We don’t know if you may of heard about it, but General Motors just introduced some car that runs on eeee-lectricity. Yeah, crazy… we know.
The Chevy Volt was birthed too much hoopla recently, and with it came love and hate for its styling, design, technology, and price. We attempt to take a look at this milestone vehicle from a Design perspective with writers Dalibor, dshed, and Ramkey.
Feel free to bring out the red pencils and play along.
EXTERIOR
dshed: At first glance this is not a bad looking car. The only big distraction is the massive A pillar. The side mirror arm and plug-in detail look thin and fragile, especially next to the thick pillar. The visible door cut on the pillar makes the door opening look almost square and visually no rake to the windshield. Since this is an aerodynamic masterpiece, that means the form of the body is pretty lame. Hence the attention to details.
Ramkey: It’s a good looking car for sure…but it’s not the concept. Is it original? No. It looks too much like a Prius especially the rear portion of the green house. In fact it is a little reminiscent of the old Subaru SVX from the rear. You remember? The one with the double windows? The headlight styling is also very Acura like. Though the car looks good, it’s still a mutt as far design originality goes.
Dalibor: I tend to think that this vehicle could be cleaned up SLIGHTLY, and it would look even better than it does now. At first I agreed with Ramkey: The vehicle was a departure from the Volt concept of yore. However, I think that as a Prius-fighting sedan this holds its own Design weight. It retains styling CUES from the original, but is now almost a different vehicle. Perhaps they (GM) can market this with a sub-heading, such as “Volt EX”, so that the original Volt concept’s image remains pure. The side swoop detail was lost from the concept, though. Perhaps they should eliminate it, or rethink it for the ACTUAL production version.
dshed: The front end is clean, simple and Acura-ish. The surface detail coming of the headlights and around the bottom of the grill is distracting and unnecessary. The lighting definitely looks fresh and modern, hopefully these details make it to production.
Dalibor: Yeah, the headlamp to grill integration is hard to defend. I can understand the legal concern with the headlamp size, but the grill could have been modified to play nice with it. I don’t understand the fake scoop in the hood. It detracts from the cleanliness of the forms. I do love the headlamps, though. I think they are something that Chevy should bleed into the rest of their line-up of cars.
Ramkey: The concept car looked better from the front end on this regard. Though I do like the fog lamps on the outboard sides. The front end does look fairly clean. It would have been better if they could have shaped the headlamps a little differently then an Acura.
Dalibor: The rear is very fresh and very unique for a Chevy. Very graphic. The only tweak I would make would be to have avoided the “50-50″ percent break-up of upper to lower (black to body color, and where the bumper line falls).
dshed: The squared off rear end looks massive with skinny high mounted taillights. I am glad the taillights are not typical round bulbs but instead look like a type of light piping. The chamfered surface around the license plate holder looks stiff and truck like. Something more elegant would have tied in better with the rest of the car. I am curious as to what the black surface is? Glass like the concept or just a painted surface to make a graphic statement?
Ramkey: I really enjoy looking at the rear end. It’s so tight! Smooth, crisp, and taught lines accentuate the details. I like the sharp “edge” of the corner bumper. It’s kind of different and I appreciate the approach. I will be surprised if it makes it into production. I don’t think I have seen this on any car before. Tail lamps are executed well with a strong graphical impact.
INTERIOR
Dalibor: Pretty freakin’ sweet interior here! This is definitely one of the most unique interiors in a production vehicle I have ever seen, as GM really thrived on bringing the futuristic look of a concept into the mainstream production variant. However, the insane amount of forms are fighting each other and there is no clear theme language to aim towards. But what they have done in details can probably make up for it. Each piece of this interior appears to have been meticulously designed well.
dshed: The interior looks pretty good. I appreciate the attempt to duplicate the molded leather IP upper from the concept, but am not sure if I like the execution of it in plastic. The biggest distraction is the gloss white center stack and door trim. It would have been great 5 years ago when the first Ipods were hot, but 2 years from now there will be no more white electronics. The large radius’ on the info screen make it look toy-like and does not fit with all the other tighter radius’. The integrated shifter is unique making me want to try it out.
Ramkey: Some good and bad things here. I like the center stack design per say. Not sure on the choice of color and gloss level. Perhaps they were going for a more product or “ipod” look as Dshed commented, which to me has been way overused in the consumer electronics industry. However, it is different in that you do not see this application for an automobile. So there is some uniqueness from that respect. The screen however, could have been executed better. It looks like it flips up but it looks awkward with a more late 90’s type of design. It is very similar to the designs we made in our studio when we developed the first overhead dvd screens. They could have done much better. The top of the IP is interesting and does a great job of contrasting the positive an negative space by not only color but purposeful surface elevations. This detail and the docking station affect of the shifter gives the overall interior a sense of a lighter feel and spaciousness. Overall I was very pleased with the interior.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Ramkey: Overall, GM did a nice job with the car but divorced themselves from the concept. I am not surprised they are under fire for that. The technology is there to create production cars that look extremely close to their conceptual counterpart. I am sure packaging drove a lot of decisions. $40k unfortunately is too steap but better than some vehicles going for 90k. As the technology, manufacturing, and demand improves, the cost will eventually come down to more affordable prices. I will have to applaud GM for at least taking this initiative.
Dalibor: Is this the Messiah of the US auto market? I’ll have to say “No”. Well, it’s a start at least. While not as earth-shatteringly exciting as its design was self-hyped to be, this is all due to the requirements for the technology. I think once we see the actual ACTUAL production vehicle in a year or so, some of the issues should be tweaked. With that in mind, it’s the best-looking of the new-wave hybrids out there, and GM has something here that should hopefully make its way into the rest of its fleet: passion for well-executed Design elements. Great job, Chevy!
dshed: Without thinking about the concept car I think the Volt looks pretty good. It is different enough from the Prius and new Insight. It is too bad that aerodynamics can neuter the excitement given through form. It is what it is and we better get used to it as all cars will start looking the same in the race for fuel mileage.
4 Responses
[...] The 3-Man Critique of the Chevy Volt [...]
Posted on September 20th, 2008 at 2:24 am
I think GM did a pretty good job with the graphics of the car, but the overall proportions seem so wrong. It seems really heavy, especially in the back (why are the dramatic taillights so high? why the sturdy bumper?). There are also to many unnecessary details, like the overdone side mirrors or the weird black area of the windowsill (probably there to visually enlarge the DLO).
Posted on September 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I actually do like the taillight being that high. Can’t see why? Well notice the line going from the headlights through the side mirrors, the bottom line of the side windows and notice how it ends with the taillights. Great design, looks like a little angry beast!
Posted on September 23rd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
First off,… Danny-boy (er, Dalibor)! Good to see you put your intellect to good use here, man!
Internally, we at work debated the merits of the production Volt quite a bit when it emerged and, gotta say, the most negative comments came from those who would not be seen in an overtly “green” vehicle if it was the last taxi at the station, if only for what they perceive to be “politically-charged” reasons (as in, all Prius owners must be…)
Personally, I am not that shocked or disappointed that the production Volt is a more mainstream-use kind of car, with the market for 4-door sedans in this size-class being much more robust (especially lately) than that for more specialty cars. There’s an adage that specialty cars sell for 2 years and, then, require significant support to maintain volume as buyers have, by then, moved on the “next big thing”. Perhaps, at the beginning, “green” cars could have fit this pattern but, given the mad-cat success of Prius (especially), it can be said that these cars are more mainstream… therefore, rather than go for the original Insight (or, hell, EV-1) positioning of limited use “specialty car”, I think they’ve made the right decision to make sure that Volt fits the packaging expectations of the mainstream buyers. Insight, in particular, despite being an incredibly high mileage example of HEVs, never sold very well at all. It’s clear that Honda, in straddling the Prius with the “out there” Insight and the “one of 350,000″ Civic, failed where Toyota succeeded… Combine the two executions (as they are apparently about to do with the “new” Insight) and they might have experienced more success.
Mention was made about detailing; I think that’s where the “advanced” or “different” look can be made to work with this more mainstream car. In fact, as I think about it, this is very Product Design (vs. Trans Design) of GM and, in that regard, I think it’s cool and could see this as GM’s first big success in Asian markets… Ironically enough, given that their previous failed Suzuki-Chevy entry in Japan was given the name Cruze… and the production Volt is apparently based on the NEW Cruze. Regardless, I could see the detailing on this car working especially well in the confines of the uber-stylish Tokyo apartment dweller market, perhaps only held down by somewhat large exterior dimensions.
So, I love it, right? Not so fast… I think it’s well executed, given what they were obviously aiming for. However, I can’t totally let them go without voicing disappointment with the one area, relative to the concept VOLT, where I think a great opportunity was lost.
See, when I saw the original concept, though I could understand people seeing “sporty”, I saw revolutionary package. Given the powertrain-agnostic nature of the concept (and, apparently, the production) Volt, I totally understood the short overhangs/low cowls/wheels-at-the-corners look of the car and I had high hopes that the production vehicle would introduce what I’ve thought would happen with just this kind of revolutionary drivetrain development: A new blueprint for what cars can be, which happened to be part of GM’s message with the earlier Autonomy, as a matter of fact.
I’m sophisticated enough (if I can call myself that) to know the value of adapting Cruze (Delta platform?) as a donor for Volt. Given GM’s financial position these days, it makes perfect sense for them to crib existing programs to save money on a money-loser like this.
However, have to say that, in a perfect world, there wouldn’t have been a long schnozz of a front overhang (for what, exactly, if this is a Range-enhancing Electric Vehicle). Unfortunate, I say, because I think we’re going to see other OEMs take the lead where GM might have smashed them with an obviously revolutionary product for those consumers who won’t know any better and only know what they see/ like when they see it. Back to the point of whether or not the original concept was “sporty”, when I asked friends what made it look “sporty” to them, it almost always defaulted to proportions & stance, less to the detailing. And, yes, the proportions & stance are where this concept, to my eye, communicated the real revolutionary nature of the drivetrain concept design-wise.
Speaking of stance, I have to say that one thing I am surprised by with the production vehicle is the apparent tread-width of the tires. Does anybody else think that the tires shown on the production vehicle look beefy beyond what you might expect on a low-drag vehicle? If these really are optimized for low rolling resistance/ low aero drag, then somebody has revolutionized tire technology and I want a set of these tires on my Mazda3…
That’s all… I know it’s a long post and, as my first post, I hope it doesn’t turn the audience off of me or engender a “Oh, God,… here comes Pete again… shut the doors or put in the earplugs…” reaction.
Take care
Posted on November 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am
Add A Comment