Chevy Volt .Cd drops 30 %

[Cd]

Apparently Cherolet has realized that a low drag count is important after all.
http://news.windingroad.com/concept-...cient-of-drag/

A quote from the article : "Aerodynamics can give a much larger boost to the range of an EV than decreasing the weight of the vehicle. These results were fascinating and hold true in both city and highway driving conditions. This is why the current shape of the Volt is 30 percent more aerodynamic than that of the concept. The Volt’s design is still far from approval for production, and there are 45 people dedicated to the design "

[Peakster]

Oh wow! It actually LOOKS much better too!



It reminds me of the current Honda Civics! :

Has GM seen the light??

[Red]

Much nicer, less like a squished Camero

[Daox]

In fact, GM offers more fuel efficient vehicles than any other manufacturer, in part due to vehicle design and GM’s aerodynamic development capabilities.

Woah... someones been hitting the crack pipe a little too much before writing their articles.

I know a lot of the guys on cmpg were complaining about the volts horrid aerodynamics before. This should cheer them up.

Other than that I like the new look. I also agree with Peakster that it looks quite Hondaish.

[s2man]

Originally Posted by Daox

Woah... someones been hitting the crack pipe a little too much before writing their articles.

The same payola which got them all those green vehicle awards, I assume.

[LostCause]

Wasn't the original Volt the concept car? I think it was smart to create a driving brick that gained public attention. Once people want the car, then you can water it down for production.

I bet if GM could, though, they would have left it a driving brick. Nice to see technology limitations forcing efficiency. GM must have already known the importance of drag. Didn't the EV1 have a cD of ~0.17?

I bet we are witnessing the battle of designers vs. engineers.

- LostCause

[MetroMPG]

EV1 = 0.19

I remember leaving a comment at ABG when the Volt was originally unveiled: "Who Killed the Aerodynamicist?"

GM has shown they're capable of some truly impressive design work when the aerodynamicists are allowed to tell the stylists to go stuff it.

I'm still bothered by the fact that the chief designer/stylist has spouted off in the press that he wants to make the car look like something "you don't have to apologize for". If aero efficiency demands apologies, they need to put their marketing department to work.

[Who]

I always wonder how many manufacturers even strive for aerodynamics. Lexus sure does. Hyundai sure doesn't - they're simply styled based on the competition looks in that market segment.

Weight and Cda are pretty good performance metrics for potential efficiency yet how many manufacturers put the Cda in with their specs for all models?

[AndrewJ]

Originally Posted by Who

I always wonder how many manufacturers even strive for aerodynamics. Lexus sure does. Hyundai sure doesn't

Well, while I get your jist, you have to look at the motivations of your two examples. Lexus wants a very low interior noise level, which is helped massively by a lower Cd. Hyundai, on the other hand, just wants to capitalize on the latest styling trends to help move some cars.

But, back to the point, there are some rather strange choices in aerodynamics among different auto companies.

For example, the 1st gen Ford Taurus, it had a Cd of only .29 (.28 for the Mercury Sable) even though keeping the low Cd provided no tangible benefit in the marketplace. If you remember, the sleek-styling was a selling point, and we all know that "sleek-styling" doesn't have to mean a low Cd.
Even with the Taurus's lower aerodynamic drag it's mileage was only 2mpg or 10% better than the Ford LTD it replaced (21mpg vs 19mpg), even with smaller engines and an extra gear in the transmission. So, we can gather that it's increased FE wasn't an enormous selling point.