Chevy Volt heads into GM's production pipeline

Those of you as taken with GM's Chevy Volt concept vehicle as we are may want to take a minute to reconsider any impending car purchases, as the car is now officially headed into production -- in two different versions no less. According to Autoblog, that could put the car on track for a roll out in 2010, although GM isn't quite ready to get that specific. In addition to the plug-in gasoline model we saw earlier this year, the other version GM is working on is a fuel cell model, although it'll apparently be too expensive for volume production (diesel and ethanol-powered versions could also be headed to select markets). The plug-in gasoline version takes the rather ingenious route of using the gasoline engine to power a generator, which charges the car's batteries, which in turn powers the car itself (you can also simply plug it in overnight to charge the battery). That supposedly translates to a gasoline savings of about 500 gallons per year for the average commuter, not to mention a signification reduction in CO2 emissions. While there's no word yet on what it might cost, GM has reportedly said that it's willing to lose money initially in order to get the car produced and sold, which could certainly be a good sign.

[Art Guy @ May 7th 2007 5:52PM]

It looks cool now... But by the time it comes out, they will have changed the so much design that it will look like every other car on the planet.

[mashupmark.com @ May 8th 2007 5:40AM]

Hahahaha! American Engineering? My dear boy, they're getting worse than China for copy cat designs!

I bet SAAB is super pissed at this duplicate!

http://www.saab.com/microsites/aero_x/GLOBAL/en/index2.shtml

[David @ Aug 10th 2007 10:56PM]

GM owns SAAB

[steelmonster303 @ May 7th 2007 5:54PM]

*Pats GM On Back* That's American engineering at its finest.

[Rick @ May 7th 2007 8:31PM]

Yeah until the motor falls out just after 36,000 miles. All American car companies are total crapola. Ever notice that American car companies have to keep turning out these unusual designs and advertise with tons of hoopla while Honda and Toyota keep quiet and continue sell a massive number of cars? Improve the looks and not the quality.....maybe for those car buyers with half a brain that might not be the best thing to do.

[David @ Oct 1st 2007 2:24AM]

Well if you run any car into the ground dont expect it to last long. My fathers 85 ford escort had over 300,000 on the drive train, nothing rebuilt. Around 300,000 1 of the 4 cylinders lost compression but the car still ran fine, did not burn oil or smoke. He followed the manual for maintence. My grand father had a 75 ford f150 and it still runs today, just maintained and no overhaul/rebuild. The thing with american autos is in 50 yrs you can still find oem parts.

[etmthree @ May 7th 2007 5:56PM]

"Ingenious?"

If you're describing it correctly, that power train (internal-combustion engine - generator - batteries - electric motor) dates back at least to WW2, and Ferdinand Porsche's tanks. I think it may even have been used on an electric car before then, but I might be misremembering. And anyway, that's just land vehicles. Submarines have been powered that way for just about ever -- that's why they called the company in Groton "The Electric Boat Company."

[McGinley @ May 7th 2007 6:10PM]

The article didn't state that GM invented that power train.It just stated that the power train was ingenious.

Kudos to GM for putting money into reducing emissions,and reducing fuel consumption.

[Brad @ May 7th 2007 6:56PM]

"Ingenious?"

Hardly. It is generally accepted that the serial hybrid drivetrain (which is what the Volt will use) is, ceteris paribus, vastly inferior to the parallel drivetrain (in which engine, motor, or both may power the wheels at any given time). I don't feel like citing references... suffice it to say that I've helped build hybrids in college; by the time I joined the team, the serial concept had been dropped like a bad habit.

[Tim @ Oct 9th 2007 10:31PM]

Brad, I have no idea why you would consider the simple and elegant serial hybrid drive train so inferior to the overly complicated parallel hybrid drive train. The serial drive train actually eliminates a lot of complexity, namely the entire complicated, inefficient transmission, while the parallel approach adds a lot of complexity for not much gain, imho. Just about every locomotive made nowadays are serial hybrids.

[Jon @ May 7th 2007 5:58PM]

This baffles me. Have you guys seen the documentary " Who Killed the Electric Car". It's available on Netflix.

I wander if the auto industry is having a sudden change of heart towards plug in electric vehicles. This technology was ready for prime time 10 years ago and the auto industry squandered it.

[Clinton Blackburn @ May 7th 2007 6:32PM]

I was thinking about the documentary as well. The only complaint about the electric car was its range (200 miles). Rather than focusing on ways to line the pockets of oil/energy companies with alternative fuels, why not work on new batteries or solar cells to perfect the electric car?

[Jon @ May 7th 2007 6:57PM]

Only years after the Auto industry pulled the rug out from under the electric car...new NiMH batteries where developed that would allow for almost 400 miles on a single charge. I think it was Exxon or one of the major oil companies that then bought out that company that made those batteries.

I totally agree with you about alternative fuels that are an expensive and complicated alternative to Electric vehicles. Hydrogen for example...requires thousands upon thousands of Hydrogen fueling stations to be built or current gas stations to be retrofitted. The electric car can be recharged at anyones residence without the need for gas stations. I sure as hell would love never having to go to a gas station again.

And it would be allot easier to regulate the increased pollution from electric plants at the plant then the current way of regulating emissions from every single individual vehicle out on the road.

The documentary Who Killed the Electric Car states that the cost of electricity would equal the equivalent of about $.70 per gallon.

Sounds like a winner to me.

[Jon @ May 8th 2007 12:20AM]

Umm...I think your refering to "An Inconvenient Truth" which is not at all "Who Killed the Electric Car". Nothing about Gore or 911 conspiracies found in Who Killed The Electric Car and nothing at all to do with Michael Moore either.

[Deezee @ May 7th 2007 6:03PM]

Props to GM for this move. I really like this car, I just hope they don't botch the design in the process.

[anonymouspimp @ May 7th 2007 6:19PM]

I saw this at the auto show in Chicago a couple months ago... I think it looks even cooler in person. Unfortunately you KNOW its going to be expensive. You are going to pay a premium for the technology... just like the jacked up prices on hybrids. But if you have the coin to drop on something like this... it'll be worth it.

Also... what the heck is a "signification reduction?" ;)

[Aaron Walker @ May 7th 2007 6:22PM]

Don't fall all over yourselves trying to pat GM on the back for doing something they could have/should have done years ago.

We didn't have these types of cars years ago because they wanted to keep making profits for their shareholders while staying in bed with big oil.

Now it has become more fashionable to be seen as environmentaly friendly but really, somebody from marketing must have finally convinced them they can make boatloads of money with this type of car.

Still, I guess, better way late than never....

[C3 @ May 23rd 2007 6:37PM]

Right on! GM and Ford and Chrysler in Bed with big oil... How do you think they sustain their profits when Oil Prices are up?! Thats right! OIL REVS!!

I'll be buying a hybrid as soon as it has a Chevy Badge on it, simply because I like the style at Chevrolet/Pontiac/Buick.

Better do it soon, Otherwise I will a Toyota.

[Phillyih @ Dec 1st 2007 11:17PM]

Its the cost of fuel thats driving the move to electric cars. Car makers just follow the market. 10 years ago this car would probably not have been succesful. Now it probably will be.

[Alexander @ May 7th 2007 6:31PM]

The issue with plug-in anything--be it hybrids or full EV--is not the gas savings. It is all the extra strain that they will put on to the power grid.

Power plants will have to run 24/7 now, instead of reducing power output at night, so they can perform mantiance or to let the turbines/whatever cool down.

The other issue is that the lines are not designed to have that much amps put down the line. So we could see failure at local distribution stations as well.

Not to mention that the Nickel mining is destroying countryside, and is so horribly bad to manufacture--it's amazing that it's still legal. And Lithium-Ion would be so expensive, that the car would cost 100k and we see how well that's working out for the current batch of cars.

The solution is not more efficient cars. the solution is more efficient people. We need more mass-transportation, not massive amounts of single-person transportation.

[Sean O @ May 7th 2007 9:42PM]

Thanks for the FUD. Either you're some right wing wacko who stands up for oil profits, or you're an angry liberal who can't admit that GM did something good for a change.

When you generate power at the source (power plant) you can control it and change the fuel source easily. In order to take advantage of 0 emission energy like solar, nuclear, and possibly geothermal power, you must first have a vehicle fleet that can take advantage of this (EVs and/or hydrogen powered).

So no matter how much of a temporary short-term strain it puts on power grids, this is the first step toward cheap & clean power that can be produced domestically.

Someone who tries to sound smart like you should already know this.

Nickel-cadmium batteries can be recycled. Just like people have been recycling lead acid batteries for years. This has to be one of the stupidest arguments I can imagine. This isn't like seeing some redneck leave his car battery on the sidewalk. The batteries will rarely ever leave the car. And when they are disposed, it will be by a proper facility. Junkyards and such will have mechanisms in place (as well as financial motivation) to recycle them. Just like Jiffy Lube recycles all used motor oil.

And its not like anyone will be using them come 2025. Lithium Ion prices will drop significantly, and on the horizon there are ways to harness new tech like ultra capacitors.

As far as it destroying the countryside - all mining destroys countryside. smart guy. This is a policy issue. You regulate the companies doing this and you enforce maximum environmental safeguards and practices. Unless you think mining stuff should be outlawed.

Mass Trans isn't going to solve our problems sir. It won't even scratch the surface.

[Alexander @ May 7th 2007 10:46PM]

Nuclear power produces nuclear waste. Hardly 'clean' energy. Not to mention that we don't have an unlimited supply of reactor-grade uranium or plutonium in sufficient quantities to replace all coal and oil power plants. Or the fact that it would take nearly 50 years to construct all of them.

Solar power is only about 40% efficient, and you would have to put solar panels everywhere to generate enough electricity so that the areas that do not have sufficient sun could benefit from it.

Geothermal power is still untested, and widespread usage may cause a shift in weather pattens that would wreck havoc worldwide. The same with Wind power. The longterm effects are unknown, although I would say that this out of all of the options is currently the most 'clean' of them all.

Short-term strain on the power grid is a VERY valid concern. I don't care how you try and spin it, you try living without power for a couple of days and see how much you can get done in your day to day life. I'm sorry, I'm not willing to be unable to do my job and I bet that hundreds of other people are also unwilling to be told the same. However, the point I was trying to make was that if everybody switched over to EV cars overnight, there would be consequences.

And yes, I realize that Ni-Cad batteries CAN be recycled and most of the components can be used again. What I was saying is that the actual MINING of the metals is the worst part of the battery production, with the chemicals used to make the cadmium coming in second. Most batteries are made overseas, which do not have the strict regulation that the US has on chemical waste.

Yea, 'regulate' the mining operations of overseas companaies. Just like they 'regulate' offshore jobs, and cheap labor farms of China. That's working out great, lets keep that ball rolling.

Ultra-capacitors have been a theory for as long as capacitors have existed. They are always '10-15 years away' and I'm sick of hearing about them as a 'cure all' to our battery problem. They will have just as bad, if not worse, stuff inside them than the current battery technology--so we would just be trading a 8-hour recharge time to a 8-minute charge time. Same impact on the environment.

And there is not enough Lithium on the planet to supply the world-wide demand of it. We are going to run out of it soon, and then the price of the already-sky-high batteries will reach astronomical levels.

You say I spread FUD? Where is your proof. Until you pony up your sources, we are just in pissing match that will never end.

[Freetolio @ May 10th 2007 11:31AM]

No,
A PHEV using serial hybrid technology is vastly SUPERIOR to parallel hybrid PHEV technology.

In a serial setup, the motor can be smaller since it is always able to run at the most efficient RPM level because it doesn't have to cope with the demands of changing levels of resistance from a transmission. The engine simply acts as a generator (only when needed) with its output "buffered" by the batteries.

Also, with serial technology you have a simpler drive train because it is connected to a single mechanical drive device (electric motor) versus both electric and mechanical motors.

Of course, there are losses when energy is converted from chemical to mechanical to electrical to chemical to mechanical, but these losses exist in a parallel hybrid as well.

[HenryJonesJr @ May 7th 2007 7:10PM]

@Aaron Walker
I figured everyone knew that companies were here to make money. Been living in a cave? Come out of a coma recently? Why would you expect a company to be run like a charity? You're being a little naive, aren't you? You mean GM is doing this to try and make "boatloads of money"?!?!? SHOCK!!!

@Clinton Blackburn
Do you really not think that companies and individuals EVERYWHERE aren't working on building a better battery? I'm sure you realize the FORTUNE that stands to be made by the corporation or individual that comes up with it. That's the beauty of capitalism. Money is a great motivator. Maybe it's just that a better battery is a tougher nut to crack than you realize. Ever think of that? I know it's not as fun as blaming big business but sometimes the truth isn't fun or sexy.

[ez @ May 7th 2007 7:12PM]

You know, for most commuters, an electric only car would be was better than this.
Or if it's a short commute, even 5 miles each way, you can just bike to work.

[stewart @ May 7th 2007 7:41PM]

@alexander: aren't you a ray of sunshine!

Massive amounts of single-person transportation aren't ideal, and mass transport is certainly better. BUT, replacing massive amounts of small, inefficient internal-combustion engines with a few large, efficient, low-polluting (by comparison) electric power plants to drive the electric cars has to be seen as a step forward.

[k0a10 @ May 7th 2007 8:09PM]

Ugh, I can't wait for the current trend of macho, overbearing design for many cars to go away.

"The car has become the carapace, the protective and aggressive shell, of urban and suburban man." - Marshall McLuhan

Get out of your cars, people.

[Joe Lenuvo @ May 7th 2007 8:25PM]

Not to be rude but... YOU ARE IGNORANT if you say that this is not a great inovation.

It is if you consider that battery technology is improving far beyond what it was in the past.

Remember the exploding laptop batteries, we are just getting it right.

GM is inovating more that any other company believe it or not.

[aStopperBy @ May 7th 2007 9:17PM]

Given your line of thought, Consumer Reports is not to be trusted because they recommnded the Ford Fusion; thus they have half of a brain. Toyota and Honda don't advertise? Have you been living in a hole?!
I'm not saying Toyotas and Hondas suck--they are awesome, reliable, cars, but uninformed FORD SUX, GM SUX, BLAH comments just highlight stupidity.

[Murc @ May 7th 2007 11:53PM]

@ Rick - Are you serious...The Prius is the most overhyped car out there...I see tons of ads for it.
And lets not forget...that is 2005 Toyota had more recalls then vehicles sold....and here you are less then 2 years after that talkin up there quality. *rolls eyes*

[slickriven @ May 8th 2007 10:21AM]

@Rick - What car/truck are you referring to, in my family we've personally owned a 205K '88 Ford Ranger, 211K '91 Chevy Lumina, 218K '97 Chevy Silverado, 68K '98 Dodge Stratus, 55k '01 Ford Focus, and a 58K '03 Chevy Silverado, plus my GF owns a 80K '98 Pontiac Sunfire and her sister owns a 88k '99 Pontiac Grand Am... so I'm not sure where you're going with that. @aStopper - the ford Fusion is actually the Mazda 6.

[steven @ May 7th 2007 8:41PM]

American's cant make cars they have only made like 2-3 cars in the past 20 years that drives good arround a track/cornors I doubt this will be any good but I love the looks :>

[420Phriendly @ May 7th 2007 9:06PM]

Eh, nothing special. By 2010 dodge will have their new Charger out and Chevy will have their competing Camaro out. I don't see why they chose the weird look on it. It's supposed to be an everyday car not some weird type of roadster, so just take the current models you have and produce them with this same technology. I don't see a reason that an entirely new design should be created and fabbed when you've got factory lines already pumping out the older frames and body styles.

[Rick @ May 8th 2007 12:07AM]

Ummm...last time I checked Honda and Toyota weren't driving around the top of a building, nor did they have Snoop Dog playing Golf with Iacocca. The cars are made out of the same materals, no difference there just that one is put together well and the other is a piece of shit. And its not the people on the assembly line its the higher ups who are mismanaging the companies. To try and sway the american consumer back they're trying to come out with every gimmick possible from weenie roasters in the glove compartment to auto ass wipers on the seat and it doesn't change a damn thing with regards to reliablity and fit and finish - the real problem. I don't give a damn about consumer reports and I sure as hell don't care what car you prefer to drive, fact of the matter is foreign companies are winning and american car companies are losing. Deal with it.

[venk @ May 7th 2007 9:29PM]

500 miles times $4 or $5 a gallon (the price in 2010) translates to $2k to $2.5K a year. Thats a hell of a lot of money. Depending on the cost, the car could pay for itself over its expected lifespan.

[Juaquin @ May 7th 2007 9:54PM]

"500 miles times $4 or $5 a gallon (the price in 2010) translates to $2k to $2.5K a year."

You mean 500 gallons. And you know that every statistic they give you is going to be inflated, yes? It'll probably save you $1000 a year. Big whoop, when you consider it cost you an extra few thousand to buy. It's a good idea, and it paves the way for us to lessen our dependence on oil, but don't think that this here is the answer. This is the path to the answer; only some progress has been made.

[WhiteSites @ Aug 11th 2007 7:40PM]

Don't forget the fact that its a GM means it will Depreciate much faster than a Toyota. So that savings in Gas doesn't mean Crap. GM would have to make the VOLT get 80 MPG + for there to be a real savings.

[Murc @ May 7th 2007 9:44PM]

Alexander said: "The solution is not more efficient cars. the solution is more efficient people. We need more mass-transportation, not massive amounts of single-person transportation"

I don’t like nor want mass transportation...who wants to be shoved in some train or bus packed with people...?

Americans like freedom...and a part of that freedom is being to go, wherever you want, whenever you want. and mass transportation doesn't allow that.

We have at least 40 years of oil left...200 years of coal left....we still have plenty of natural resources just sitting there for us to use...theres no need to have people change their lifestyles.

The US needs to do several things, Like: drill for oil in more places...like the gulf of Mexico, and Alaska...we have access to oil...but due to the crazy tree-hugger crowd (aka:environmentalists), were just letting it be taken away by other countries....the gulf of Mex is right next to us....yet no US drilling is going on there...even China is building oil platforms there...and there their on the other side on the planet!

Global Warming is not man made...we can not control it, so if anyone’s reason for buying an electric car is because of that...do more research into our planet, and you will see that man, hasn't changed the earths climate.

I think electric vehicles are the future...not because of less CO2...but because of other reasons...one being that we have tons of ways of creating electricity...and electric cars have very few moving parts, meaning less mechanical breakdowns.

As for this topic, props to GM for going full force into this cars design. I'm sure it will be a good seller. it has a cool aggressive look to it, if I had the money, I'd buy one.

[Alexander @ May 7th 2007 10:51PM]

When the oil runs out, we are to power our cars with coal then? Somehow, I don't think the mustang running on a steam-boiler would be a big seller.

Drill for more oil? Are you insane? Lets exacerbate the problem, and just put more holes in the planet in our ENDLESS search for more oil. Yea, that's BRILLIANT.

I am not saying there shouldn't be a change. But I don't think that people realize that there are issues that are clear and present with BOTH SIDES of the argument. You must know both sides in order to make a decision. I would love to have solar panels all over my house, and the rest of the country and have wind power and all that ultra-hip stuff...

But lets not forget that there's always a downside to everything. We must keep that in perspective. That's how we got here, by people saying, "Oh, we have millions of years of oil left. No need to save it."

[Josh @ Aug 16th 2007 9:57PM]

I believe we do need to change our lifestyles. I hope you do some research because climate change is a huge issue, one that you shouldn't set aside to let the next generation deal with.

Change is necessary now. Not in forty years. The US needs to do several things, one is to get out of a war that is over oil. The US needs to elect leaders who don't have special interest groups like Big Oil affecting policy.

[Kadi @ Nov 10th 2007 12:59PM]

Well said...I love to see that there are optimists still left in this world. I totally agree with the global warming thing! Our climate has been ever changing since the beginning of the world. And as Dennis Miller said "I think people are too puny to have an effect like that on the world."

[Phillyih @ Dec 1st 2007 11:18PM]

You seem to know a lot. Why don't you have more money?

[Murc @ Dec 3rd 2007 12:20AM]

cause jobs dont pay you based on how much you know, just on how good you do your specific job.

and in my case, I am the "glass guy" at a bodyshop....its not great or well paying....but its a job, and it pays the bills.

[Juaquin @ May 7th 2007 9:45PM]

I agree with Art Guy - it won't look quite as cool as it does now by the time it hits the streets. The real thing never looks as edgy as the concept did.

[Foof @ May 7th 2007 9:45PM]

"Not to be rude but... YOU ARE IGNORANT if you say that this is not a great inovation (sic)."

Yeah. Either that, or else better informed than those who see it as a great innovation.

The position you take on this really depends on how much you know about the technology involved. Ironical, isn't it?

[Foof @ May 7th 2007 9:59PM]

Venk - For perspective, I wonder how much that translates in terms of avg MPG. Assuming 12,000 miles/year, which is pretty light around here considering Silicon Valley commutes, at 30mpg we're talking about 400 gallons *total,* right? If it gets 20mpg, that's 600 gallons of gas for the year. So an average commuter might never need to fill up the tank, or perhaps only fill up once every other month?

And if it's targeted to compete with the likes of a current-gen Prius, at 40mpg and a 15k/year average use, you're only using 375 gallons of gas. So exactly what is this 500 gallons/year savings compared to? A Hummer? An M1A1?

[Murc @ May 7th 2007 11:54PM]

You mentioned the strain electric cars would have on the grid....all I was saying is that there is no reason to not build more plants...coal is in high supply in the US, and is the cheapest...so why not use it.
And Nuclear IS a clean energy, yes, there is nuclear waste produced, but it’s not that much when you consider the power your getting out of that plant. As far as I'm concerned just keep all the waste in storage until we have a reliable means of space access...then just hurl all of our waste containers at our sun...and problem solved. And obviously I'm not thinking rockets...In under 30 years we should have a space elevator...a cheap and safe way to bring the nuclear waste up into space.

As for drilling for more oil.....what problem are you referring to???

and no one is saying we have millions of years of oil....But we do have several decades of the stuff...if we dont use, it will just sit there going to waste.

[Alexander @ May 8th 2007 7:45AM]

Burning coal for electricity is one of the dirtiest methods of producing electricity. It's way worse than if every person on the planet was driving hummers/SUV's. Again, you'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Or, you'd be trading one pollution producing problem (petrol-powered cars) for another (coal burning power plants).

Nuclear energy is not clean. We have very little space left in the USA as it is now for our nuclear waste... Compounding the problem with hundreds of other plants, will only make the issue worse. Throwing it into the sun is not really an option, as whatever craft we have would disentigrate long before it got there, potentially blowing up and sending fragments back at the spacecraft that launched it or towards earth or other planets.

My comment about millions of years of oil was directed at people who first found out about petrol back in the 1900's. Once they started drilling for it, they started to find it everywhere and the comment was, as it was for years, that we have plenty of it--no need to save it.

What you fail to realize is that the Oil industry has far, far greater reach than just $3 at the petrol station.

Plastic, and all it's derivatives still need oil to be manufactured. Lets think about a world with no plastic in it. Well, we can't drive our electric cars around, as there's no plastic available to make plastic for the batteries now--or any of the other hundreds of components that make up all cars, electric or not.

"If we don't use it, it will just sit there"

Yea, and that's a good thing. We don't need to use it, it was perfectly fine sitting there, not being used. But we rely too much on plastic, so it will end up getting used. It's just a matter of time.

[fashionista @ May 8th 2007 9:00AM]

The recalls were for early 90s cars, genius.

[Chris @ May 10th 2007 6:24PM]

I seem to remember a Honda comercial for the new civic bouncing all over buildings to dance music.