I took some flack when the volt was first shown for suggesting the prototype wasn't fully functional.

Well now we can see the advanced technology for ourselves:

http://sirymarketing.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-on-volt.html

I'm not suggesting that there should be more under the hood at this point, but it seems some thought that there was.

Um... duh? At least there is something in there, I wouldn't have been that surprised if it hadn't had. It's a concept.

I think the flack you took was more from your generally pessimistic attitude about whether/when the real thing would come about.

Lol, nice 5-gal laundry detergent bucket in there. ;]

Think about what you're saying - if the prototype was fully functional, why wait until 2010?

Its fairly common knowledge the running gear underpinning this Volt is a bunch of lead acids meant to give it basic mobility. Its also fairly common knowledge that concept vehicles that run and drive at all are a rarity even in this day and age.

Honestly, who gives a crap what the concept has under the hood? If GM delivers on their promise in the time, no one will be laughing about the concept having next to nothing under the hood.

And as Fly said, do you really think we'd be waiting for a couple years if the concept was production-ready?

Come on GM, you could have at least used Oxyclean!

Come on GM, you could have at least used Oxyclean!

They've got to cut costs some where. Can't afford to use the top-of-the-line stuff for everything

Come on GM, you could have at least used Oxyclean!

I figured you would've suggested Persil.

I figured you would've suggested Persil.

I was going too, but I didn't think you North American boyz would know what it was. Is it sold here?

If you read the comments, someone from GM actually responded to this blog:

Chris Preuss said...

Speaking for GM, allow me to explain. The Volt shown here is a DESIGN concept vechile - as in, it's not a running vehicle. We never said it was a running vehicle and we would never display a running vehicle this early for the obvious competitive reasons. This is the exact same way we announced the Sequel and the Hy-Wire, and both of those were availed to the media in their "running" componentry about a year after the first showing.

Sorry to throw cold water on the "scoop" here. We remain transparent and open to discussion. Please email me at [email protected] if you would like to discuss. We are dead serious about this program as a production vehicle. While I can understand the skeptics, those of you in that camp are simply are speaking without appropriate information.

Chris Preuss

Executive Director Product Communications

chris preuss said...

(Are you going to develop new battery technology in house or partner with a battery vendor? Or are you going to try and utilize existing technology to squeeze out performance, similar to Tesla)

Okay, now I will be practicing without a license, but I'll do my best to answer this one. We have issued two development contracts with battery parterns (A123/Cobysys and JCI/SAFT) and have two more in the works. So, we will likely have a partner. As most know here there are several key challenges to tackle, the biggest being cost and thermal management. With the range extending generator, we won't need as big battery pack as what Tesla used on the TR, but the nature of the beast is that you must string many small cells together. We're essentially having a bake-off on what cell chemistry and arrangements work best. The next big question will be how to ramp up the production. This is one area that we know we can be a significant player in helping put all the pieces together for the company that gets the right cell. We've got several very promising "working" cells that are past preliminary bench testing and we're still very encouraged by what we see. Still, there's a lot of risk. But honestly, given where the company has been over the last two years, there's nothing to lose! We're actually doing a media program on how we are approaching the battery issue on Monday...I'll see if there's a way for our guys to post some of the materials or presentations.

(As far as "not a running vehicle" remark is concerned, I have seen this car move on Bob Lutz's presentation and the atmosphere the presentation have successfully created did not even hint at the vehicle being so far off. I was honestly led to believe that this is something really close and maybe even roadworthy. Guess, not.)

We are not that far off from the vehicle. We revealed the new Camaro at the Detroit show in 2006 and made a production announcement about six months later. It will come out in 2009. You can use that same math to get a fix on how we plan to do the Volt. The vehicle drive components are very far along...they're rooted in the EV-1 and have been developed over three generations of fuel cell vehicles. The ONLY issue in giving a firm production date is we don't have a firm timeline on the battery for the reasons stated above. But we will have those questions answered soon enough and will confirm production dates once we do. We will NOT drag this out and walk at the last minute by blaming the battery, as some are predicting. Internally, the development program is like the Manhattan project and we've bet arguably all our credibility on this one. We've got work going on 24/7 on three continents with several hundred engineers and scientists. The interesting thing on the Volt is what it's doing internally at GM -- it's become a real rallying point for a pretty embattled group. I can't say haven't earned much of the grief that many are and have heaped on us...I can only tell you that if there is a way to get this done...we're going to do it.

Nice find,Walt.

That about sums it up.

Just a food of though, can't those pictures be Chopped? :AH-HA_wink:

Another fail for GXT.....BTW I've been looking at some hats today