efficient and PROUD design, not this thing. You won’t see me in the showroom until I see something like the car I fell in love with.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

#48 KentT

The Honda Insight does have a much better interior (in the concept) than what the Prius has. We will see the final interior next month. I suspect it will still be better than the new Prius that is scheduled to be shown. Honda generally beats the daylights out of Toyota in interior design. IMO.

#50 Jake

I must agree completely.

(Quote)
Guy Incognito Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I knew from day one the final production version would look almost nothing like the prototype, there was nothing aerodynamic about it.
I don’t think to much of the idea to make the car look ’sporty’ either.
Rick & Bob, if you’re reading this, don’t be afraid to point out the fact that the Volt may be many things, but most importantly economical.
Hope this does’nt fall on deaf ears.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 2:48 pm

#51 D.L. Klein

I think you are expecting too much in a Version 1 vehicle. Plus, there is no infrastructure (and none on the horizon) to support that type of charging stations. Maybe in 10 or 12 years, as John Wayne would say.

The concept Volt was beautiful but impractical for purposeful use. I do agree with your question about “who was doing the thinking while designing the concept car?”. Seems like more study could have been done and the end result would have been much more pleasing and practical. I think GM threw the Volt concept out there and did not really expect to ever build it. They were taken by surprise by all the interest in the concept.

(Quote)
D.L. Klein Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Riley,

In all due respect, you’re wrong about the technology, it does exist and there are several existing “in-use” vehicles that don’t “Plug-in”.

I am a designer (buildings, not autos) and I would never spend time and money on a design for a client that could not be built. Those days of just drawing something up for show are over. Existing CAD programs allow virtual modeling. If the GM designers can’t include their expertise in a design, then find someone that can. Now they are wasting OUR money!

Again, this is nowhere NEAR the concept car. I certainly expected “some” changes but not a different car altogether. I have always wanted to go to the Detroit Auto Show, I already paid for airfare, hotel and a rental car. I really wanted to see the car I fell in love with, there were no indications from GM they were going to “Produce” another car with the same name!

If i knew my wife would look like she does now, I would have never married her . . . . I want the pretty version.

(Quote)
Stan Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

This car just does not have a simple iconic design. The surfaces and details are overly complex and it just looks like a sporty fastback Malibu cousin. I never liked the Prius, but it is iconic and very simple if anemic alien looking. Still that kind of unique simplicity gets you somewhere and in a sense approaches Beetle, and Mini territory, although less fun in my opinion. We really needed an iconic car like. My dream E-Rev would be a VW Scirocco body
with the electric internals. I don’t think we can ever expect great beauty from GM since they don’t allow it to go to production – even with great concepts.

In my book the Volt design was one of the biggest disappointments and lost potential of 2008. I had personally bought into this story after seeing the concept. Now I just look at the Volt program in a very detached but peaceful way since I will not be buying one anyway. I know other car designs will come along in a few years from VW, Volvo etc.

When will the designers learn we all want to drive BMW’s, Volov, VW etc because there is something intangible in their design that really should not cost more to produce, but they cost more because of the name and design – not shape.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I never liked the roof line on the Volt concept. I thought it made the car impractical for getting into and out of. I do like the concept’s stance better and I think it is more aggressive looking than the production Volt. But, if I want a car that makes my heart beat much faster when I look at it, I will buy the new Camaro. If that car doesn’t make your heart beat faster you may want to get an appointment with your doctor quickly and have your heart checked out. That or your senses are working normally.

I will be proud to own a Volt. I accept the changes that I feel had to be made to get the car to be what GM had been advertising. At the same time, when I look at a Fisker I wonder why the Volt could not look more dynamic, sportier and streamlined like it. Maybe GM will give us a lot of improvements on Version 2 or 3.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm

#55 D.L. Klein

I didn’t say the technology did not exist. It does not exist in infrastructure format, yet. In 10 or 12 years, maybe. GM had to design and build a car that could be “plugged-in” everywhere, not on that the owner would have to invest in very expensive charging equipment or the apartment building, the shopping mart’s owners, etc would have to invest in. Simple electrical plugs or stand-alone charging stations do exist and are not expensive. All the home owner needs in the garage is an extension cord long enough to reach.

I do agree what you say is possible, but somewhere down the line. I do not want to pay for both types of charging capability on a Volt when I may never see the futuristic design you speak of with the Version 1 Volt. But, yeah, some day.

I hope your wife does not read this blog. Boy, could you be in for some re-designing!

(Quote)
Neil Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Just another person who likes the production design far more than the concept. I never thought the concept would survive and frankly I would never buy a car that looked like the concept.

(Quote)
old man Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

#57

I agree regarding the concept roof. To me it looks like something heavy sat on it. But then I really do like the production model. In the future I think there will be an E-REV Vette for the concept lovers.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:26 pm

If GM would take the Volt concept and remove the electrical stuff and add back a good hybrid system with a turbo-charged 4 or 6 cylinder with a taller roof line, they could sell a lot of them to people who want a sporty hybrid. The concept is a beautiful car. The biggest draw back (as I stated earlier IMO) is the roof line is just too low. With five passenger capability, an economical, efficient turbo engine it would have given the Camaro, the Mustang and the Challenger a real run for their money at a lower initial cost.

Edited: But I guess GM would not produce another Chevy that would take sales away from the Camaro. But it would have been interesting, given GM would have the money to invest in all three platforms (the Volt, the Concept and the Camaro). Maybe they could have given it a real sporty name plate like “Impala”. But that name is taken by a sedan that is in dire need of upgrading. Both in looks and capabilities.

(Quote)
Stew Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

The Transformer Volt was not identical to the production model, go back and compare the pics. The Transformer Volt had much more defined wheel arch flares than the production version. There may be more differences but that one comes to mind first.

That may be a minor difference to be sure, but it only takes a few small changes to really change the personality of a vehicle. Personally I like the production version better however I would have liked the nose to more closely resemble the concept.

Stew

(Quote)
Tony Gray Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:32 pm

#55 DL:

You are a brave soul. Good luck in the witness protection program.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

“Boniface?” Does that mean ‘good face’?” Is he putting a good face on the public’s response to the Volt’s redesign?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm

#64 ThombDbhomb

I don’t know what the “public’s” response is but, I do know that the response on this site is very mixed. The general public will not make a decision until the Volt is on the dealer’s lot a year or two. I think we are generally positive more than negative about the production Volt, but with some hesitation about all the necessary changes.

Edited: The concept Volt was such a “statement” type of car and most of us fell in love with it at first sight. It is hard to forget those first loves and marry the girl next door who may not inspire us as much or make our heart pound harder but will be a good and true wife to us and a wonderful mother to our children. Many of us have married some one that may have been a “second” choice, but ended up being made for you in the end. Not speaking for myself now, let me say this righ now. My wife does not read this blog.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm

The production Volt is kind of like that girl next door who we ignored for all those years, but ended up marrying. It was still a good match, after all. The production Volt will be very good car, I do believe.

(Quote)
Anthony BC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

“Were talking about tens of thousands of these that we want to sell.”, Huh?

Sure production model is more practical, but wish it had less of a stretched face-lift look and more like the concept nose. Does this mean that there will be a new production VOLT model car (made in China) that we can also buy?

GO EV, GO VOLT!

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

#55 D.L. Klein Says:
If i knew my wife would look like she does now, I would have never married her . . . . I want the pretty version.

———-
Very cold, D.L. Very cold.
I am thankful that I am still madly in love with my beautiful wife of 15 years.

Disclaimer: My wife does not read this blog and actually gets annoyed when I read it a lot.

(Quote)
BuckCherry Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Looks like a dodge stratus to me.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Statik,

You still predicting the battery contract will be announced today? Were you not the one predicting that a week or so ago? Well, anyway, maybe it will come before the end of the year. Still plenty of time. I feel sure GM has it on their schedule. Just don’t know when or who. Do we?

(Quote)
maharguitar Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

#36 Chad S

More athletic than the Lions, I hope.

Oh, wait…that doesn’t take much.
———————————————-
In most of the NFL when a quarterback gets three concussions it is called “Time to Retire”. In Detroit it’s called “Fourth down”

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

It does have some of the Dodge Stratus look, BuckCherry. Nice that you noticed that. From different angles it looks like several different cars. Just doesn’t look anything like the concept Volt. Well, not close enough, but close enough to be kissing cousins, I guess.

(Quote)
D.L. Klein Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

“You are a brave soul. Good luck in the witness protection program.”

Ha Ha, she can’t cook either. She’s the one who keeps telling me she isn’t the looker she was, (I would never bring that subject up). I do have to lie allot.

Back to the Volt charging system . . . induction is just one way to wireless charging. There are many other systems that exist and are VERY cheap. Yes, in time there will be systems in the infrastructure but what I mention is simple and cheap. If you can’t afford the extra cost for GM and others to implement what little cost to alternative charging then you won’t be buying the VOLT anyway. Many of those design changes were excuses to cut production costs but keep the price tag the same.

I grew up in the Muscle Car era and we will never see that again. The Camaro and others will die quickly, as they should. Gas prices killed them the first time and manufactures & consumers would be insane to waist money on them again. We are in this mess because we get what they give us. I have said for 15 years, give me an “exciting” electric car and I will buy it. If I just wanted an “electric” car, I would own a Prius!

I am with the guy who said, stick the new technology in the Camaro. In fact, why not every car made! These car makers are just insisting on prolonging the inevitable. We had a chance 30 years ago and didn’t do anything then. IMO, this time is different and like the entire history of the Automobile, design dictates.

The simple solution is this, make them both. The Prius version and the “Transform” version (or what ever they want to call it), just don’t change it!

(Quote)
D.L. Klein Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

“Very cold, D.L. Very cold.
I am thankful that I am still madly in love with my beautiful wife of 15 years.”

Ah, wait another 15 . . .you”ll see.

BTW, I didn’t say I wasn’t still in love . . . for better or worse, remember?

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

@D.L. Klein 51

I agree, however, the “Pysical” properties are not even in design to make any of that happen. The Technology to do it is here and now.
My guess is they chose a plugin because it has the least loss of power transfer as well as the cliche “Plug In”. Induction has inherrent loss in it’s functionality, not a whole lot and you’ll never get a 1:1 but there is loss.
Take the old Folrd Ranger EV, it was not a “Direct Connect” charge. It had an induction paddle you inserted into the car.

SAE is working on a standard on the charge connector.
“Lord help us, we’re in the hands of Engineers.”
Dr. Ion Malcolm – Jurassic Park

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

D.L.

I won’t argue the charging system question. I don’t know enough to really contribute to the discussion. I do think the Camaro type car will be around for many more years. There will always be a niche market for that type of car. Government regulations may end Detroit’s production of the muscle car, but the after-market will provide all the materials needed to keep them going for years and years. Even some of the new kids who are raised never knowing a Detroit produced muscle car will be introduced to them and will grow to want one. Just like government regulations and taxation, the muscle car will be around many, many years.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

@D.L. Klein 74

OTFLMAO

A brutally honest dude, I like him already.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

#74 D.L.

That made me laugh. Good one.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

My wife runs on solar, biofuel, water and (sometimes) ethanol. She is an electric gas. Sometimes she goes nuclear, but she rides nicely. Don’t take my wife, please.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Before we get to far in discussing our “pretty” wives, we better take a good long look in the mirror and ask ourselves if our wives would have married us if they knew we would turn out like we have. It is not a question I want to pose to my wife unless the situation is just right.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

#80 N Riley

You are a smart man/woman.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

@N Riley 80

Man, I’m lucky mine married me. I was a “Man Wh0re” in my days.

Yup, I’ve looked at myself in the mirror. She probably thinks the same thing. From a Stallion to a Mule (AS$).

lol

(Quote)
Demetrius Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Image filling your tank 4 times a year – with E85. The Volt makes a statement just by existing – even in our minds.

An early owner of a Volt will truly be a celebrity – you can brag that you are getting 300 miles per gallon – or even 1000 miles per gallon depending on how you drive.

I drive 7,000 miles per year- but apart from 2 or 3 trips of 120 miles and 10 trips of 60 miles, I will rarely fire up the motor. So that should equal 10 gallons of gas at the most!!!!!

”Hey Madge – I think we need to gas up in a couple of months…”

The Volt scares the crap out of OPEC. And it should scare the crap out of any car company that dares to show off an econocar making 50 MPG in 2 years time…

So when we discuss how the Volt looks – it is missing the point. I will be making 1000 MPG. And I will be bragging about it along with everyone else who owns one.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

#81 ThombDbhomb

Definitely a man. The “N Riley” is for Neal Riley. And for all you who have been spelling Neal with an ‘i’ instead of an ‘a’, you have been spelling it wrong all this time. Just kidding.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

#83 Demetrius

You are absolutely correct. We do tend to lose sight of the real goal sometimes. Your words should help put us back on course. The goal is in sight and I can see OPEC and Big Oil sweating right now. But even with the Volt and its many successors, the use of crude oil will still be massive. It is used in so many products by so many industries. But we should rejoice in the eventual reduction in daily gasoline and diesel use. Thanks to GM and the other auto companies as they get on board.

(Quote)
D.L. Klein Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

CaptJack,

Thanks, actually my wife was absolutely gorgeous “originally” . . . see how I can use the “Parity” with the Volt?

I don’t want to bore everybody on the charging subject but I do have a dog in the fight. I did some design on a system (any GM engineers interested) and it would be so simple. You would still have the plug when needed it so I would never say to rid any design of that. it’s just so “Primitive” to be plugging in such a futuristic automobile, yes? Pull the car into the garage (or charging station) and pull on the emergency brake and you can accomplish two things at once.

Off subject, I wouldn’t be buying that expensive electronic gadget too soon as by this time next Christmas, most every device will be charging “wireless”.

http://www.wildcharge.com/

(Quote)
Mike-o-Matic Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

@84 N. Riley,

My college roommate was also named Neal. We used to chuckle about the line from “Superman” that goes “Kneel before Zod!” because we always thought it should be “Neal before Zod!”

At least, when you alphabetize the names that’s how it works out…

</completely_OT_post>

(Quote)
Demetrius Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

To everyone that thinks that the Volt looks boring or like any other car – remember that the Volt is meant for everyone and not for the Jetsons.

I remember reading about the styling of the Microware oven when it first came out – they had to make people feel comfortable with this ‘radar range’ so they styled it to look like a TV with knobs and a boring rectangular shape. The designers wanted the public to feel comfortable. If they had shaped it like some far out electronic gizmo with funny controls and weird sounds, people would have been scared of it.

Now image if the Volt looked like an Aptera – would you buy it? The concept Volt looks would scare alot of mom and pops out there.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Demetrius,

Good point.

(Quote)
D.L. Klein Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Demetrius,

You can have the car for the “Smiths”.

Sorry man, I want the car for the “Jetsons” . . . . this “is” 2009.

It’s obvious we have two very different designs here. We all were drawn to the Volt for one reason or the other. For me, it was the design AND it was electric. The redesign has plenty of supporters and that’s great, they will buy it. The problem is, the rest of us are out in the cold (again) with that “wet dream”.

GM, you “can” make everybody happy . . . the Jetsons and the Smiths if you just LISTEN.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

All I want is a stripped down ghetto Volt version for commuting…

No Power Windows
No Power Door Locks (Real Gentlemen Open Doors for the Ladies)
No Power Seats
No Heated Seats
No GPS (Just Google it on your phone)
No Power Sunroof (Really No Sunroof at all – Sunroof = Eventual Leak)
No Power Trunk release
No “On Star”!
No Power Side view mirrors
No Radio (I have an MP3 playing phone.)

And if it’s possible, NO ICE or PMG (Permanent Magnet Generator). I only have an 11 mile one way commute. I do not need the ICE or PMG.
40 miles will suffice.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm

#80 N Riley:

True that. You beat me to it again. I hope old D.L. isn’t silly enough to blog under his real name like some other dummies here.

A new headline on the Yahoo page says that GM still has not released anything on the debt/equity swaps.

There’s also a story on Kirk Krekorian selling the last of his Ford stock for @2.14/share, or some such figure. According to NPR this PM, he bought a total of $1 billion worth and sold it for $300 million.

Nobody’s perfect. I guess he should have listened to statik, LOL.

(Quote)
D.L. Klein Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

CaptainJack,

Hey, isn’t that the same exact options package you ordered on the Pear?

Do you want fries with that order?

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

@D.L. Klein 93

Yup, just a basic car. For me the “Car” is just a transprt from Point “a” to point “b”. Nothing special required, especially for commuting to work. No need for flashy speed, traffic stops you anyway, have never really gone past 60mph on a regular day for a month now. No need for a “Flashy” looking car, it invites theft but it would be nice. I’m sure if such a model did exist it would out sell the “Loaded” version in it’s first year. Besides, without all I mentioned you’d reduce weight by ~700lbs and increase Battery range by at least 8-10 miles at the same time pep up acceleration.

But that’s just me. Hope GM is listening.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

hi Demetrius #83,

“… filling your tank 4 times a year – with E85″
____________________________

A 50 MPG hybrid will ensure that the owner is enslaved to the local Chevron station. The ultimate goal is to avoid the weekly OPEC donation all together.

Electric drive provides: smoothness of use, gasoline free driving, no exhaust smoke, less noise, good acceleration, very few Exxon/Mobil lines, pride in ownership, and American made patriotism.

The Asian hybrids are a joke. The money you spend fueling your Prius may buy the bullet that takes the life of another American Marine. Sorry to be so blunt, but we need to wake up.

=D~

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

#95 Dave K.

You hit the nail right on the head.
I love the phrase “weekly OPEC donation”. How true it is.
I don’t want to use any gas whatsoever. Unfortunately with my 101 mile commute, I will need too. But my wife won’t, so she will get the car.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

#91 CaptJackSparrow

I’m with you except for the power side mirrors. My wife is much shorter than me and the constant adjusting of the passenger side mirror will be a real pain in the neck.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

“http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-hybrid/”

If the Volt gets to show rooms someday and people compare it to the Honda Civic Hybrid (link above) what they see will be very similar, with almost identical length, width, height and appearance. The HCH will have a little more passenger room and cargo space, most likely. The HCH will likely have notably more refinement if someone drives each of them The HCH will cost maybe $10K less. Both will use some gas, but not a great deal of gas. From past experience we can expect that the HCH at any trim level will have a few more features, and each of the little things will work a little bit better than on the Volt.

I don’t doubt that the first 10K Volts will sell out in CA, and maybe another 100K after that, but if/as/when the Volt is sold broadly, the HCH will sell far more.

I bring this up on this thread because styling is where the Volt could have been much more leading edge and could have had an edge. Instead the Volt’s designers chose to make the Volt bland and inoffensive. I think the market for cars that “get us off foreign oil” is real but small. The market for cars with no special styling attractiveness is virtually zero, unless they cost notably less than comparable alternatives, which will not be the case for the Volt.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

#94 CaptJackSparrow:

A good example is the 2008 Malibu. You can get a 6 speed automatic with a 4 cyl engine, but only on the top trim level LTZ. This combination gets almost the exact same mileage as the BAS “hybrid”, which has a 4 speed auto. Combine the 6 spd with the BAS? Naaah, too hard. Go figure.

#95 Dave K.:

With Chinese or Korean batteries???

(Quote)
dodahman Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

“You can put lipstick on a Prius but it’s still a Prius,” or was that a pig. Oh well, same difference.
I’ll wait and buy a Tesla.
GM needs to just die gracefully.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

#2
MDDave

I didn’t see any answer to your question, so let me give it a try. Theoretically there’s less rolling friction in bigger wheels and more stability and smoothness of ride although they require slightly more power to overcome inertia.
These small differences in wheel size probably don’t mean much around town but they should on the highway.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Hey, just curious, has anyone calculated the miles the Volt will run on a single gallon of gas in the “Charge sustaining mode”?

I was just curious.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Rashiid Amul #96

With your 101 mile commute it would take just over a gallon of gas to get to work and back or a fill up every 10 days. Unless your wife’s car get 50 mpg it may be in your best interest to drive the Volt. I think a lot of employers may get with the program by providing plugs to employees at a nominal cost. This would help employers attract employees and would help employees with cheaper commutes.

(Quote)
RB Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

#102 We don’t have enough information from GM for such a calculation. Maybe a good guess can be gained from looking at cars of comparable size and seeing what they get.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

hi noel park #99,

“With Chinese or Korean batteries???”

_______________________

We American’s are faced with a tough decision. To continue to be lifelong supporters of OPEC, or decide to cut loose from them. The Volt is the first real opportunity for American’s to break away from the habit of supporting a stronger OPEC war making machine.

Sure we have $100,000 cell phone battery cars to buy. And we have a million 25 MPH grocery store hoppers priced at $15,000 or less. The Volt is the first daily driver which covers all bases short of truck-like hauling capacity. The small E-REV truck is the obvious next step in Volt-like technology.

Buying a Korean battery will not raise the profits of the corner Shell station. And by owning a Volt, which lowers oil demand, we will be helping build the U.S. economy by keeping American dollars circulating in America. This creates tax revenue which creates jobs, builds bridges, and opens medical centers.

Think of the spendable money available now that oil has dropped to $40 a barrel. For most Americans it’s a savings of $20-$40 a week.

With the arrival of the Volt we won’t need to fight over a drum-full of sticky sand crude. The idea of sacrificing the life of single young American, being spent to fetch oil, is sickening. And these guys are the best America has. We are sending our best to die for fossil fuel and lubricant collection.

There is no good reason to continue to support OPEC. Other than keeping war material suppliers in business. Rockets, guidance systems, bombers, and boots on the ground are a result of the OPEC agenda. Understandably the funding of the oil/war machine is important to many Americans. It’s just not the right thing to do.

Noel, we need your son to head off to Saudi Arabia to guard a desert oil pump. Are you willing to co-sign on this? Or should we collectively make guarding an oil pipeline unnecessary?

I work with several good men who have served in the last two oil wars. They are not dishonest scumbags, crooked Wall Street snakes, or scheming bond dealers. They are simply the finnest resource America has.

=D~

(Quote)
Dorp Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

I like it. If this car is “athletic”, then I’m proud to be an athletic supporter. Wait… that didn’t come out right…

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

#105 Dave K.:

Well, I agree with everything you have said. In fact, I have made all of the same arguments repeatedly here. Did you see my comment above to the effect that putting up $1 to $2 billion to fund a battery factory was equivalent to 3 or 6 days of the cost of the Iraq war? Maybe I was a little too cryptic, but that was my point. And that’s using President-Elect Obama’s oft quoted figure of $10 billion a month, which is way light, IMHO. I would do it in a heartbeat.

I am just very disappointed that we can’t seem to figure out how to make the batteries here, thus furthering your laudable suggestions. If you believe the numbers which have been thrown around here, the batteries are going to be something on the order of 25% of the cost of a Volt. It kills me to import them. It also takes fuel for ships, tugboats, cargo terminal equipment, trucks and trains to ship them from China or Korea to the point of final assembly.

If the Volt ever materializes, I am going to buy one in any case, but I would feel a lot better about it if the batteries were manufactured here.

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:33 pm

U.S. offers $6 bln to support auto lender GMAC
Mon Dec 29, 2008 8:19pm EST

WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. government said on Monday it was pumping $5 billion into auto and mortgage lender GMAC LLC and lending up to $1 billion to automaker General Motors (GM.N), ensuring the solvency of a company considered crucial to GM’s survival.

The Treasury Department said it would buy $5 billion in senior preferred equity with an 8 percent dividend from GMAC. It also said it is lending up to $1 billion to GM to help GMAC reorganize itself as a bank holding company. (Reporting by Mark Felsenthal; Editing by Gary Hill)

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINWBT01033220081230?rpc=44
==============================

Shocker, lol. Hrm… GMAC can’t make the 30 billion dollar benchmark by doing debt to equity swaps? How can the gov’t get this done without breaking the banking law, hmm, tricky. Wait, lets just give them another 5 billion out of the TARP, and presto, that makes up the shortfall…you qualify to be a bank holding company. That is completely the intention of why those laws are in place.

Now it is all good right? What? We asked you (GM) and Cerberus to put up 2 billion of your own money as well as a show of good faith to reach that 30 billion…but you don’t have a billion dollars GM? Still short, huh? How will we solve this puzzler? Hrm, I know…the TARP! Well here you go, here is another billion dollar ‘loan’ so you can give us, er…um, back a billion dollars…that makes sense.

Huzzah!

Side note: Finally, we can stop hearing here about how the Japanese gov’t subsidized the hybrid auto programs…because the US has truely jumped the shark here on the whole industry.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

I’m looking at the Volt picture and imagining my feelings when I finally get to test drive one. I’ll get in, close the door, breathe in the new car smell, survey the interior, push the “sport mode” button, then press the accelerator. Silently, the Volt will go. That will be such a thrill. I’ll sneak up on people (except the blind) and blast my horn.

I doubt they will let me take a 41-mile test drive. How will I know what it would be like for the ICE to kick in?

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:16 pm

hi noel park #107,

The best thing that could happen with E-REV’s in America is that we are offered a $20,000 small SUV manufactured using US/Canada parts and labor. The worst thing that can happen is America giving up and saying, “Oh well, with gas at two bucks, I’ll get that big 17 MPG SUV over there”.

This is the choice and the struggle we are in. The Volt is the only thing (right now) that comes close.

There is huge money to be made in the E-REV future. This will spur North American battery manufactures to step up or go under. I predict that Phoenix will rise as the star of EV technology within 3 years. This small Southern California company is privately held and already offers a beautiful EV truck line. The major flaw (right now) is the dinosaur battery technology they use. This will soon change.

And YES, the wheels of the Phoenix truck ARE on the road.
http://garfwod.250free.com/Photos/phoenix_blur.jpg

=D~

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

CaptJackSparrow #94
Hey guys be realistic. You need something to fiddle with when your backed up during your long commute. I want my volt with a heated vibrating seat; something to take the stress out of driving to the mailbox.

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

ThombDbhomb #109

Stop it, your making me salivate.

(Quote)
Stew Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

#99 noel park

Along the same lines I was goofing around with the ‘Build and Price’ tool for the Ford Ranger the other day and if you want 4×4 you have to get the largest engine available. No 4×4 mated to a 4 cyl in the Ford camp.

Toyota lets you spec the 4 cyl with 4×4, and so does Chevy with the Colorado, although the Colorado is almost a mid-size truck.

Stew

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Also on CNN:
Treasury bails out GMAC – $5 billion
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/29/news/companies/gmac/index.htm

(Quote)
DonC Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm

#108 statik says “Wait, lets just give them another 5 billion out of the TARP, and presto, that makes up the shortfall…you qualify to be a bank holding company. That is completely the intention of why those laws are in place.”

Thanks for the update (and Dave G). I didn’t see this.

But exactly how is this different than pumping TARP money into Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and then recognizing them as bank holding companies? Seems very similar. The only difference was that the Fed bought the toxic securities from Goldman and Morgan Stanley and then, after these sales allowed them to meet the criteria, granted them bank holding status. Here the liquidity was provided by TARP. Can’t see why this matters.

Actually the biggest difference, and one in GMAC’s favor, is that we know GMAC will take the money and lend it, which was the goal of TARP in the first place. We don’t know what’s happening with the TARP money given to the other “banks.”

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

#103 Ed M says,
With your 101 mile commute it would take just over a gallon of gas to get to work and back or a fill up every 10 days. Unless your wife’s car get 50 mpg it may be in your best interest to drive the Volt. I think a lot of employers may get with the program by providing plugs to employees at a nominal cost. This would help employers attract employees and would help employees with cheaper commutes.

—————–
It wouldn’t be a huge stretch for me. I park in the garage at work, and directly underneath the electric receptacle. I could charge there as well, but I am concerned about the life of the battery if I charge it twice a day.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

@Ed M 111

We’ll then, if in traffic, I hope that LCD screen can get the Playboy channel…
.
.
.
oops, did I say that?

(Quote)
MarkyMark Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

k=Dawg,they could put a v6 direct injection w/6speed auto and monkey around with the software and get 50 mpg out of the thing if they wanted to,and yes I would pay 30k for it

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am

CaptJackSparrow #117

.definitely a winning combination; take that Prius !

Rashiid Amul #116

I don’t think you need to worry about the battery, its good for 10 years and by then you’ll want to upgrade it anyways and the upgrades should be a lot cheaper. Hope that’s not wishful thinking on my part.

(Quote)
eightjack Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 12:12 am

A large part of the controversy, such as it is, surrounding the production car design vs. the concept car design, is being maintained and fueled by the Spin being spouted by GM and by various trolls. Bob Boniface gives us an egregious example here.

“When they saw the actual car, most people liked it better than the show car.”

This is a lie, and one that most people perceive immediately. The styling of the concept car evoked strong, positive responses from a large part of the population. The styling of the production car does not. This is the simple truth. Much better for Mr. Boniface and GM to simply acknowledge that practical considerations dictated changes in the form of the vehicle that, unfortunately, take away some of the “wow” factor, and leave it at that. Personally I suspect that “wow” factor COULD have been incorporated in the slippier, production design and the fact that it hasn’t been is a failure on Mr. Bonifaces part, but It’s not possible to know absolutely as we cannot be privy to all the manufacturing and technical strictures placed on the design team. So for GM to excuse the somewhat Vanilla end-result by crying technical necessity is perfectly reasonable.
Pretending that the production car is equally attractive, on the
other hand, is both offensive and pointless!

(Quote)
statik Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:11 am

#115 DonC

#108 statik says “Wait, lets just give them another 5 billion out of the TARP, and presto, that makes up the shortfall…you qualify to be a bank holding company. That is completely the intention of why those laws are in place.”

Thanks for the update (and Dave G). I didn’t see this.

But exactly how is this different than pumping TARP money into Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and then recognizing them as bank holding companies? Seems very similar. The only difference was that the Fed bought the toxic securities from Goldman and Morgan Stanley and then, after these sales allowed them to meet the criteria, granted them bank holding status. Here the liquidity was provided by TARP. Can’t see why this matters.

Actually the biggest difference, and one in GMAC’s favor, is that we know GMAC will take the money and lend it, which was the goal of TARP in the first place. We don’t know what’s happening with the TARP money given to the other “banks.”

===========================

How is this different?

GMAC = Car loan company owned by GM/Chrysler to finance their cars
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley = Hands everywhere

Goldman/Morgan Stanley/AIG (et all) where bailout out under the flag of systemic risk/possible collapse of the credit/banking sector and plunging the US into a immediate depression. GMAC goes under, jack squat happens. The thing was already priced to nothing and discounted, and its two remaining customers (ResCap/other lending vehicles had been virually shuttered months ago) already have blank checks from the gov’t.

Yesterday you strongly agreed with me, today I strongly disagree with you here. (It is also exactly what I said was going to happen if they didn’t hit the swap). This sets a whole new precedent. It sets up the gov’t to be the main vehicle of funding to any troubled asset out there (regardless of its status/pull on the greater economy), everyone is going to come knocking now.

Tell me they are not going to just turn around and put that 17 billion+ in the hands of dealerships/customers with terrible balance sheets/credit ratings to buy cars from GM and Chrysler they have no business getting or can sell….and thus artificially giving GM and Chrsyler sales.

Side note: New tally of gov’t spending since bailout was ‘approved’ 11 days ago, Dec. 19th — 57 billion. 72 billion if you count the original 25 billion dollar ‘domestic development’ program earmarked back in October.

Let me ask you, do you have a limit on how much to give these guys? Or is it limitless?

How about Ford here…are they being punished by not being broke? How can they compete with the welfare brothers who don’t have to do pesky things like make money?

Does Ford automatically get 27 billion in cash and another 17 billion in fed guaranteed money to loan out, when they go broke? Because that is what you are saying about GMAC deserving money solely because Goldman/MS got some.

Why should Ford even try to make a profit ….their best play is to go broke as fast as they can. Heck why doesn’t every single financial institution that is close to being insolvent just take that last step off the cliff and into the big waiting pool of gov’t money.

Next up? Bailing out Delphi.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 11:58 am

#108 statik:

They have jumped the shark on the whole economy, IMHO. Welcome to the brave new world.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

#120 eightjack –

I am wondering how you know for a fact that:

“This is a lie, and one that most people perceive immediately. The styling of the concept car evoked strong, positive responses from a large part of the population. The styling of the production car does not.”

You may be right, but there’s nothing backing up your claims right now. Doesn’t seem like such a “simple truth” to me. As I said above, I like the production car better than the show car, at least going by the numerous pictures we have of both. How do you know that many others don’t feel the same? The population of gm-volt.com isn’t a random sample group.

(Quote)
m. donohue Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

After seeing what you have done to the Volt, I am seriously disappointed. You have killed a fantastic car in my eyes. The new volt looks like every other new car. You tease the public with a gorgeous style only to put out a farty looking set of wheels. It’s deceiving! It was a serious mistake as one review stated. Keeping with the original style would have made many want this sporty vehicle & in return help with the global effects from the auto emissions. You folks at GM needs sales. What were you thinking? Now I will start looking at other manufacturers for my next car.

(Quote)
Darren Says:
December 31st, 2008 at 2:37 pm

I think the redesign looks exactly like a Honda Civic and the back end looks disgusting. All they would have to do is paint the black pieces on the back the same as the body color and it would look half decent. So much for originality.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
December 31st, 2008 at 2:52 pm

If I were to park the production Volt in my driveway, the neighbors would say: “Whoa, nice car!”

If I got the concept, they would be all like: “Uh, are you having a mid-life crisis? An affair? Have you been diagnosed with something and you’re living it up your last six months?”

Here’s how to make everyone happy: Two-Mode Camaro. Git ‘er done, GM!

(Quote)
ted Says:
December 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm

people want the huge wheels. Why cant GM see that? They are so out of touch!

(Quote)
Eco transport - before the crash « Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time Says:
January 1st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Marty Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

I don’t know why a lot of people are boo hoo ing about not getting the concept car. The production style is just great. You all know that when a new car line comes in, a “sport” version will be next. Give you one guess what the style will be like. And, guess what it will be called. Remember the Firebird? Pontiac will want to have an electric car. It will be “beefed” up to heavens know what. Now, does everybody feel better? By the way, I am still pissed that the Firebird is no longer being made. I have nightmares all the time. I will forever keep my 99 Formula, so bring on the new electric Pontiac Firebird. PS: I will buy the Volt first.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

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
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

Volt Chief Designer on the Public Reaction to Chevy Volt Redesign

129 Responses to “Volt Chief Designer on the Public Reaction to Chevy Volt Redesign”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts