GM continues to be lame.

Production photos of the Chevy Volt are out. And it's boring.  I don't know why I'm surprised.

I was actually considering a Volt based on the concept. It would have been the first American car I'd purchased in more than 20 years.  Not any more.  Regardless of what's under the hood, this is a clear illustration of why GM is dying.  Boring, boring, boring, lowest common denominator styling.  When will GM learn that people actually care about form as well as function?

Comments

[narby]

The boring looks are because GM tried to make it efficient with the gas engine. Who cares how much fuel efficiency it gets with the engine running, I wanted a car I could commute in on batteries, and could still drive across the country if I wanted to, and I wanted to look cool doing it.

If GM wanted people to risk their money on bleeding edge technology, then they needed to attract people who have a desire to show off the fact they're on that bleeding edge. All leading edge technology is risky, and risk takers often do it in order to preen to others that they're brave enough to take risks.

I would have seriously thought about buying something that looked like the concept car, even if it took a larger battery to get that 40 miles range and had less mileage on the gas engine.

But with this look, no one will notice. So nevermind.

[RJC]

The Volt design looks fine, it's a good looking car....Kevin Pedraja is a moron. and if you other "oh, gm designs suck" dork-wads want freakin' ferrari-looking hybrid cars... then take your socialistic arses, and go live in europe

[LifeTrek]

The major reason for the changes were necessary to meet the promised design requirements -- and even in reality they had to flub the total range by reducing the size of the fuel tank in order to meet weight.

Following the vehicle from the beginning it was known that it wouldn't look like the concept -- it just couldn't meet the numbers it aerodynamically with that body style. Then there are the real world situations as mentioned above.

I loved the unrealistic concept, but I like the current look.
David

[LifeTrek]

The major reason for the changes were necessary to meet the promised design requirements -- and even in reality they had to flub the total range by reducing the size of the fuel tank in order to meet weight.

Following the vehicle from the beginning it was known that it wouldn't look like the concept -- it just couldn't meet the numbers it aerodynamically with that body style. Then there are the real world situations as mentioned above.

I loved the unrealistic concept, but I like the current look.
David

[Dave]

I dunno...honestly, I wish car companies would stop trying to make their hybrids and whatever else look like something out of a bad sci-fi movie and just make them look like freaking cars. I don't care if it runs on gasoline, electricity, or your mom, I don't need aesthetics that make it a pain in the ass to change a tire or that look like they carved the car out of a larger car.

[David Holliday]

GM is dying because their cars don't attract buyers. Buyers that are willing to pay at all sorts of different price points. In other words, they suck.

[Kevin Pedraja]

I don't buy a car to "make a statement." But I appreciate good design. And this ain't it. Also, GM's market share isn't declining because of legacy costs. It's because fewer buyers want their products. Saying this is more interesting than a Toyota is sorta like an ankle high hurdle isn't it? The fact is, this car isn't going to be mainstream no matter what since there are too many techinical compromises. So why not make it look more revolutionary than evolutionary? I realize that there's no way it would have looked just like the concept. But why turn it into a frigging Malibu?

[Conserve Liberty]

Its just another Chevy.

[Conserve Liberty]

Its just another Chevy.

[Dave]

The car still looks "fake". Look at the grill: It's obviously some kind of painted surface. Besides, you can't really judge a car from photos - you need to see it in real life, under normal lighting conditions, on the street.

Concept cars always look different than their production versions - the realities of manufacturing an automobile that can quickly move down the production line, drive and survive in the real world, and be built so that the price is not in the stratosphere, are often in conflict with what the designers would have liked: narrower wheels, tires with taller sidewalls, more ground clearance; they're all needed when out driving in the real world and can dramatically change the way a vehicle looks.

Still, some cars make it to production looking beautiful. These cars are rare. Rarer still are the beautiful cars that are designed by committee. Like art, beautifully styled cars are usually the responsibilithy of one person. Giugiaro and Pininfarina are notable examples.

I agree with other opionions here: The Prius is an ugly car, but because it's a Toyota people still buy it.

[Jacob]

Who cares what the damn car looks like? I'll only by a Volt if it makes sense financially to do so. Only tools buy a car to make a statement.

[Bryan C]

It's not hideous. It is boring. An innovative benefits by looking innovative.

"Maybe if all of those ego-boys stepped aside you would be dazzled by the stunning aesthetics."

That's a good point. Who are those guys, and why should I care what they look like?

[justacommenter]

"And it's boring ..."

Of course it's boring ... else someone might want one. The exterior shape of a car can be just about any shape the automaker wants, and not have it materially affect the performance of the vehicle (within the limits of aerodynamics).

So, there can only be one reason to intentionally make a car look boring, and that's to limit its appeal.

[seguin]

Boring?

Looks more interesting than a Toyota, by FAR...and at least it's not hideously ugly like a Prius.

It looks similar to a Honda to me, albeit with a little more character.

Something tells me that if it had a big T or H logo on it, you'd be singing a different tune.

And screw Honda.

[seguin]

Boring?

Looks more interesting than a Toyota, by FAR...and at least it's not hideously ugly like a Prius.

It looks similar to a Honda to me, albeit with a little more character.

Something tells me that if it had a big T or H logo on it, you'd be singing a different tune.

And screw Honda.

[Bob Schwartz]

Look a lot like the Honda Civic I have sitting in my driveway right now...

[DensityDuck]

Phil: Yeah, seriously. I mean, what's up with that? This is GM's swing-for-the-fences deal and fully a third of the pictures DON'T EVEN HAVE A CAR IN THEM?

Although, as for the car: Meh. The Volt never looked like all that much to start with; it's the same Dove Bar design-by-formula blob that all small cars have turned into since the invention of CFD. In this case, function dictates form; there's only really one shape that's aerodynamically optimum, so the best you can do is put a bunch of plastic dingdongs all over the shape and hope for the best. It's really no surprise that the Volt looks like a Prius that somebody stepped on.

[moqui]

GM is dying because of their legacy costs, not because of their auto designs.

[Phil Hodgen]

Maybe if all of those ego-boys stepped aside you would be dazzled by the stunning aesthetics.

Or not.

But in any event, the fact that the ego-boys are so prominently featured tells you a bit about the problems facing GM.

Buy a Honda.