Lutz: High-performance Chevy Volt SS a "possibility"
2011 Chevy Volt - Click above for high-res image gallery
Electric vehicles are for people who would rather drive slow, boring commuter cars that don't consume fossil fuels and therefore don't spew pollutants from their tailpipes. Gas-powered cars – and especially those wearing time-honored badges like SS, R/T or GT – are for those that prefer fire-breathing, tire-screeching performance and care much more about nitrous oxide than nitrogen oxide. We all agree on these points, right? Not so fast, says Bob Lutz.
When asked whether or not Chevy could shock the performance crowd with an SS version of the upcoming Volt, Lutz said, "I would not discount that possibility." That's as close as you're going to get to an admission of intent this early in the game. Lutz goes on to suggest that the Voltec powertrain will allow for plenty of on-demand power. "[I]f we want to sacrifice a little bit of fuel efficiency in the interest of performance and still get over 200 miles per gallon, we can do that any time."
Following the same logical train of thought, we could certainly see a V-Series of the Cadillac Converj. If you're interested in hearing the news straight from
Gallery: 2011 Chevy Volt
[Source: Fox Car Report via GM-Volt.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tohe 12:44PM (11/10/2009)
Tesla has already redefined what an electric car can do (0-60 in under 3.7sec). How is the Volt an image changer here? if anything it would be perpetuating the need to trade fuel efficiency for performance. In my view, if they follow suit with the above mentioned plan, they would be taking a lazy, traditional approach to performance.
Reply
MegaAutoBit 12:46PM (11/10/2009)
I’m a car guy planning on purchasing a Chevy Volt, but one of the big dilemmas I have is my need for speed, vs my need for green. This could be a nice combination.
Reply
paulwesterberg 1:34PM (11/10/2009)
The volt should already have best in class acceleration thanks to its over-sized range extender and electric torque.
At most they should have driving modes that modify the extender/battery/motor management software slightly like the prius does with its different driving modes.
Nick From Montreal 1:01PM (11/10/2009)
What I would pay for is a Volt with a bigger battery and *no* ICE engine. Now, that would be "high performance".
...I would also pay to remove that Chevrolet logo from the front...
Reply
ljbad4life 1:06PM (11/10/2009)
Then you are talking about a Tesla Model S or one of the many electric porsche conversions
Nick From Montreal 1:13PM (11/10/2009)
Yeah, that's the point: I want a pure EV. Praying every night for Tesla to actually produce the Model S with no further delay...
gotsmart 1:14PM (11/10/2009)
Does anyone really believe anything Bob says any more? He's had to backtrack so many times already, it's become painfully obvious that "what Bob wants" vs. "what GM will actually do" are almost never aligned.
Reply
Nick From Montreal 2:13PM (11/10/2009)
I can't believe I'm defending Bob "global warming is crock" Lutz...
-- Actually, Lutz was the one who convinced the GM board to kick-start the Volt program after seeing what Tesla could do.
-- Also, he is well loved among fans of US muscle cars for having introduced a few in his career. That's actually why GM keeps him as chief of "customer relationships": he knows what gearheads want.
-- Actually, he has more charisma than Fritz Anderson and should have been president by now.
wincros 2:16PM (11/10/2009)
I think maybe someone at GM has finally popped up and asked who is this car for? It had better be as good as the BMW diesel, in the same price class, for acceleration, handling and luxury feel. There will be a complete disconnect if it is a $40k hybrid economy car.
Andy 4:51AM (11/11/2009)
Picking leaders based on personal charisma is a bit risky.
I'm not sure I'd want Sean Connery in charge of GM. Great Charisma though.
Mind you, Arnold Schwazzeneger isn't working out too bad for California. He's got buckets of Charisma.
AMcA 9:27PM (11/10/2009)
This is just like the good old days when they'd just slap in a couple more cylinders for a hot car. Now they slap in a few more batteries and turbocharge the auxiliary engine.
Reply
Chris M 9:42PM (11/10/2009)
They can improve acceleration by reducing weight, increasing power, or both. Reducing weight means removing unnecessary parts or substituting lighter materials like aluminum, high strength steel, or composites.
Increasing power in a series hybrid design means more electrical power needed for more powerful motors. One way to get more electrical power would be to add batteries, although that would also add weight. A more intriguing idea is to use the "range extender" engine for additional power, controlled by a "performance/economy" switch, that approach is more likely as it wouldn't add weight and wouldn't cost as much to implement.
Reply
watcher 9:51PM (11/10/2009)
Lutz is a joke. GM (and the big three for that matter) have abided by the motto "going backwards into the future" Why else do you still see so many 'muscle' cars around? (not talking about the camaro, vette, mustang, challenger) but just V8 cars and trucks in general that get hopped up and such? it's past the year 2000.. 21st century yet we're still dependent on huge cars and SUVs with gas guzzling IC engines. GM was on the right path with the EV1, and the other automakers with their all electric cars. if instead of being so cannibalistic and destroying the future when they crushed them back in 2003 or so, they could've kept producing, furthering and bettering the technology and incorporating it into the vehicle bodies people wanted to do what they wanted it to do and put us one. just one miniscule step forward. heck just look at how advanced the overhead cam design was back when it came out in the early Jags back sometime around 1930-1960, and the Wankel rotary engine. It took a long time before even SOHC became the norm in engines, pushrods need to go the way of the flathead. while we're at it ditch the piston engines and use the rotary instead. Unless you have a work vehicle that needs the torque (trucks for example) then use a small diesel piston engine. for the cars, vans, cuvs (ditch the SUV) use the rotary. Yes I know it's limitations but with more R&D and design it can be improved plus, less moving parts to worry about, and it's smaller meaning more aerodynamic designs and more interior space with less being needed for the engine compartment. it's about pushing the envelope and so far the only people doing that are enthusiasts in their backyards and garages since the automakers can't get their heads out of their rears.
As far as the Volt, I'd not get riled up about an 'SS' version since I am very skeptical that the Volt itself will even be built for mass market or even leasing like they did with the EV1, they don't want any repeats of that incident.
Reply
oldraven 5:02PM (11/18/2009)
Thank goodness we have folks like you watching over us and telling us exactly what we need and want in a vehicle.
OHC is older than pushrod technology, and if anything GM's LSX has been undeniable proof that OHC engines are'nt superior in any way. When done right, pushrod engines have the same performance output and fuel economy in a lighter, less complicated, smaller, and cheaper unit.
Ask Mazda why they only produce one vehicle with a Rotary engine. It would be a nightmare if every car out there were regulated to run on a spinning pizza slice. Are you aware that they are notorious oil burners and are HORRIBLE on fuel, whilst producing far less torque than their piston running competition? That's not mentioning their horrid history for reliability. Talk about going backward into the future.
As for the automakers not being able to get their heads out of their arses and jump on future technologies in the automobile, where have you BEEN? This is autobloggreen. I shouldn't have to tell you that there's a vast amount of information here showing just how much work is really being done by the automakers, and much of it is being done by GM, who's pouring most of their resources into a hybrid electric architecture powered by something with one bloody moving part!
Sorry, but when you start acting so damn superior and informed, you're going to attract a retort proving the opposite.
Stan Peterson 3:04AM (11/11/2009)
Global Warming is a Crock! Especially as we haven't had any or 12 years, after it warmed for only 19, after cooling for 40 after warming for... So the had to rename it Climate Change.
But it doesn't change the need to lessen reliance on foreign oil. The Electrification of Ground Transport is proceeding. Performance cars are a natural consequence of the torque characteristics of electric motors. When fuel availability and fuel prices return to insignificance, as electrification proceeds, what is surprising about providing performance along with electrons?
Chrysler late to the party recognized this and its ENVI group selected a large electric motor of a size to propel a truck or minivan and yet able to be inserted into a lighter performance vehicles.
What is the difference from taking a big sedan engine and stuffing the big car's V8 into your small Tempest and calling it a GTO? Not one damn thing.
Reply
Andy 5:00AM (11/11/2009)
Only about 99% of the scientific community disagree with you, so you made a good point there.
There's loads of domestic coal left. Why not make that into liquid fuels? We can export more cheap coal to China while we're about it.
Let's not give a damn about AGW so long as we feel OK. Maybe we should start using CFC's again. That hole in the ozone layer never did inconvenience me.
Reply
Chet 11:51AM (11/11/2009)
If they can raise peak power without increasing weight or reducing max pre-charged range (when gently driven) more than a tick or two, and retune the suspension for sharper response at the cost of a bit of comfort, then they've got themselves an SS option box that I'd check.
So long as it doesn't come with a dozen garish SS badges.
Reply
cars4sale 9:06AM (11/14/2009)
I was sitting on the fence as to what car to buy next year. Think it will be something to get buy and wait for this 2011 beauty!
Reply