Car Guys vs. Bean Counters - Bob Lutz [75]
The overwhelming public and media reaction to the Volt was much welcomed by the board of directors, many of whom were strong advocates of “technology demonstrator” projects. They were every bit as sensitive to the stereotype of “gas-guzzling, planet-polluting GM” as senior management. The tidal wave of praise was always tempered, however, by “but will they build it?” The GM board, having integrated the lesson of how one marginally money-losing hybrid car, the Prius, could suddenly prove to be the tide that floated all other Toyota boats, and in the process, make Toyota the undisputed darling of the media, was not about to insist that the Volt be a profitable program. But they certainly wanted it produced!
Jon Lauckner quickly gathered a team of unconventional thinkers to create an affordable production car that would fulfill our promise of a forty-mile all-electric range and, more important, meet all global safety standards worldwide. Starting from scratch with an all-new chassis made no sense: engineering and capital costs involved would make it totally unaffordable, even for a company now willing to make some financial sacrifice in the name of green technology.
A quick examination of future GM architectures revealed that the length, width, and wheelbase of the upcoming Chevrolet Cruze would be ideal for the Volt. The only problem was engine placement: the concept Volt had the engine placed off of the electric motor/generator, providing an elegant, long hood. But the platform of the future Cruze called for the traditional, far-forward transverse mounting of the engine. This moved the front wheels aft on the car; a shift that is never popular with designers, who like the look of “long dash to front axle,” meaning a long hood, with the front axle as far forward as possible.
There was much hand-wringing over the radical change in proportion: the production “Volt” was decidedly not going to look like the show car, which had received raves for appearance as well as technology. The financial reality was overpowering: there was no way we could execute the show car.We would have to do the best job we could with the hand we were dealt.As luck would have it, wind tunnel tests of the original concept design proved we couldn’t have executed it anyway: despite a svelte and slipperylooking shape, the Volt concept had the aerodynamic qualities of a rough-edged brick.
Aerodynamics is an important element in the quest for fuel economy: at speeds above 30 mph, air resistance is a far greater factor in “resistance to forward motion” than rolling resistance. It’s important in conventional vehicles, but absolutely essential in electric vehicles, which, with fully-charged batteries, only have the equivalent of 1½ gallons of gasoline. And when we put that Volt concept car into the wind tunnel, the effects of its shape on its aerodynamics became all too clear. Upon seeing the results, some of the guys wondered if we had put it in backward by mistake.
Using its high-drag design, attractive though it was, would have reduced the electric range from the promised forty miles to something more like thirty-two, if that. We all suffer for beauty, but this was too much. Clay models of the Cruze-based production Volt were soon created and given as many show car design cues as possible. It’s doubtful that any GM production car ever spent as much time in the wind tunnel as did the Volt—it was practically designed there.To average forty miles of electric range using 50 percent of our sixteen kilowatt/hour battery, we needed a drag coefficient of 0.27. It was a struggle, involving many small surface adjustments, some of only a few millimeters, but we finally arrived at a body shape that