Chevrolet Volt: Plug-in hybrid
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Chevrolet Volt: Plug-in hybrid
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 664
From: Hanford, CA, USA
and I agree it does look pretty nice, even in crappy small pictures.
Last edited by JB'z 94; Jan 7, 2007 at 12:08 AM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
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. 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 ...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Frickin' amazing concept, though, and I really hope that GM finds a way to put it into production ASAP.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
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?
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?
Last edited by guionM; Jan 7, 2007 at 01:38 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 509
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.
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.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
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.
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.
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)
Toyota exec defends GM in case of who killed the electric car
Posted Dec 20th 2006 12:06PM by John Neff
Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative, Green, GM, Toyota
Many people who have seen the controversial documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? 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, 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.
Posted Dec 20th 2006 12:06PM by John Neff
Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative, Green, GM, Toyota
Many people who have seen the controversial documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? 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, 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.
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. :blah:
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 509
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.
The article you embedded covers a smidgen of the information the movie presented.