The unveiling of the production version of the Volt will go down in history as one of GM’s final coffin nails. Not only does it mark the death of the Volt cult, but it also signals the end of the whole “concept/dream car” era as invented by GM’s legendary Harley Earl in the fifties. Bob Lutz has thrown his “Hail Mary pass” right into the stands. The fans are furious, heading for the exits.
Strong words, considering GM has committed to actually building the Volt. But the promise of the Volt, as defined by the concept car, was something totally different from the perfectly ordinary-looking compact sedan revealed. The Volt concept was a blatant effort by Lutz to tap into the last vestiges of the Futurama psyche: a place where reality is suspended in the belief that a better (and greener) tomorrow really exists, thanks to GM’s infinite technical and styling prowess.
Never mind that the Volt concept was utterly impractical, and had zero chance of becoming the actual production car. In typically Lutzian fashion, the gut dominated the head. The car’s profile, the long, low hood, the chopped top, and those huge wheels, pushed out to the extremities, are nothing but a recapitulation of Lutz’s favorite concept, the Cadillac Sixteen. It’s a RWD concept intended to carry a sixteen cylinder engine under the hood, not a coffee-can electric motor driving the front wheels.
The Volt concept was a blatant lie, because nothing of its mini-Sixteen form spoke to its intended EV role. It was a bait-and-switch routine, consciously contrived to generate enthusiasm, such as the 30k names on the gm-volt.com “waiting list.” Lutz may imagine himself to be the modern day Harley Earl, driving his beloved (and utterly impractical) gas-turbine powered rocket-ship Firebirds. But no one took dream cars like the Firebirds seriously back then; they were part of the Futurama show of unlimited possibilities– which never actually came.
Lutz lied when he said the Volt just needed to be “aerodynamically optimized.” In reality, GM knew it couldn’t afford to develop the technology as well as a new platform and distinctive body too. The production Volt would, by economic necessity, be part of the Delta II platform and body family. It’s an electrified next-gen Cobalt/Cruze/Astra, plain and simple, with a stupid, fake blanked-out grill. It explains the Volt’s mediocre Cd of .28. The Prius may not be stunning, but Toyota shelled out for a unique platform and (more) aerodynamic body, sans fake grilles.
“Rolling turd-mobile” is just one (delicate) sampling of the profound sense of disappointment at Volt Nation. The “leaked” images of the production Volt unleashed a tsunami of negative comments (over 800 and still growing). Some asked to be taken of the (un-official) waiting list, and many are apoplectic. What gives? Weren’t they mainly interested in a car with a 40-mile electric-only range?
The Volt concept coupled the powerful emotional and visceral right-brain appeal of a snorting Cadillac Sixteen with the left-brain advantages of an EV. It was the royal flush, the four cherries, the completed Hail Mary pass that would resurrect GM from the ashes of its (self-induced) immolation. The Messiah/Volt would leap-frog the Prius (and the ascending Asia it represents) as well as shove a giant middle finger in OPEC’s face. America’s place in the world would be restored.
But the production Volt brings to light a grim and stark reality: it’s just an ordinary-looking car. Where’s the (Pontiac) excitement and fun in that? Yes, GM has made an important (and necessary) step in the long-term electrification of the automobile. But it’s hardly alone in that. And it may not be all that exciting, either. In fact, the electrification of the automobile represents the triumph of the left-brain/form follows function/Japanese approach to car building: rational, systematic, measured integration of technology, continuous improvement, and cost-effective (profitable) production. The very qualities that lead to the Asian dominance of the American car market, and cars like the Prius (there never was a Prius concept, it just appeared one day, production-ready).
The glorious fifties and sixties are long gone and dead, despite Detroit’s best efforts to evoke them with retro pony cars and Volt dream-car concepts. And the much-hated Prius represents the force that killed that era. No wonder so much of the scorn being dished out at gm-volt.com is laced with Japanese model names: “Ugh; it looks like a bastard child of a Prius and a Civic.” What the GM faithful were looking for, what Lutz got them excited about, was the equivalent of the 1963 Riviera coupe powered by a nuclear reactor. And they were willing to pony-up. But what they’re seeing now is a forty-grand Cobalt. And falling gas prices. And rising electric rates. Suddenly, the Prius and Insight look… not so ugly after all.
92 Comments on “General Motors Deathwatch 197: The Volt Lie...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Nobody has driven the thing yet or has seen it in person, so I’d rather wait to pass judgement until both happens. Sure, it looks a little bland in those pictures, but the sky isn’t falling yet.
Actually, having only seen one picture of the new Insight and knowing it’s a Honda, I have no problem concluding it will be a home run.
On the other hand, having seen GM continually fall flat on it’s corporate ass for the last half century, no amount of exposure to the real thing (as opposed to PR) would convince me the Volt to be other than another foul ball (at best) or strike out (at worst).
They should rename it the CoVolt. Maybe some lipstick would help.
Well at GM – it is not like anyone ever holds them accountable for anything they promise (1m times over). Nope they are given a blank check and our faith that they know what’s best and we hardly ever call them on it. That is why this is a company that does not set clear goals or any timelines for really anything. That is why any timelines they do set are not met – just a suggestion. That is why GM spends most of its revenues on marketing and press releases and paying for reviews rather than creating new, exciting cars – just whore the heck out of the junk you currently make and just slap lipstick on it and viola – you have a brand new car or a ground up redesign.
Somehow I never noticed the wide band of black paint intended to visually extend the beltline downward on the concept, probably because it included a second sliver of glass. The black paint is much more obvious on the production car.
I’ve always hated massively faked DLOs (daylight openings), but this one is especially odd. I thought the reason to have a high beltline was for exterior styling. So why have a high belt, then add a bunch of black paint to unconvincingly fake a low belt?
On the bright side, they’ll probably be able to actually ship it within a reasonable timeframe on the existing platform. But they couldn’t do better than this for a body?
Does it need to be said that the target market for the Volt is not going to buy it if it looks like an uglier Cobalt?
Would you buy a Corvette shaped like a Cobalt?
Great breakdown/takedown. That GM was using the Volt Concept in advertisements as recently as the Olympics is a ringing testament to the cynicism of the whole project. Bait and switch, indeed.
For my money, the “production Volt” looks an awful lot like Honda’s new Insight. Except that the Volt will be $40k and the Insight will less than half that. The 40 mile plug-in range will overcome this major sales obstacle for some, but the price point is gonna keep the Volt from rapid, Prius-style sales/production expansion.
And this is being used to justify the bailout?
Lutz may imagine himself to be the modern day Harley Earl, driving his beloved (and utterly impractical) gas-turbine powered rocket-ship Firebirds.
But the Firebirds, the Y-Job and the LeSabre actually WORKED, as did many concept cars from the 50s and 60s. At some point, GM stopped doing the actual R&D and just started showing push-mobile body shells, which were really just styling exercises. Now Lutz has backed himself into a corner by promising a production-ready Volt.
So why have a high belt, then add a bunch of black paint to unconvincingly fake a low belt?
Because they tried to somehow incorporate the interesting-but-totally-impractical beltline integrated window of the concept, couldn’t do it, and decided to use black paint instead.
If they just kept beltline bodycolour, the resemblance to the Cruze would be far more apparent
reVOLTing.
I’ll wait until its actually available for people to drive before passing judgment on the vehicle itself. This does reinforce my belief that this car will NOT save GM.
Excellent analysis, Paul. I see it this way: With all the excitement, and hype, disappointment is sure to follow. GM has promised so much, there is no way they can keep their own promises: they can produce a GREAT car, which meets ALL the stated specifications (a HUGE challenge in itself) and looks decent. It is still going to disappoint. As it turns out, creating expectations comes with a price tag: the need to deliver.
Over in the opponent’s corner, Toyota isn’t saying much, just quietly working on improving what they have…
History will be written that this was a tremendous waste of time. Insted of building smaller cars with 40+ MPG ratings for 13K or so and making a few hundred dollars each in profit we have this turd-mobile
@ Edward:
I don’t think this is being used to justify the bailout. There is no product based justification. (without laughing, that is)
Consumers have voted with their feet on how they feel about a bailout. If we wanted to bail them out, a lot more Cobalts, Malibus and Aveos would have sold.
GM complains of being blocked out of markets they can’t get into, but large swaths of their home market wishes they would leave. Go figure.
dear god. they really should have cashed the bailout cheque prior to unveiling the Bride of Frankenstein.
Compared to its competition, it’s a better looking car. Anyone expecting the car to look like the concept wasn’t duped by Lutz, but by their own naivete.
They had a viable EV in the 90s, and so did Toyota with the RAV4-EV. I remain confused why they don’t just buy the technology back from Chevron and put it back into production. Put the EV drivetrain in a Cobalt or an Astra and it’ll likely still have a 75 mile range and then they can add a little gasoline engine to recharge the batteries when necessary.
The problem is they sold the battery tech to the devil (big oil) and big won’t ever let them have it back until the patent runs out in 2010.
NiMH batteries just work and they last and the large format versions are locked away in Chevron’s patent vaults.
They CAN’T convince me that the electronics in the EV1 increased the value of the car to $50K or higher. Today we’ve got all sorts of personal gadgets that have huge computing power. Take the old designs and miniature-ize them. Let some GM subsidiary assemble them in China. Use the same motors, same batteries, same control systems as the EV-1 and improve them with each model revision.
Heck the computing power for the displays, controls systems, GPS, and so on in one of those cars could prob be repeated with a Linux powered Nokia N810 handheld.
Looks an awful lot like the Malibu, to me. No surprise, wanting to associate their radical new product with their stolid, conservative new mainstay.
PAUL:
My thoughts exactly. Like you read my mind.
The concept looked sorta Camaro-y and I remember thinking they should’ve just combined the Camaro and Volt into one car, and then made it with either a regular gas drivetrain or optional electric drivetrain – especially since it was an actual ‘compact’ like the ‘67 Camaro, instead of the Zeta sized “Monte Carlo Camaro” we’ll be getting.
Like Buickman, I’m a GMInsidenews.com person – so I’m operating under the handicap of (irrational) GM nostalgia.
Still, the Volt is simply set up to fail – because as Paul says, it’s all about GM’s making sweet, sweet love to (Paul Freidman and the NYT) the press.
Regarding the “Leak”…
I was reading Delorean’s tell all “On a Clear Day You Can See GM” – in it he tells the sorry tale of the XP 887 – what became (sigh) the VEGA.
He says something like:
“It was surprising GM announced production of an exciting small car years before (1968) it was to be produced – (my caps.) BECAUSE GM NEVER TALKED ABOUT FUTURE PRODUCTS (Oh how times change, eh?) FOR FEAR OF HURTING SALES OF MODELS CURRENTLY IN PRODUCTION.
So GM got hooked (addicted?) on talkin’ big plans to the press with the VEGA.
But they didn’t learn the lesson.
Another painfully familiar point was the ‘dream’ part of the dream car Vega. To paraphrase John Z.
“The other strange thing was that, as of 1968, when it was announced, (MY CAPS) THERE WAS NO ACTUAL CAR OR PROTOTYPE. The XP 887 was entirely an abstraction that existed only as a set of numbers taken from a computer. On the flimsy basis of some math equations on paper, GM promised the XP 887 would weigh under 2000lbs and cost under $2000 – the actual car missed those marks by well over 10%.”
Another case of “Brag to the press about your miraculous ability to break the laws of physics, and ‘it will come’ through sheer willpower and pluck.”
Volt = Vega.
I don’t think the ‘production’ version looks that bad. Then again, I didn’t think the concept looked that good either.
It’s funny, but before the Asstek was unveiled to the public, a friend of mine that hired in there was shown the final vehicle while the PR person said “This is a great car, everyone is going to want one! it’s styled for young people like you!”
My friend said it was all he could do to not burst out laughing.
That PR person must still be in charge at GM.
jkross22 :
September 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
@ Edward:
I don’t think this is being used to justify the bailout. There is no product based justification. (without laughing, that is)
Consumers have voted with their feet on how they feel about a bailout. If we wanted to bail them out, a lot more Cobalts, Malibus and Aveos would have sold.
Well put.
Bunter
Not that I think GM is particularly clever, but I am wondering if they “leaked” those photos on purpose to focus-group their condom-on-wheels. Given the feedback, they probably would be smart to re-evaluate things. The American car companies never seem to grasp that people in this country like Hondas and Toyotas for the most part because they are efficient and reliable. The Detroit bunch seem to be under the impression that Americans buy those makes for their styling or something. So they make equally anonymous, rounded-up cars, but then throw a pushrod-6 in it and wonder why the masses don’t come.
The biggest problem with the Volt is not it’s looks. It looks like a Prius which is what people want in a hybrid. That’s why Honda’s new Insight looks like a Prius too, except at less than half the price of the Volt.
It’s the price that is the real problem for the Volt.
People will have the choice of spending $ 40K on a Volt or on an almost identical looking Insight+ 200.000 miles worth of gas. That last part is in instalments of course, just the way most people like it.
I have a near-irrational hatred of “concept cars,” if only because they lead to inevitable disappointment.
Plus concept car interiors tend to be rancid at best. But that’s an aside.
Niedermeyer nailed it. I don’t see how this won’t backfire. It has all of the ingredients to fail in both the PR sense and quite possibly in sales. Maybe the GM execs saw the The Producers recently.
The real problem is that it won’t be made in any significant numbers until late next decade.
Anyone want to guess the ev range on a Prius will be in 2016?
I will dissent somewhat and say the styling turned out quite well. Compare the photos of it next to photos of the Prius and the Volt definitely has it bested in the looks department.
What it won’t have the Prius (and Insight) bested in is cost. With it’s projected cost of nearly double GM is looking at a tough sell, unless “green” becomes so “in” in our country that people decided to shell out the money for it. Or unless Obama and his pals subsidize the cost of it under the mantras of patriotism, national security and energy independence.
Still, I’d like to see this car come out as promised. I hope it does go 40 miles on electricity consistently. I hope it spurs further advanaces in personal transportation by GM and other companies. I hope people buy it. I also hope to see a little crow eating on this website if it turns out that way.
But I’m not counting on it.
Change the names:
GM/Lutz = McCain
Volt = Sarah Palin
.. with one scary twist about how much you can fool the people
Oops! Cars here, not politics. My bad.
Paul Niedermeyer: “The Volt concept was a blatant lie,”
It isn’t a lie if you believe it, right?
—
Trishield: “What it won’t have the Prius (and Insight) bested in is cost. With it’s projected cost of nearly double GM is looking at a tough sell, unless “green” becomes so “in” in our country that people decided to shell out the money for it.”
For $20K less, I think almost everyone will find the Prius is “green enough.”
Or, look at it this way… that’s $20K for the Prius and another $20K for insulation, solar photovoltaics or solar heat. All have reasonable paybacks. A $20K improvement to your home can be reasonably put on your mortgage and deducted.
Sorry, I’m not a lapdog and I’ll hold my decision until I see one at the dealer.
Since when does a “CONCEPT” actually come out 100% like the production version? I can’t remember one, and I sort of remember the Earl memorabilia in museums.
Ford as well and throw in Dodge/Chrysler in here too.
So why the lemming-like like slamming?
Good point monkeyboy and in this case the concept definitely had the obvious concept look that likely couldn’t be replicated on a real car. Which Lutz said so after the decision was made to greenlight it.
I called it, I said a bunch of times when the production version comes out there is going to be a lot of WTF and pissed off people who feel lied to. Wait until it hits the show rooms you haven’t seen anything yet, if GM survives that long.
Since when does a “CONCEPT” actually come out 100% like the production version?
That really doesn’t matter when they have been selling the concept to the general public in huge ad campains as the car they will be able to buy. They rightfully are going to fee lied to, becuase well they were, it was just one big PR lie. GM is stupid in thinking customers aren’t going to flee when they notice they are being lied to. Broken promises don’t sit well in this country.
Let’s look at the Volt’s track record.
1)Promised unique styling, staying true to the concept = Nope your not going to get that, just settle for this electrified Cobalt with fancy trim.
2)Promised competitive price with Prius at $30,000 = Nope but $40,000+ shouldn’t be that big of a deal for a compact, you can afford it.
3)Promised 40 mile EV range = We still don’t know if they will hit this but if they don’t they might as well cancel the project now.
Am I missing anymore early promises?
All this money would have been better spent fast tracking a great small car to the market that would kick everyone ass. You know something they could sell NOW!
KixStart, here’s a good point that was made over at GMI about the Volt versus the competition.
if one keeps the car long enough, and doesn’t travel more than 40 miles per day…it’ll pay back. If the tax credit is higher than $3k, or goes goes higher than $3.70…then the payback time will be even quicker!
Cost up front:
Prius: $29,000 (it’s really $29,165 after delivery charge for a fully loaded Prius Touring w/ Nav etc)
Volt: $37,000 ($40,000 minus a $3,000 tax credit…yes, both are estimates)
Miles driven:
40 miles per day, 7 days a week both cars.
280 miles per week
14,560 miles per year
Cost of fuel: (based on $3.70/gallon)
Weekly:
Prius: using EPA 46 mpg combined — $22.52
Volt: $0
Annually:
Prius: $1,171.13
Volt: $0
Price difference = $8k. It’ll take 6.83 years for a base Volt (assuming these numbers are right…and they’re probably not) to equal a loaded Prius in a fuel cost comparison.
Volt: $37k @ 5.9 APR, 7% sales tax, and a 60 month term = $763.54 per month
Total spent = $45,812
Prius: $29k @ 5.9 APR, 7% sales tax, and a 60 month term = $598.45 per month
Total spent = $35,907
I maintain that most people don’t see it that way though. With leasing gone they simply look at the MSRP or monthly payments and if it’s beyond their comfort zone they aren’t going to go for it, especially when the alternative costs less.
I like the reference to “The Producers”. I had not thought of that connection before. But that is exactly how GM has operated in the past, and perhaps is their general plan is now. Design to fail.
monkeyboy: Since when does a “CONCEPT” actually come out 100% like the production version?
Rarely, but usually there’s a very strong correlation, like in the Camaro. Say 75-90%. In the case of the Volt, essentially nothing, if you consider its basic shape, wheel arrangement, profile, front overhnag, etc, etc..
The whole point I’m making is this: usally/normally, the concept’s basic shape/arrangement reflects what the car will be, in its purpose, size, etc. Not in the case of the Volt concept. It was a low-slung sporty car with zero correlation to the basic configuration of a production FWD car.
@TriShield, And you think you will find a Volt sitting at your dealer for exactly $40k??? They’re going to come heavily loaded, and with dealer markups for the first year or so, when production is limited.
Comparing a loaded Prius to a “stripper” Volt is not realistic.
jkross22:
Laugh all you want, but the bailout is certainly centered on products, albeit not ones that exist yet. Check out what the industry says about the loan package:
Chrysler’s Jim Press: “I think it will allow everybody to bring electric cars, plug-in hybrids, hybrid cars, even range-extended hybrids. All of those vehicles will be accelerated.”
GM lobbyist Greg Martin: “This program is not a bailout but an incentive for the auto industry and its suppliers. Its purpose is to get advanced technology vehicles on the road as quickly as possible in order to help the country meet its energy goals–and that’s exactly what we’re going to use it for.”
UAW Legislative Director Alan Reuther: “We don’t see it as a bailout. We see it as government assistance to help retooling tied to the production of these advanced technology vehicles.”
Detroit News indirectly quotes GM’s Bob Lutz thusly: “He also said GM and the other Detroit automakers would benefit from low-cost government loans to help them pay to update plants and speed up development of more fuel-efficient models consumers are demanding amid high gas prices.”
And on, and on. The only way the pols go for this is if $50b buys them lots of bragging points. Fixing the economy, fixing the environment, and helping Americans get access to high-tech, whizbang whips might be worth it. But the Volt is Detroit’s only hope on the last point, and if it costs $40k it won’t be seen as a very populist investment.
Not to make too far-reaching an analogy, but a “Volks Wagen” this is not. In so many ways.
Not to pick nits, but…
“…there never was a Prius concept, it just appeared one day, production-ready” is not an accurate statement.
There was, in fact, a Prius concept shown at the 1995 Tokyo auto show, a full two years prior to the production model unveiling.
http://www.toyoland.com/prius/chronology.html
The production car, however, showed up ready-to-roll with no prior leaks, both in 1997 and for the radically different redesign in 2003 (MY2004).
Toyota was, in fact, trying to gauge interest in such a vehicle prior to actually funding a launch, much like GM is doing today with the Volt.
One of the first lessons they teach you in your business career is never, ever……over-promise and under-deliver. It is the proverbial kiss of death, the fabled automatic….yet here is what was once the most admired corporation on the planet doing the very same on a massive scale.
That is not some space-age transparent fabric…nosirreebob! In fact, the emperor is sans apparel….
Sad, and pathetic.
Oh, and on the concept vs. reality styling debate, this makes for a good example of a different GM approach to the concept-production transition. With far more satisfying results too, I’d say.
Saw the Autoblog pictures. Not a bad looking car. Lets just hope the technology is there to get past the Eurobland styling. The funniest part of the autoblog pics is the ‘glamor shots’ of the middled aged (or not so middle aged) men. I wonder how much makeup they put on them before the pictures.
I’m not here to weigh in on the sneak peeks of the Volt or its styling; I think many of you guys have covered most aspects (both positive and negative) regarding those. Instead, I offer my views on the Volt’s public image through the lenses of historical interpretation.
GM has developed a history of over-promising and under-delivering with its offerings for a while now. The Volt is no different. The Vega, when first conceived, was supposed to weigh “less than 2,000 pounds…and priced at the level of the Volkswagen Beetle, less than $1,800 then” (cited from Delorean’s book). By the time the Vega was released, it had a base sticker price of $2,091, “out of the market” of the Beetle, especially considering costly options designed to extract more money from the customer.
Even though the Vega missed its target goals for price and weight by a mere fraction, the point is it missed the mark! If I get any service performed and am quoted at $300, and the final price turns out to be $250, I will be much less happy than I would be angry/sad if the actual cost was $350.
GM is now promising a 40 mile electric range on the Volt. I’d be willing to bet money that the same forty mile range is based on numbers compiled using optimum electric driving conditions for the math (i.e. no steep hills, perfect temperature, driving the car with a soft foot, etc.). Fact is, the average customer is going to feel entitled to 40 miles of gasoline free driving, despite any disclaimers on the window sticker! And if that full forty miles isn’t reached, he is going to feel shortchanged, which he can add to his personal list of grievances with GM (I, of course, the target buyer of this particular Volt would be a long-time GM buyer, but I digress…).
Over-promising and under-delivering. The Volt has already gone through this game before. Wasn‘t the Volt originally promised to be available for purchase in 2008, with a price around $25,000 (citing from memory there, I‘m sure someone will correct me)? The Volt was promised to have a 600 mile range. More over-promising. More under-delivering. Even though it is practical considerations that are forcing the Volt to be more expensive and released later than originally planned, the fact is GM should never have promised what it could not 100% deliver.
The Volt could turn out to be a fantastic car; a wonderful PR move for GM at a time when GM is desperately in need of one. However, I think the road to the Volt’s release has already been worn with many potholes, forcing many onlookers and potential consumers to shake their heads.
(With apologies to Mark MacInnes, I swear I started this in Word Processor before your thoughts were posted!)
What the GM faithful were looking for, what Lutz got them excited about, was the equivalent of the 1963 Riviera coupe powered by a nuclear reactor
+1. Yes, Lutz can be hyperbolic. But some of the blame rests on the ‘GM faithful’.
By setting expectations high and failing to live up to them GM has squandered trust and credibility; not a new phenomena for the Detroit-3.
galaxygreymx5
Your Prius history is a very good point. That said, and I don’t think this refutes your point, the internet age means we can debate the Volt for the next two-three years, until we’re blue (or green) in the face. For better or worse, the Prius wasn’t subjected to the same type of exposure. Moreover, in recent history, GM seems intent on beating us over the head with cars that are or were three years out — the Camaro being the best example. (By and large, the Japanese makes don’t have the same strategy today.)
“Leaked” photos, roll-outs at every car show … it gets a bit old when you can’t go down to the dealership to see it.
TriShield :
September 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
KixStart, here’s a good point that was made over at GMI about the Volt versus the competition.
if one keeps the car long enough, and doesn’t travel more than 40 miles per day…it’ll pay back. If the tax credit is higher than $3k, or goes goes higher than $3.70…then the payback time will be even quicker!
Cost up front:
Prius: $29,000 (it’s really $29,165 after delivery charge for a fully loaded Prius Touring w/ Nav etc)
Volt: $37,000 ($40,000 minus a $3,000 tax credit…yes, both are estimates)
Cost of fuel: (based on $3.70/gallon)
Weekly:
Prius: using EPA 46 mpg combined — $22.52
Volt: $0
Not Quite $0. Quite a bit more, actually, not to mention whatever it costs to re-wire your house to deliver the power to your plug in car. As a Guess, I think it would be safe to assume you’re going to put 15 KWH (2000 W for 7.5 hours!) into the car between 40 mile charges. That’s something like $1.65 in electricity where I live, and is $11.55 per week or $600 per year. This pushes the simple payback out to around 15 years. How long do those batteries last anyway?
Are we as a large group of readers not understanding the definition of the word, “Concept?” We all seem to be attaching a different meaning to this term.
I think it means, in this context, “an idea.”
Not:
Exact replica.
Total and complete version.
“Just like this!”
100% production version.
Am I pretty close??!?!?
Edward, regarding the Camaro concept to reality transition. I’d say it isn’t the best example as the Camaro is not a car whose entire point depends on being as aerodynamic as possible. It’s a car whose styling is one of it’s huge draws. The Volt much less so. The big draw is it’s range on electric only power, which the part that’s absolutely crucial to the entire project.
Nice article. Your observation about the lack of Prius hype nicely sums up everything that has gone wrong with the American car industry.
To quote Yoda: “Do or do not. There is no ‘try’.”
TriShield :
Cost up front:
Prius: $29,000 (it’s really $29,165 after delivery charge for a fully loaded Prius Touring w/ Nav etc)
Volt: $37,000 ($40,000 minus a $3,000 tax credit…yes, both are estimates)
I would guess that most people who can afford a 40K car will not qualify for the tax credit. Even many buyers of the much less expesive Prius got burned by the Alt Min Tax. Of course no one selling the cars brings up these minor details.
TriShield, You’re missisng Edward’s (and my) point: The Camaro concept was designed with the general parameters of what they intended to build as aproduction car. The Volt wasn’t; it was an out-there dream car based on the Sixteen. GM/Lutz should never have done that; the concept should have (at least roughly) reflected the shape, size and aerodynamics of the production vehicle.
GM’s Impact concept car correctly predicted the shape and superb aerodynamics of the EV-1. That’s what GM should have done with the Volt.
GalaxygrayMX5, Thanks for the correction about the Prius concept. A (rare) blank in my memory files. Any images?
billc83,
+1, and well said. I wrote a whole editorial just on that subject: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chevy-volt-vega-redux/