Chevrolet Volt: Plug-in hybrid

Write-up: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42971

Pics: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3009153

wow with better pics that car looks nice :D

Good idea, but i'd like to see it as an option added to normal cars, not a specific car needed for it.

Good idea, but i'd like to see it as an option added to normal cars, not a specific car needed for it.
True, but people said the same about the Prius, and everyone praises it. So maybe them making a seperate car isn't such a terrible idea.

and I agree it does look pretty nice, even in crappy small pictures.

Got these off of C&G.

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/4088/volt1jw3.jpg
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7395/volt2yo5.jpg
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4117/volt3vo3.jpg
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4420/volt4vr7.jpg

Just a quick ? I take it that the engine in the car charges the thing as you drive right? I would hope so.. that artical only said a 40 mile range per charge.

Kinda wish the new Malibu had that front... very Acura and very nice. Good to know that Chevy's corporate look can be good looking with a more subdued horizontal line complementing the badge.

Anyway, the Volt looks the goods as a Prius rival but what disappoints me is that the timeline is 2010-12 at the earliest if it ever makes production. That's just too long to wait for a car to hit showrooms. I wish GM would surprise and reveal that it will hit the roads next year but ...

Anyway, the Volt looks the goods as a Prius rival but what disappoints me is that the timeline is 2010-12 at the earliest if it ever makes production.

The battery technology remains a problem by anyone's admission - at least anyone who's being realistic. Even Toyota doesn't see lith-ion as being feasible for mass-production autos until "sometime next decade".

Frickin' amazing concept, though, and I really hope that GM finds a way to put it into production ASAP.

Perhaps the styling of the 2010 Impala is hidden in there somewhere.

I would be willing to bet the farm that if it isn't a stylized (and very exagerated) design preview of a certain future Chevrolet sedan, it's a preview of design elements that we're going to see on a future Chevrolet sedan.

The short front overhang and the distance between the front wheels and the windshield remind me of the Holden's VE/WM's proportions. But like the Camaro, although the car looks decidedly futuristic, there's alot of elements I see that looks like a vehicle of the 60s was a reference point.

The tail lights remind me a bit of the units on mid-60s Impalas (1966), only more "squished". So does the rear side window profile. Can't help but notice the lack of wrap-around front signals is very 60-ish as well.

Car makers do tend to hide the future in plan sight, and Bob Lutz has said he's going to use auto shows instead of consumer clinics for direction on future automotive design.

Alot to think about, huh? :think:

Not a bad looking design and the name is fitting for it as well.:D

Perhaps the styling of the 2010 Impala is hidden in there somewhere.

The MT rendering of the Impala seems to suggest that the Volt's front end will be 'reused'.

I just finished watching "Who killed the Electric Car" and it really came on hard against GM for undermining the EV1 program. I remain skeptical on this one from GM. If the car is for Lease-only, then it's a smokescreen.

However, the EV1 really did accelerate very quickly. In the movie, it shows an EV1 drag racing a Miata and a Nissan 300ZX (mid-90s), and it left the Miata in about 1.5 secs, and then pulled away from the Nissan like it was a LT1. It was a threat for the Corvette and it was governed. Electric motors can develop insane torque.

If Tesla can use Li-Ion batteries, then it's got potential. Tesla puts down something like 200# tq at 1RPM and clicks off 0-60 in under 4 secs.

I just finished watching "Who killed the Electric Car" and it really came on hard against GM for undermining the EV1 program. I remain skeptical on this one from GM. If the car is for Lease-only, then it's a smokescreen.

However, the EV1 really did accelerate very quickly. In the movie, it shows an EV1 drag racing a Miata and a Nissan 300ZX (mid-90s), and it left the Miata in about 1.5 secs, and then pulled away from the Nissan like it was a LT1. It was a threat for the Corvette and it was governed. Electric motors can develop insane torque.

If Tesla can use Li-Ion batteries, then it's got potential. Tesla puts down something like 200# tq at 1RPM and clicks off 0-60 in under 4 secs.Yeah, that is a nice unbiased source. There was an article about that movie somewhere. Basically, the current powers that be at Toyota called the movie BS and said it was unfair to GM, that GM did not set out to kill the electric car (after all, they had invested HUGE dinero into the EV1).

Also, I'd like to see an EV1 pull away from a 300ZX (I assume non-turbo). The EV1 was NOT a threat to the Corvette. I've seen 0-60 times in the 7.5-8+ second range for the EV1. Certainly respectably quick, but not Corvette threatening. Top speed was 80 mph. And if you did a few quick accel runs like that, you could kiss your range goodbye.

Here's the article (from here (http://www.autoblog.com/2006/12/20/toyota-exec-defends-gm-in-case-of-who-killed-the-electric-car/))
Toyota exec defends GM in case of who killed the electric car

Posted Dec 20th 2006 12:06PM by John Neff (http://www.autoblog.com/bloggers/john-neff)
Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative (http://www.autoblog.com/category/hybrids/), Green (http://www.autoblog.com/category/green/), GM (http://www.autoblog.com/category/gm/), Toyota (http://www.autoblog.com/category/toyota/)
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2006/12/rav4_ev.sized.jpg (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061220/BUSINESS01/612200410/1014)Many people who have seen the controversial documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? (http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/) have noticed the conspicuous absence of Toyota in the crosshairs of director Chris Paine's magnum opus about failed EVs in the marketplace. Toyota was leasing the RAV4-EV (http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/ravev/rav4ev_0_home/index.html), a version of the RAV4 cute ute converter to run on batteries, at the same time General Motors was offering the EV1. Detroit Free Press columnist Mark Phelan was told by Ernest Bastien, Toyota's VP of Vehicle Operations, that the movie, "was terribly one-sided." The Toyota exec went on to say, "It was not balanced at all."

Paine freely admits the movie lets Toyota off the hook, mainly because GM was a much higher profile target. There are other reasons, as well, including the fact that GM had invested much more money in developing the EV1 from the ground up, whereas Toyota merely converted its standard RAV4. For its part, GM makes itself such a willing target, too. In one instance, the filmmakers captured protestors being hosed outside of GM offices when the sprinkler system turned on. GM claims it was on a timer, but Paine disaggrees. Toyota, meanwhile, greeted protestors outside its offices with bottled water and keychains.

The story here, however, is that GM's main market rival is coming to its defense on the matter, and supporting the General's assertion that there was no market demand for EVs at the time, and that's what ultimately killed the electric car. In essence, Toyota has stepped up as a character witness for GM in the case. Does it sway Paine and his supporters? Not so much. EV advocates still claim neither company properly marketed the vehicles, and in Toyota's case, the hyped-up Prius hybrid was clearly the company's priority over the RAV4-EV.I also read that the guy who made the documentary leases/leased one of those RAV4 EVs. So he gave Toyota a pass because the idiots got doused by the automatic sprinkler system at GM, and because this guy already leased the Toyota EV. Oh, and GM makes a higher profile target...:think: Of COURSE it does. Even though Toyota is the one with the "green" reputation, so it would be quite a scoop to show that they weren't gung ho about the electric car idea...we'll focus only on GM instead and bring more negative press to them.

:think: :blah:

I might suggest simply rent the movie and watch it. If you maintain your opinion, based upon an article only and not witnessing the actual event, then that is your right to selectively discard unfavorable information. I personally prefer to withhold my judgement until I have witnessed the movie, or reviewed other reputable sources. Although your article clarifies some points presented, I suggest seeing the movie in its entirety prior to submitting an opinion. In your defense, I remain skeptical of any presentation of one-sided presentation of information without a substantial rebuttal from the other parties and I believe that GM does have a rebuttal, I simply have not heard or found it.

The article you embedded covers a smidgen of the information the movie presented.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/01/07/detroit_chevrolet_volt_concept/index.html

Pretty good write up.

Starting with a full charge, the car could theoretically operate for about 40 miles at suburban street speeds without needing to burn any gasoline at all.

It would take about 6.5 hours to fully charge the Volt's batteries from an outlet. The vehicle could, however, be driven without a full charge but would need to rely on its gasoline engine sooner.

Unlike other hybrid cars, such as the Toyota Prius, the Volt's gasoline engine would never power the car's wheels. Instead, it would recharge the car's batteries if needed while the car would continue to run on electric power alone.

The Volt's electric motor can produce up to 121 kilowatts, the equivalent of about 161 horsepower. It can produce 320 newton-meters, or about 236 foot-pounds, of torque. Electric motors offer more torque - the pulling power a car uses to accelerate - relative to their kilowatt or horsepower output than gasoline engines do.

Nice. A little improvement needed on the face but I like the overall design.

Now that GM's joined the "hybrid" bandwagon, would some here be calling those who will buy this GM car fools like they did those who bought the Prius? Hmm, I wonder....

I must be the only person who thinks the Tonka-toy proportions of the wheels to the body of that car look ridiculous. Sign of the times, I s'pose.

If our country had been working seriously at renewable energy, we wouldn't be in this pickle regarding battery technology. I seem to remember a writeup during the early 90's where some university research had yielded batteries that could be housed in much smaller and more malleable plastic "packets" since they didn't use the volatile chemicals that most batteries use today.

There was a blurb about how the government stepped in to "procure" the research, then I never saw another mention of it again.

I must be the only person who thinks the Tonka-toy proportions of the wheels to the body of that car look ridiculous. Sign of the times, I s'pose.

If our country had been working seriously at renewable energy, we wouldn't be in this pickle regarding battery technology. I seem to remember a writeup during the early 90's where some university research had yielded batteries that could be housed in much smaller and more malleable plastic "packets" since they didn't use the volatile chemicals that most batteries use today.

There was a blurb about how the government stepped in to "procure" the research, then I never saw another mention of it again.

Not sure about all of that.

True test is cost effectiveness. This battery technology might be do-able, but what's the cost and can it be passed on to a car that'll compete effectively with a gasoline car. Got to convince people to buy the car, and it's made more difficult when it's more expensive than whet they're used to.

Although it's not politically correct or fashionable to say so, but the internal combustion engine is the lowest cost, most efficent way of producing power in an automobile.

Although it's not politically correct or fashionable to say so, but the internal combustion engine is the lowest cost, most efficent way of producing power in an automobile.

I would hesitate to make such a general statement. It only takes about 50HP to sustain a 3000# car at 60MPH.

There are 2-strokes, 4-strokes, 5-strokes (!!!), Wankel, Gas Turbines, V-type engines, H-type engines, I-type engines, diesels, and hybrids. The Toyota Prius, as one such presentation of evidence, is proof enough to refute your assertion.

I wouldn't let political considerations cloud an open mind. The old "Golf-Cart" analogy is obsolete. Lead-Acid batteries are no longer employed.

Just look at a railroad engine. It's a diesel-electric. Its diesel engines turn generators that charge the batteries that power the electric motors that turn the wheels. The diesels run 24/7 to keep the batteries charged and ramp up when necessary to charge the batteries during high-demand. The new Volt is similar in concept.

That is a good looking car. 1000x better than the prius

True, but people said the same about the Prius, and everyone praises it. So maybe them making a seperate car isn't such a terrible idea.

and I agree it does look pretty nice, even in crappy small pictures.

Yup, that is the reason why the prius is the best selling hybrid car. When you think Corvette you think sports car, when you think Prius you think hybrid good gas mileage.

GM needs to copy the Prius formula and one up them with a better looking car that is plugin

Regarding the windows around the waisteline... I wonder if that would be production feasible? If not, I wonder if the design would be as catchy?

If our country had been working seriously at renewable energy, we wouldn't be in this pickle regarding battery technology. I seem to remember a writeup during the early 90's where some university research had yielded batteries that could be housed in much smaller and more malleable plastic "packets" since they didn't use the volatile chemicals that most batteries use today.

There was a blurb about how the government stepped in to "procure" the research, then I never saw another mention of it again.

And I suppose you believe in the 100 mpg carburetor that the oil companies bought and then hid too, eh? ;)

I recall a good quote from someone close to EV engineering: there are lies, damn lies, and battery engineers :D. Ever since the dawn of the automobile in the late 1800s it's been the battery technology that's held back the electric car. Over 100 years later, nothing's changed. Even as long as I can remember, automakers have proclaimed that a viable electric car is "less than a decade away", as soon as some battery breakthroughs happen. Of course the breakthroughs don't, and the ten year window keeps getting kicked down the road.

I'm not sure what to think of the Volt yet. Perhaps GM should lower their expectations and put a smaller, current-technology battery in it, and thus have a realistic shot at producing it. Maybe a battery that could power the car 20 miles before they need recharging, after which point the car becomes a series hybrid. I don't know if a series hybrid is much more efficient than a parallel hybrid, but it certainly would be simpler.

But I guess if GM reduced the range any further they couldn't claim to be an electric car anymore (the 40 mile range is already stretching the definition IMO). Then they would end up just being another me-too hybrid in the eyes in the consumer. In other words, they wouldn't get the publicity mileage out of it, which is really the purpose of the Volt.

I like the grille. The whole idea is neat. ;) I dont like the flat sides though.

The fender creases reminded me of a past Chevy concept...The Nomad bears a passing resemblance in some areas.


http://www.autoshows.com/concept/chevynomad.gif

So is this car actually coming out? Or is it just a demonstration of what GM can do and they won't come out with a real one for some time?

And I suppose you believe in the 100 mpg carburetor that the oil companies bought and then hid too, eh? ;)


Actually, I believe I came across the story while sifting through scientific journals for a research project back in college. You'd also be surprised at what's been accomplished with magnetic flywheels, yet we see absolutely zilcho about it in the mainstream press or current product offerings.

My point is that if more resources were funneled to research regarding different, cleaner methods of power production, the the methods would not be so "prohibitively expensive" now. It would be a lot like imagining if the we had never gone past vacuum tubes for electronics, then the world going up in arms over cost once someone starts talking about transistors.

There was a blurb about how the government stepped in to "procure" the research, then I never saw another mention of it again.That could also mean that the military now controls it. ;)

Too bad it's a four door.

So is this car actually coming out? Or is it just a demonstration of what GM can do and they won't come out with a real one for some time?

It seems to me that GM is seriously considering production of the Volt. They are taking a poll about it on GM.com,and making inquiries about the batteries with various suppliers (or so I hear).

IMO, GM should produce this car even if it costs them a bit to do so (loss-leader). The goodwill and positive PR could be well worth it. I'd love to see it make a profit though.

EDIT: Oh yeah, GM also says that it is based on an upcoming small car platform, which should help make the case for it.