Take a peek at the new Chevy Volt

[stovt001]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Does it run on ugly? Damn—it makes me want run! What happened to the gorgeous concept? I heard the wind tunnel didn't go so well, but the redesign went downright wrong.

This isn't a photo or even a sketch released by GM. This is web nerds giving their opinion of what they think it will be.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by stovt001

This isn't a photo or even a sketch released by GM. This is web nerds giving their opinion of what they think it will be.

That's true. I'm just saying that this rendering is some sort of mistake. What makes them think it will be so ugly?

[Eisenhower]

Yeah, I'd like to see GM's official design. Looks like this is as good as it gets for now- just a peek. So far it doesn't look too bad, the head lights look like they were borrowed from a Honda.

If GM can pull this car off, they'll share the technology with their other brands and they'll be back on top in the no.#1 spot.

[theholycow]

There's not enough labels on that picture. I wonder if it's the electric car that could save GM...

[Camaro Lives On]

Originally Posted by Eisenhower

Yeah, I'd like to see GM's official design. Looks like this is as good as it gets for now- just a peek. So far it doesn't look too bad, the head lights look like they were borrowed from a Honda.

If GM can pull this car off, they'll share the technology with their other brands and they'll be back on top in the no.#1 spot.

Why cant they just yank the cover off that thing, i want to see it. It's looking great so far.

[Muscle Master]

looking good though

It will be like another 3 years till Chrysler comes out with a hybrid

[Dan]

Actually the range on the Volt will be far less. They have decided to reduce the size of the gas tank by almost half to save weight and reduce costs so the range will be 300-400 miles a tank like most cars. Also the 1.0L 3cyl turbo engine is gone and it will be a 1.4L 4cyl non turbo engine. The new engine will be less expensive and is more efficient in solid state mode than the turbo model.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Nickdago

Here we go again. They show us a concept that is really cool and then now are saying it will now just look like an average car. Over promise and under deliver again.

They never promised anything. So that's strike 1. In fact, they made VERY clear that the shape would change while staying true to the design...does a certain quote:

"It was more aerodynamic if we put it in the wind-tunnel backwards"

ring any bells? That's strike 2: they said it WOULD change. And you're looking at an artists rendition that looks nothing like the real car that's under that sheet. Strike 3.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by Dan

Also the 1.0L 3cyl turbo engine is gone and it will be a 1.4L 4cyl non turbo engine. The new engine will be less expensive and is more efficient in solid state mode than the turbo model.

That makes sense. A turbo gasoline engine can be more efficient in normal applications because, when you're not running flat-out, you're using a smaller engine; but in a series hybrid application, it only ever runs at its most efficient output...so there's no advantage to using a smaller turbocharged engine instead of a larger NA engine.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by shank0668

um whats the gas milage on it when it dies

~50-55 mpg is the goal I think

Originally Posted by Muscle Master

looking good though

It will be like another 3 years till Chrysler comes out with a hybrid

Like the 2009 Aspen hybrid?

[swazworth]

Originally Posted by Dan

Actually the range on the Volt will be far less. They have decided to reduce the size of the gas tank by almost half to save weight and reduce costs so the range will be 300-400 miles a tank like most cars. Also the 1.0L 3cyl turbo engine is gone and it will be a 1.4L 4cyl non turbo engine. The new engine will be less expensive and is more efficient in solid state mode than the turbo model.

i got 400 miles to a tank in a 1998 vw jetta.


so why is this car so exciting? i'm hearing $40k for the volt. i understand the whole if you drive less then 40 miles a day you never have to use any gas. but how long till you save enough on gas to make up the difference of the $40k price tag?

i was really excited for this car when i was hearing 600 to 700 miles a tank. not really that excited anymore.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by swazworth

i got 400 miles to a tank in a 1998 vw jetta.


so why is this car so exciting? i'm hearing $40k for the volt. i understand the whole if you drive less then 40 miles a day you never have to use any gas. but how long till you save enough on gas to make up the difference of the $40k price tag?

i was really excited for this car when i was hearing 600 to 700 miles a tank. not really that excited anymore.

depends how far you drive and the price of gas and how efficient your alternative is. Plus there are also probably going to be government rebates to reduce the cost of the car. And I might be wrong, but I believe that GM is willing to sell the volt at a loss: that would cost them less than to have the volt fail.

[Dan]

Well for one that kind of tank range just isn't very useful to most people. With a car that could potentially spend months in between fuel ups, the gas in the tank would go bad before it even gets used.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Exactly!
It's not meant to be primarily driven off the gas in the tank; so unless you go on extended road trips often; it's total range shouldn't mean anything to you. It's supposed to be charged up every night and driven ~40 miles during the day.

If you want to get into semantics: it could be argued that the car has an unlimited range. If you fill up the tank, and drive 40 miles a day/charge it every night -- you'll never empty that tank. So the car can go "Infinity" on a single tank of gas.

I have yet to understand why total range is so important, it's not what this car is about..................