GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am curious how many miles per charge you would be willing to sacrifice if you could get the originally designed Volt?
When I first thought about this, my immediate answer was 30 miles per charge, instead of the 40. But after thinking about it a little, I love the design of the original so much; that if the Volt ends up looking more like a regular car, than the original, that number might would even go to 20 miles per charge.
If I had a choice between the original design with 20 miles per charge, and the new design (assuming it looks pretty much like an average car); I think I would choose the original design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Always compromises from concept to production

Every exciting concept car has lots of compromises from concept to production. (Or worse, never gets produced.) Some of the really striking qualities of the showcar are just ridiculous for a practical car, like the see-through door tops.

I want to see the Volt be a successful, efficient car that changes the game. I think there's valid justification for the 40-mile electrical range, and I'm glad they kept that instead of the initially longer gasoline range. I drive 15 or 20 miles from my house much more frequently than I drive 500 miles without stopping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
The real question is how much would it cost you. That depends on how far you drive a day, what type of driving you do, and how often you will get into the "concession range".

If they left the car looking like the concept, rounding the nose and front a little, leaving the rearend and sides and dropping the wheel size back to about 19" from 21", I can't imagine the electric range would drop more than 10 mpc. After all, the mules are out there running at around 40mpc (per Lutz) and their not exactly "aero tuned".

If you drive mostly city, the aero penalty would be even less than the highway miles.

It's a moot point, I think. UNLESS GM gives us a dog looking Volt for the sake of aero limitations. Let's keep our fingers crossed.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
Been lobbying for GM to produce a Cadillac version truer to the orginal Volt prototype's design. This would need to be a gen2 EREV, with a more powerful motor to fit the market of a highend performance sedan. For $50K, with 32 miles AER, 6.5s or less 0-60, and 40mpg range extended it would sell very well IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
I don't think anyone wants another EV1, especially GM. But if the new Porsche 911 has a coefficient of drag of .28, I think we can get a nice looking car that will have the range we all desire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
choose your level of aerodynamicism

I am curious how many miles per charge you would be willing to sacrifice if you could get the originally designed Volt?
Chevrolet can have the slippery, rounded-off design; Pontiac can have it with $5-$10k worth of "aero" ground kits and fender flares and fog lamps and decklid wings.

Isn't that the way GM works anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
20 miles fine

With the appearance of the concept car, 20 miles AER would be fine. With the new appearance yet unknown, it's hard to say, but 40 miles AER might not be enough for the Volt to be attractive just on function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
I'd sacrifice 10 miles off for the original concept over the new one. The new version is a generic jelly bean with four doors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
I would sacrifice no miles for the original. I think the original design had some boldness to it that was very desirable, but the car as a whole just didn't fit. It didn't seem balanced enough.

The new design is well balanced, but although it loses that bold blunt front end, it makes up for it in aggressiveness. I think they did a wonderful job on the car. It's much less "plain" than I originally anticipated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Are we looking at the same car there is nothing aggressive about this car with the changes they have made the sunfire my 80 year old grandmother drives looks more aggressive then this thing. GM rolled over plain and simple on this they lack originality and have one agenda in mind try to steal customers from the toyota band wagon that was started by snobby actors trying to feel good about them selves.
I don’t believe we would have to sacrifice any MPC to get the original concept There is no way you can convince me that the production model car has a lower drag coefficient then say a 80 model Comarro or firebird or even the new mustang. They didn’t make these changes for performance they did it so that they could get gm customers that were buying Toyota to stay with GM and not have to take the chance of breaking in to a new market of consumers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
Are we looking at the same car there is nothing aggressive about this car with the changes they have made the sunfire my 80 year old grandmother drives looks more aggressive then this thing. GM rolled over plain and simple on this they lack originality and have one agenda in mind try to steal customers from the toyota band wagon that was started by snobby actors trying to feel good about them selves.
I don’t believe we would have to sacrifice any MPC to get the original concept There is no way you can convince me that the production model car has a lower drag coefficient then say a 80 model Comarro or firebird or even the new mustang. They didn’t make these changes for performance they did it so that they could get gm customers that were buying Toyota to stay with GM and not have to take the chance of breaking in to a new market of consumers.
Well, you've said it. There's "no way" you'll be convinced, so why should someone bother trying? I assume you're an aerospace engineer or a fluid dynamics specialist, since you obviously know all about the aerodynamics of the Volt from a couple of pictures, and exactly how it compares to an '80 Comarro (whatever the hell a Comarro is.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
The drag coefficient for an 83 the Firebird is .34 and for a new Prius it is .26 I don’t think the .08 difference is enough to hurt performance significantly. And I think an 83 firebird looks a lot better then this non original monstrosity. Sorry I misspelled Camaro and just to make you feel better I did write a few papers in my college days on wind resistence and eddie currents but it was related to air and water craft.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
636 Posts
Burb

Dang Burb, can I buy a vowel or some punctuation ?? No college paper would be accepted the way you wrote that, even if it was on air.......:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
The drag coefficient for an 83 the Firebird is .34 and for a new Prius it is .26 I don’t think the .08 difference is enough to hurt performance significantly. And I think an 83 firebird looks a lot better then this non original monstrosity. Sorry I misspelled Camaro and just to make you feel better I did write a few papers in my college days on wind resistence and eddie currents but it was related to air and water craft.
Okay, so if we assume the same frontal area, a car with a Cd of .34 will waste 30% more energy overcoming aerodynamic drag than a car with a Cd of .26 travelling at the same velocity. If you don't think 30% is a significant difference, you're not thinking very clearly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
I would sacrifice no miles for the original. I think the original design had some boldness to it that was very desirable, but the car as a whole just didn't fit. It didn't seem balanced enough.
The concept was distinctive. It stood out. The production car does not stand out that much. I was actually a little bit concerned with the rear/side visibility with those narrow windows. I did think the production model would have at least some characteristics that made it stand out from the crowd, however.

The new design is well balanced, but although it loses that bold blunt front end, it makes up for it in aggressiveness. I think they did a wonderful job on the car. It's much less "plain" than I originally anticipated.
Well, here's a comparison: Honda canceled it's civic hybrid last year. Their market research indicated that a lot of poeple didn't buy it because it didnt "look like a hybrid" it just looked like a civic. So, Honda's next hybrid will "look like a hybrid"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
I still don't think you have to sacrifice that much range, particularly for suburban/city driving. You could practically drive a brick at 35 mph from stop-light to stop-light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,728 Posts
I just don't understand people who won't drive a hybrid unless it looks like a hybrid. What's more important - being "green" or looking "green"? What a bunch of morons. :rolleyes:

What's with the hang-up on the production Volt's style, anyway? Isn't the fact that you can drive past a gas station with a smile on your face what matters? Help the environment and national security at the same time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
I think you folks and GM all spend way too much effort and time worrying about cooeficient of drag. I mean get real. Drag means something at 100 MPH, It might even mean something at 60 MPH. But good grief folks. People buying the Volt will most likely be people driving to and from work in city traffic. In those conditions drag is minimal to nonexistant. By the time you get the Volt out on the freeway for a long trip and get 30 miles out of town the battery will be drained and the range extender will kick-in anyway. At that point conservation of battery energy is meaningless.

So to answer your question... I want style, not wind tunnel proven vanilla-looking sedan styling. To see where I'm coming from, please check out my avitar. Those are actually my cars, not some stock pictures. Style is important to me.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top