Chevy Volt official pictures

[rlhammon]

Originally Posted by Snugglebear I say what I say because the GM sales figures are freely available and provide an insight into what's going on. [edited by rlhammon] That's 22 models that beat the trend. This is out of 93 different models that GM lists figures for. Excluding the 32 models that are either new for 2009, or are ending production and no longer available, we have 61 models that are valid for Y/Y comparisons. That means 22/61 models are doing well, which, as above, I'm defining as better than industry trend. This is not good.

Got what you are saying... however that's same model to same model comparison, which doesn't address the "GM doesn't build cars people want to buy". What it says is certain models sold less this year than last year. How about a comparison, by car, with in class competition shown for last year and this year? In other words, instead of saying the Chevy Cobalt sold less in 2008 vs. 2007, how did it fair as a percent of it's class in 2007 and as a percent of it's class in 2008. Then you can determine which cars people are actually buying in a class. The whole dang market shrank this year compared to last year... so using a year over year comparison while ignoring the competition and it's direction is fruitless to the original comment.

Originally Posted by Snugglebear Along those lines there was a good article posted at Ars tonight on the Volt. As suspected, the major issue right now is the systems integration software. GM seems to think 50% of the battery charge is the magic cycle point for the IC engine. As discussed here, GM is fighting the plug-in hybrid label. The battery, as Brady mentioned, is done, and apparently, most of it is off the shelf. With the software managing the battery as above, GM is estimating a lifespan of 10 years @ 15,000 miles per year. Gas tank size is about 8-9 gallons. However, the big issue is the lack of interior space.

Good article.. not much real new information. I'll pass along something I mentioned previously... remember these cars are not the full, correct architecture. The current mules have donated bodies from a similar type vehicle, and I would believe the space issue will be resolved when built on the correct platform. Granted.. it's close, but it's not final.

[Moose GXP]

Originally Posted by SCCA HP Racer Not going to read all those posts... My thoughts: The concept was designed to spark interest. Reality: the car needs to be practical, meaning roomy, on an existing platform, and very important....aerodynamic. The pic comparing the Prius to the Volt shows just how ugly Toyota styling is. The Volt looks like a BMW compared to the new Prius. This thing is designed for MAX effficiency, do not expect Corvette syling. Maybe it's just that GM made a mistake by making the concept look so cool.

THe Corvette is stylish and low drag...don't think the two can't go together.

[Snugglebear]

Originally Posted by rlhammon Got what you are saying... however that's same model to same model comparison, which doesn't address the "GM doesn't build cars people want to buy". What it says is certain models sold less this year than last year. How about a comparison, by car, with in class competition shown for last year and this year? In other words, instead of saying the Chevy Cobalt sold less in 2008 vs. 2007, how did it fair as a percent of it's class in 2007 and as a percent of it's class in 2008. Then you can determine which cars people are actually buying in a class. The whole dang market shrank this year compared to last year... so using a year over year comparison while ignoring the competition and it's direction is fruitless to the original comment.

I refrained from going one step further and looking at the YTD sales figures in addition to the September 2008 numbers. If you look at those numbers it becomes pretty apparent that September was a bright spot for GM, correlating directly with their employee discount, cash back, and special financing pushes. This has worked well for them historically, but it doesn't bode well for the long term. The average consumer is primarily responding to perceived value/sizable discounts. I should know, I'm one of them.

Your point is well taken, though. Even though it's a day off for me my schedule is still packed with a lot of errands and charity runs. Tomorrow I'll do my best to dig up at least Nissan, Honda, and Toyota numbers and do a comparison. It's going to be raining all day so that will keep me occupied. Granted you'll have to cut me some slack with the car classes; I'm very old school and compare small sedans to small sedans, midsize to midsize, etc., and don't do this crap with "small entry premium sedan" and the like.

Originally Posted by rlhammon Good article.. not much real new information. I'll pass along something I mentioned previously... remember these cars are not the full, correct architecture. The current mules have donated bodies from a similar type vehicle, and I would believe the space issue will be resolved when built on the correct platform. Granted.. it's close, but it's not final.

It was a good summary article and keyed in on a few things we had discussed previously. Like before, my chief concern is how well GM does at systems integration. Technology changes but ultimately the laws of physics and fluid dynamics do not. Hence the former is much more difficult than the latter and requires constant practice. One thing I want to ask, though, is are the current Volts still only mules? The quote below from the article suggests this is the real deal.

Originally Posted by Ars After having shown a concept model at auto shows that was basically a construct put together out of parts of existing vehicles, GM claims that what we saw last night was supposed to be the final design that would actually make it to market.

Moose, you brought up a sore spot for me. The Volt never had to be an econobox. While the original concept was not aerodynamic and had a number of functional flaws, it could have been made to work. Yes, the lines would have had to taper, the front would have needed to come down and slope more, the rear would have to be redone, and the wheels would need to shrink. And yes, the cabin would need to have larger windows, a bit more headroom (or changed seating positions), while the side windows needed a redesign. However, I am confident GM could have pulled it off. Yet what we have is a Prius mated with a Malibu and it does not exactly get the blood pumping.

[rlhammon]

@Snugglebear: I would greatly appreciate the work put into the car sales numbers. I think you understand I always strive to learn, and my comments were meant only to show that it didn't yet prove your comments... not that your comments aren't true (I don't know yet, but we might see soon).

I am 99% confident the vehicles that are being shown are *not* the actual substructure. They are still using borrowed bodies for all testing, and mocking them up. That's not to say the mock-up in the article isn't design intent... just not from the proper tooling and a lot of hand fab. Some things will change (compromises to manufacturability), and I believe (from what I've heard) the perceived room in the car will change for an improvement.

Does anyone have overall dimensions from the original concept? It's my understanding that it didn't fit on the global Delta platform. Being that this car was, from the start, a global vehicle... it needed to be built on a global platform. The concept wasn't built on a global platform (from my understanding... and I have **very** little early on knowledge of this car) and was going to change no matter what. Granted, I understand everyone's comments.. but as Snugglebear once said, "Technology changes but ultimately the laws of physics and fluid dynamics do not."

The car needs to make 40 miles round trip without using the gasoline engine. That's 20 miles each way. The batteries have a range of 80 miles, but it's not viable to run them to ZERO before you charge them. Aerodynamics dictated a lot on the car, as did price. The more drag, the lighter weight needed... lighter weight drives engineering of new materials, testing, validation, adds time to the project timeline, and increases the capital expenditure for the program. Sticking with tried and true technology everywhere you can saves all of that, and forces more focus on aerodynamics.

Rest assured... the next generation will change. Batteries will get lighter, and the car isn't focused on doing 100 miles without gasoline. This car is to do 40 miles without gas, and it will... and so will the next generation, but they will be able to play with the design more and be more free as weight reduces and technology increases the range from the batteries.

Besides... the folks that want the car, they are going to buy it for what it does... not how it looks. The second generation buyers will buy it because it's at least as cool as any other car that they want.. and it uses less gasoline. That's when styling will become queen... cost is going to remain king for sometime in the future IMO.

[SCCA HP Racer]

THe Corvette is stylish and low drag...don't think the two can't go together.

Yeah but it can't hold 5 people and luggage.