Voltec In Next-Gen 2016 Chevy Volt Shares Only One Part In Common With First-Gen Volt


2016 Chevy Volt Voltec Shares Only One Parts With Current Voltec

2016 Chevy Volt Voltec Shares Only One Parts With Current Voltec

A clean-sheet design.  That’s what you’ll find in regards to Voltec in the next-generation 2016 Chevrolet Volt.

You’d think Chevrolet would carry over at least some parts from Voltec 1 to Voltec 2, right?  It would seem to make sense to take the existing system and perfect it, but that’s not what General Motors has done.

Instead, GM engineers started fresh.  How fresh?  Well, GM threw out every part found in Voltec 1 and created Voltec 2 in such a way that it shares only one part in common with the original Voltec system.  That part, “a little yellow plastic intra-plant shipping cap” will not actually be found on the 2016 Volt, since it’s used solely for intra-plant shipping purposes.  So, in essence, Voltec 2 is then entirely new.  Per Green Car Congress:

“The second-generation Volt, which makes its world debut in about 10 weeks at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, features a clean-sheet, all-new Voltec propulsion system—new battery, new electric drive unit, new power electronics and new range-extending engine. At an introductory media briefing on the new powertrain held at the Warren Transmission Plant in Michigan, where the new drive unit will be built, Larry Nitz, GM Executive Director, Transmission and Electrification, noted that the only common part between the gen 1 and gen 2 drive units was for the manual selector.”

Nitz adds:

“In a five-year period, I can’t think of any other product that we have that we have gone through a complete, a complete reengineering.”

In fact, we can’t think of any automobile that’s been completely re engineered just five years after its debut.

Green Car Congress breaks down some specifics on the 2016 Volt as follows:

  • The battery cells, with a tweaked NMC/LMO chemistry from LG, increase storage capacity by 20% volumetrically when compared to the original cell.
  • Overall the engineering team increased efficiency and reduced weight; the drive unit is up to 12% more efficient in operation—although GM has yet to quantify publicly what that means in terms of range or fuel economy—and 100 lbs (45 kg) lighter. The battery system, with fewer, albeit larger, cells (192 vs. 288) is nearly 30 lbs (13.6 kg) lighter, but offers more capacity (also unspecified at this point) than its predecessor.

Categories: Chevrolet


Leave a Reply

88 Comments on "Voltec In Next-Gen 2016 Chevy Volt Shares Only One Part In Common With First-Gen Volt"

newest oldest most voted

1. IMHO this is actually a sign of managerial stupidity. To anyone who’s been following, engineering-wise the Volt I has been a crowning achievement for GM. So to tell engineers to scrap all that and start from scratch? WTFF? And what kind of message does this tell the world about how much to trust the Volt overall, if it needs to be re-engineered from scratch every 5 years?

2. Of course, what they *do* need to scrap is the managerial, marketing and distribution approach, start to finish. There are some signs they are willing to embrace Volt II more closely, but they’ll need to do more.

3. If all the re-engineering promises they are starting to leak out do bear fruit, we might expect as long as 60+ mile AER. After all, the Volt I uses only about two-thirds of the battery’s theoretical capacity, and the rest of the industry seems to be doing just fine with 80-90%, so even going 80% will give the Volt II a nice >5 mile bonus. That’s beside the capacity increase and the weight reduction.

I suspect most of the changes are to make it more economic to produce.
Volt I seems to have been made partially to ensure a Government bail out, and was something of a technological tour de force, with for instance and existing engine roped in as they did not have the money or time to develop a more suitable one.

They did a great job, but to produce in quantity and hopefully actually make money they need much more tightly focussed design.


You make good points, but my observations are that

1. Re-engineering from scratch means higher up-front R&D costs, translating into higher initial per-unit costs, and

2. With the Volt I at least for the past couple of years that problem has never been production capacity – the Volt plant has been idled for long stretches of time – nor was it engineering. The problem has been, and continues to be, marketing.

If the re-engineering was done in order to help the marketing be better, that’s all for the best. But if the bean-counters and $hit-$ellers and other do-nothings at upper management just looked for the easy “Dilbert” solution of sending the engineers for another run around the block, while they change very little in their ways – then that’s really bad news not just for GM but for the entire prospect of EV adoption among major automakers.

To me it sounds like GM listened to owners and potential owners. They took the 5 years of time they had since initial production, and used it to slowly implement a new design that:
* targeted areas that owners wanted
* reduced costs
* increased efficiency

I’m w/George and excited about the changes.

Here’s hoping.

Moving to Gen 2 (#NextGenVolt )Amazing Chevy Volt Extended Range Electric Vehicle from Gen 1 is going to be similar to moving from 8-Track to Blue Ray Tech.

Gm is gonna blow the doors off of the Global Automotive Industry!

See you at the North American international Show, Press Day, January 10th 2015. (#NAIASDetroit)


Thomas J. Thias



Why would you keep any of the major parts? The ice, well we knew that would change, the gen I was just shoved in because chevy didn’t have resources to do what they wanted. Mg and batteries? These change significantly in 5 years, why not use the latest that can be tested. THis requires new inverters. That leaves changes to the transmission. My take is they changed this to reduce cost and maximize their mg choices. Now on the non-drivetraine parts there may have been reasons to change or stay the same, but I thought this was on a brand new platform so why keep it the same?

I think I have come across as too convinced by GMs efforts.
For me the problem is that whilst their detailed engineering can be brilliant, as a whole the company does not do long term planning well.
Without getting into a major thesis about it, for me the problem is partly short termism in US industry with massive rewards for quarterly results and golden parachutes if that happens to bankrupt the company, and partly due to factors such as the anomalous US health care system which sticks companies with vast costs which are government responsibilities elsewhere.

So I think it is next to impossible for US based companies to provide the huge integrated structure of, for instance, the VW Group’s electrification program.

Of the US big three Ford is, in my view, perhaps the most competitive, but even they are going to find it difficult.

So I like GM’s detail engineering, but am unconvinced on their electrification strategy, and they have nothing remotely resembling the VW Group’s electrification of all platforms, not even the basic platforms.

Dave, totally agree on your last comment, and made comments in the same vein myself.

And just to clarify, I am rooting for the Volt. IMHO whether it succeeds is mostly up to management not the engineers.

Now who is the conspiracy theorist, Dave? To ensure the bailout? Seriously?

I in no way said that that was GMs sole motivation, and their Volt program started way before they got into trouble.

I thought however it is common knowledge that it is only common sense that GM should present itself in the best possible light when it got into difficulties, and the Volt and electrification was part of that.

Since I also support GMs efforts to electrify and only wish that they had been able to go further, I am not quite sure what your gripe is.

Just as we are not saying that ZEV credits are Toyota’s sole motivation for their fuel cell program.

In a different thread on that latter topic, you accused me of being a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that Toyota might be motivated by something other than good engineering. Something such as ZEV credits. Here, you use the same conspiracy argument against Chevy. You are being a hypocrite, and that is my gripe.

I expressed myself poorly, as I said that:
‘Volt I seems to have been made partially to ensure a Government bail out,’

by which I meant not that the original project was started for a bail out, as that did not exist at the time, but that the Volt did not fall to the cost cutter’s axe after the company was bankrupt because the project was attractive to Government.

Since I am wholly in favour of GM’s PHEV program I am hardly moaning about a conspiracy, rather celebrating that its political popularity enabled it to continue to exist, which might have been doubtful were it not politically good stuff.

I accept however that I was unclear in my meaning.

Since Toyota started its fuel cell program in the early 90’s a couple of decades before ZEV credits existed it seems even more unlikely that they were far seeing enough to have done so to pick them up.

Toyota is also far from bankrupt, and so could have simply purchased ZEV credits or produced a qualifying BEV themselves at less cost than breaking ground with new technology in a FCEV is they did not believe in it, rather than using it as a ploy for ZEV as the accusation runs.
Of course new technology needs all the help it can get, and so the ZEV credits are very welcome.

I wouldn’t say that they threw out the current Volt design. That’s overly dramatic. The new Volt appears to be an evolution of the current Volt only engineered and optimised in every way.

It clear the first generation was designed in a rush with a lot of over designed off the shelf parts. Most automotive design cycles are 6 to 8 years in length. The first generation Volt was designed and in production in 4 years. This new Volt will be the first one with a full design cycle under its belt so it’s easy to see why there are so many new components.

This is exactly what a management team would do, if managing for the long term. GM recognizes the potential Huge Future Market, and designs for that market, not current sales.

And the innovation shown in this design is in phenomenal.

ASSAF, it tells the world GM Is Committed to the Volt Concept, and to making it a huge marketing success, with GM’s intent to be a world leader.

Yeah, I’m not so sure how I feel about this. Seems an inefficient way to do things. Then again, perhaps it is much cheaper to redesign things today and all the new parts are cheaper than the old parts.

Costs are the key metric.

I think everyone is reading too much into the PR crap.

All new stuff? Notice it’s still the same recipe?

In high tech world, this is typical. Say you build a new PC – it’s all new parts, right? New CPU requires new power components, new DRAM technology, new storage, networking, etc.

So with a new battery, it’s not surprising that the electronics are different.

Cars are not the same as computers, and there is usually much more carry-over between models.

We all need zero emissions, and the Volt still burns fossil fuels! I don’t care if you can drive to and from work in a Volt totally on battery, you can’t get from Phoenix to San Diego in it without burning fossil fuels and polluting the environment. We Boomers are not going to have to live with an environment that will be tough on our kids and grand kids, but we are to blame for a lot of it because the burning of fossil fuels happened on our watch. Now we ignore it as if it will go away…it won’t. The sun will be around for another 6 billion years. That’s free energy..so let’s use it on homes and in our cars. NOW!

The cheapest viable option to drive from Phoenix to San Diego without using any gasoline starts at $70,000.

Instead of focusing on 350+ mile road trips, why not focus on the fact that many Volt users drive the majority of their miles on electricity? In the U.S., Volt drivers have still logged more EV miles than Leaf drivers.


We’re not going to fix the climate with 100% solutions. First of all, when you charge the Volt, unless you live in Washington state, most likely you burned hydrocarbons to charge it. So if you take a 350 mile trip twice a year, you’re only burning fuel for 5% of your miles, and it’s environmental effects are only marginally worse than if you charged based on coal-electric or NG-electric power generation. In the world of engineering a 95% solution is just as good as a 100% solution. (But a lot cheaper).

Assaf, all your doing here is showing your hatred of GM. You just don’t make sense and your mind is polluted with hatred. Get a life!

All that battery reengineering is worthless if it doesn’t allow the fundamental enhancement of five seats. All cars have five seats so if you make an ev you better make sure to have that too in order to limit what change you ask to potential customers to only a drive train change and only that.

Porsche Panamera and BMW X6 do not have 5 seats. Corvette and Miata have half the number of seats compared to a Volt, they must really suck!

Yes, but Volt is intended to be a mid-market, broad-appeal vehicle, a segment where less than 5 seats is an inevitable drag on sales, regardless of how often that seat is used by some households.

Probably true, but I really like the rear bucket seats and center console much better than a rear bench. I find it classier and more comfortable.

Many (most?) other cars have a flip down center console. In the up position you have a fifth seat, in the down position you have a console with cup holders. We can have both.

Fully agree with Acevolt… Rear buckets with console are classy, upscale, and comfortable. And over 50,000 people so far think they are OK.

I’m so tired of the whiney complaints about seats. It’s a 4 seater. Get over it!!

Pushing 100,000 Voltec Platforms Globally now and just passing that total when Voltec Gen 5th year winds down!



Thomas J. Thias



4 seats fine by me. Only 4 in my family.

Actually according to GM it was not intended to be broad appeal, they labeled it as a limited market niche vehicle.

The only problem with the volt was the marketing. The majority of people do not even know what it is or how it works, and the car has been out for 5 years. 2 days ago while sitting at a red light a transit bis sitting beside me was honking his horn and had his door open and was motioning me to roll down my window. First thing he asked was is that the chevy volt. I said yes. He said it is electric. I said yes. He asked how far it goes before you have to recharge. I replied it has a 40 mile electric range, and then the gas fired generator fires, and the tank of gas is good for 300+ miles. His reply, so you don’t have to plug it in when the battery is dead, I said no, it switches over to gas automatically, and once you charge it up it goes back to battery. Now this is a commercial driver, who is obviously interested in electric cars, and he didn’t have a clue how it operated, but now he knows what it is and how it works. My guess if more people knew how the… Read more »

GM sells many other excellent vehicles with five seats. Look around you and see how many cars actually travel with five occupants every day: less than 1%! So why complain for a fifth seat if you hardly need or use it?

Thx GM.

I was worried you were going to do the minimum possible on Gen 2 but it appears your engineering team went the extra mile….and with management support obviously or they wouldn’t have been given the money to do so.

I’m still anxiously awaiting more of the details though.

The 5th mode and the new transmission are where the details are yet to emerge.

We still don’t know for sure what the fifth mode is but it is probably a linking of the 2 motors to give us the added 20% accel GM has already revealed.

There was also some speculation that they have taken out the planetary set, but I don’t think so.

Also mixing LMO and NMC battery chemistry is an interesting move.

Good info to come. I’m jazzed. I’ll probably get another. The timing is perfect.


WOT generally confirmed what the 5th mode is in response to a recent post at gm-volt.


He still is a bit cryptic, but I’m pretty sure he means that MG-A and MG-B can work together for more combined HP (mode 5) as well as the existing mode where they work together to slow down MG-B rpm for more efficiency at higher speeds.

Thx HVAC man. WOT is the man when it comes to Volt tech.

2nd gen volt is a winner

The 5th mode is “blended”, such that the gas range extender van be turned on and add its torque to the traction motors.

Speculation on the 5 modes I have hears are as follows.
Mode 1, single motor battery
Mode 2, dual motor battery
Mode 3, single mode battery, motor 2 generator.
Mode 4, dual motor with engine assisting. (battery discharged)
Mode 5 performance mode. Gas engine and both electric motors driving wheels, battery pack charged for maximum performance.
This will work similar to the performance mode that the tuners are already doing to the existing volt.
I guess we will find out in January, but I tell you a performance mode that will accelerate it 0-60 in 5.5 seconds like the tuners are getting out of gen1 will shut up those that desire more power.
Nust like the 2013-15 models have a hold mode that uses the engine to preserve the charge for cruising in under low loads, the performance mode would do the same, just not limit the power, pull out all the stops.
Sounds exciting, lets home these rumours are true.

What I find rather concerning is that in the five years since the Volt I the volumetric energy density has only increased by 20%.

That is a lot less than many of us had hoped, and perhaps does not bode well for the other PHEVs coming down the tracks.

Let us hope that others can do better.

Tesla-Panasonic have seen much better results.

But, GM is designing their battery for longevity above all other considerations.

BEV batteries are utterly different to those in a PHEV, and the energy density increases happening in the former do not necessarily do much for the high power ones needed for a PHEV.

I am somewhat hopeful though that the NMC ones used in the Kia Soul might be OK in the application.

@Dave, I don’t understand your conclusion that a slower rate of battery-density increase is bad for PHEVs.

If anything, it makes the appeal of PHEVs vs. BEVs greater for a longer period. Production costs are decreasing, and arguably whoever opts for a PHEV (rather than a BEV or a battery-dominated EREV) should be content with 30 mile range, possibly 40 miles max. For this, the moderate rate of density improvement is plenty enough.

By contrast, if the density/cost curves starts to rapidly increase, then who needs a PHEV when a simpler and cheaper BEV will soon meet all your needs?


I am not saying that battery energy density increases as slow as such, but that judging by the Volt they are a lot slower for PHEVs than for BEVs.

If that is the case upping the ~22 miles on the EPA AERs of lots of cars coming out to around Volt I levels which would suit far more people especially in the States will be tough.

BEV battery energy density in non 18650 formats seems to be increasing fine, and should get a lot nearer to that in the Tesla S in the next two or three years.

@Dave – This is why the 22 AER is so disheartening. Given the size (admittedly nowhere Near the suburban ooze that are US cities) of major cities in VWs target markets, you will definitely push that *cough* 50km AER if your shopping involves living on the outreach and needing to travel To the outreach.

It would have been a welcome blessing to surpass the 50km AER, rather than heeding it like law. I get that holding costs down to secure the sale is PriOrty WUN, but damn..
Shooor woulda’ been nice if they’d said “60km hot or cold from a VW”.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

GM and other non-Tesla makers still rely on proprietary prismatics which will always cost more than commodity cells, unless they scale production to the volumes of commodity cells (and thus become commodity cells).

It wouldn’t surprise me if Tesla consumes as many GWh of battery as all legacy carmakers combined, excepting possibly Nissan.

ObVolt: If Voltec 2.0 proves more economic and technologically advanced (in performance and efficiency), perhaps it’s the platform that will go into other form factors. Fingers x’d.

Battery performance is basically 6-dimensional chess. You need to balance a large number of factors against each other in other to meet your qualifications: volume, weight, energy capacity, power capacity, cycle and calendar life at various temperatures, and the most important – cost. GM has decided (for whatever reason) to stick with the “T” pack design similar in size to the first generation Volt, and not a pan like the Spark EV or Nissan Leaf. Starting with that decision, all others follow. The next decision is likely capacity – the consensus right now is 19-20kWh for 50 mile range. From there, what is the volume of space to work with, and what cells can we put in the pack to meet our power, volume and weight requirements? Where does this leave us with respect to cycle life and thermal management? Do we need to upsize the pack’s thermal management system? Can we downsize it if the chemistry is more resilient? In short, 20% volumetric density improvement was really all they needed to hit the 50-mile range target in a similar form factor. They didn’t need any more than that. Who knows, perhaps more was available to them (30, 40% improvement)… Read more »

I think you have identified the issue.
GM can’t afford a new platform which would allow them to get a more suitable battery shape.
That is the problem with not having a full scheme for electrification, and why the Volt remains a splendid but technically isolated peak, with Volt II likely to follow.

IMO that is why GM have designated Volt II as a limited release car, not a mass production big seller.

Personally, I think the T-pack has to do with the fact that it still has a conventional gasoline powertrain too. The pan or skateboard-style EV battery packs only work with pure EVs. GM knows how to do it on the Spark EV, its just a matter of having to route the fuel supply lines, exhaust, etc. from and to the rear of the car, so you can have this big pan of batteries blocking the way.

VW stuck with a T-shaped design even for their E-Golf as well as the PHEV Golf GTE:
However, as they note below the image of the cutaway of the battery:

‘ One of the challenges for the battery team was working through the volumetric geometry of the pack and the orientation of the modules to fit the space available in the e-Golf in adherence with the MQB approach.’


So it seems likely that had they not been working within the constraints of a multi-drive train compatible architecture they might have gone for a flat pack.

Perhaps the importance of that in the E-Golf is relatively limited as they have managed to get in 5 seats and not heavily compromise luggage space either.

Obtaining high energy density and cooling is also tougher in an odd-shaped pack though, so the advantages of commonality with high volume ICE cars entails compromise.

@ Anthony.

They can tweak the percentage of NMA/LMO depending on what cycle life they need.

I’m really glad LG is in the game big time.

Now we have Tesla AND LG competing.

It’s all good 🙂

if you want more energy density then just add some nickel. It’s genious.

The Energy density is fine. We can build great cars with the current technology, additional energy density gains are just a blessing. A lot of people are overoptimistic on the potential improvements.

Higher energy density may not even be all that desirable . . . higher energy density will also probably mean higher risks for a dangerous battery malfunction.

I’m much more concerned about costs.

Cost per kilowatt hour tends to decrease not increase as energy density goes up, and in any form of transport it is a good idea to carry as little weight as possible as it is fundamentally more efficient.
The need for cooling is more dependent on the battery chemistry than the energy density, although of course that influences it.

Actually the shifter is one of the things I don’t like on my Volt. I prefer the shifter on my RAV4EV (and on the Prius). Why do we need this big bulky space consuming device?

That’s what I was thinking when I read the article also. The shifter is a big space consumer……but oddly every time I get into my Volt I really kind of like the “old fashioned’ness of it.

But then again I’m kind of old fashioned myself being 66 and all.

Yeah, big bulky shifters in EVs are just plain stupid. They made sense when they were actually mechanical devices coupled to transmissions. But in an EV, they are just really stupid space-wasters that can easily be replaced by a knob, a steering column stick, or buttons (Fiat 500e).

Get rid of them . . . put cupholders or cellphone holders there instead of a needless waste of space.

I’m not sure why anyone would be surprised that the Volt is completely redesigned. How many parts does the 1st generation Prius share with the 2nd? Or the 3rd? I’d say probably close to zero.

Prius 1st to 2nd gen seems to have been a complete re-design. 1st Gen Prius is not even recognizable as one to our eyes, being a sedan rather than the classic Prius liftback look. But the 1st Gen Prius was lame all-round, e.g. 13 seconds 0 to 60 mph. Basically it was the revolutionary concept of hybrid tech that did the trick. By comparison to the Gen I Prius, the Gen I Volt is brilliant. OTOH with people already familiar with hybrids, with the Tesla Roadster coming out a couple years earlier, and with the Leaf coming out concurrently – it is far less revolutionary conceptually speaking. And that has been the Volt story all along, that GM has failed to find an engaging story to sell it with. Now it is hemmed in by the BMW i3 on one side, GM’s own ICE offerings on the other side, and Ford’s PHEVs and the Leaf et al. from the remaining directions. That’s the challenge. If they come out with an all-American-family’s attractive, affordable 5-seat 60-mile-AER beast, and market it as such – namely, as GM’s absolute best value for auto buyers – they can outshine the competition. If they continue… Read more »

This may be an admission that the manufacturing cost for Volt 1.0 is just too high and always will be with the current parts. In order to get the cost down while providing even better performance it was necessary to redesign every part. In the long wrong this is what is needed to increase the volume to that which we are all hoping for.

Just so.
Volt I was kind of a cost no object moon shot, partly to get Government funds out of bankruptcy.
Politicians always find it to give money to things with a big headline, such as ‘Getting off of Middle Eastern Oil’ attached.

Now they are seeing if they can actually do it and make a little money.

Personally my guess is that the battery is too big to do so at a price they can sell it for, and that the 22miles on the EPA of everyone else is about where it is at for a PHEV cheap enough for people to buy and still make money on with present technology, which of course may change later.

I don’t agree at all. Batteries are expensive but not that expensive that you couldn’t even afford a 100 miles range. Actually the luxury cost on the Volt is to still have a crank and shaft, a gearbox and 2 useless clutch in there while the BMW i3 has only a useless crank and shaft. That is still far from straight a direct free piston generator on an ev structure, which would be ideal in efficiency and lower costs.

Where are you getting your PHEV high power battery prices from?

The Volt was being designed long before the financial crash or government bail-outs were even part of reality.

It was not my intention to say that Government money was the reason the Volt program was started, only that of course when they got into deep financial trouble naturally the Volt program like everything else at GM had to be carried out with one eye on where the cash which enabled their survival was coming from.

Bankrupts try not to upset rich relations.

It is just a very misleading talking point. And if you read up on what the government Car Czar wanted, you’ll see that he wanted to cancel the Volt program because it was too expensive, speculative, and long-term. But the GM management insisted that it be saved because it really is a significant part of GM’s long-term future. People may not realize it right now when gas prices are $3/gallon, but a few years down the road when gas prices are higher and they have more Voltec-powered cars, people will realize how essential the program is.

Whether it is gas prices going up, eventual severe greenhouse gas regulations, or strict CAFE requirements, plug-in cars are the future.

In any case I am fully in favour of the Volt program, and just wish there was more of it, spread into more of their models.
What I was perhaps clumsily trying to highlight was that some of the form it eventually took may have been influenced by the fact that it was Government money keeping the company afloat in the final stages of the Volt program, and so the complete redesign also is a blank sheet without that influence.

It’s pretty clear the Volt II is all about cost reduction, which is clearly essential when you look at the complexity and therefore the material cost of the Volt I experiment.

Aside from the obvious cost reductions associated with the new platform, there are significant improvements throughout the Voltec system, including:
– Integrated drive/control electronics, eliminates many modules
– Controller bolted right on motors, eliminates cabling
– Common stators to leverage manufacturing volume
– Shared motor/generator function simplifies gear set, allows elimination of a clutch
– Low cost chain drive, eliminates gear train to differential
– Smaller number of bigger cells, reduces battery parts count
– And many more…..

What I find most significant is that GM decided the Voltec is sufficiently important for the future to make the necessary cost reduction commitment for it to be commercially viable.

They could have just “parked” the Volt and gone back to ICE trucks & stuff, but they didn’t. That’s huge.

(Of course pending threats from Tesla, VW, BMW, Nissan and others played a part, but that’s OK)

Gen 2 Volt moved to GM’s new global D2XX platform – that usually means a whole new set of parts unrelated to the drive train/battery. It probably shares a lot of parts with the new Cruze and will share parts with other new vehicles to come out also using same platform. That’s why they do platforms, right?

Good point.

does all new mean all new to GM or just new to the Volt.

Because I was raised on GM, I pray that the 2104 Volt | does Not become the pinnacle of the car’s lifespan, as the GM Bean Counters have utterly destroyed the faith that many had in the brand (read also, Could ever have).

I’m with you GeorgeS, I don’t Think that they (are you listening, Mary?) would do that again, but damned if history isn’t hard to ignore.

all new voltec drivetrain potentially means all new problems…

If the reason they did a redesign is to cut cost, then I’m even more worried.

Hopefully, there will be none. Certainly, I hope they make sure the bearing issue does not come back.

Cost isn’t the only reason, although it will be a big one.
It is hard to recall now just how revolutionary the Volt was when it came out, and the engineers cannot have been expected to get everything spot on.
I bet they are loving the opportunity to do a second take, and should be able to apply a lot of what they have learned.
My concerns are more for GM’s electrification program keeping up long term, not that they won’t do a good job on the Volt II.

GM struggling. They will never make a car thats anywhere close to a Tesla.

Never is a long time. Tesla is doing well in the EV skirmishes to-date, but the only “never” in the the auto industry is the never-ending war between competitors…and experience also counts in the long term on that battlefield. I wouldn’t risk too much money on that “never make a car anywhere close to Tesla” statement.

They might. They do have the 200 mile range EV in the pipeline.

But the Voltec brand is not supposed to compete with Tesla. It is supposed to provide gas-free commuting combined with gas powered long trips.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

An honest 200mi range is 60kWh. GM would likely halfass it with pipsqueak 50kW charging DC as an expensive option and keep using 3.3 puny kW for L2. In a pedestrian subcompact where you can’t hide the costs.

I can’t wait for Tesla to put out the Model III and show em how to build a truly 21st century car. Preferably as a CUV with upright seating, good visibility and plenty of head and legroom.

You have to be realistic.

The features you want (including 60kWh) cannot be provided for $30k at this time, and for several years to come. Neither can Tesla Gen III do it for $30k.

A large number of Volts could be sold (and a huge amount of fuel saved) before a $30k 200 mile vehicle can be commercially successful.

Don’t knock it!

Let’s hope the Lutz’ legacy doesn’t hamstring the GM marketing mojo on Volt 2.0.
Continued GM poo pooing of Tesla as a fluke/fad in favor of Lutz’ fossil fuels forever mindset guarantees GM demise.

Complete redesign yet it uses the same battery pack size? Doesn’t sound like a complete redesign. More GM marketing spin. Bet it will be just like the old Volt. Hope I’m surprised.

How do you know the battery pack is the same size, and not just the same shape?

I’m not sure of the official GM comments here.

“All NEW” has been an advertising slogan for a hundred years. Who is to say what is new and what isn’t? You can’t ever pin anyone down on saying it, thats why companies always say it.

I just hope they don’t lie about the PHEV nature of the VOLT as they did for the first 2 years until NY State Dept of motor vehicles told GM ‘you’re not fooling anyone’, and they dropped the charade.

It’s hard to tell from the new animation GM released, but it looks like they took a small step closer to being a conventional PHEV by eliminating the clutch that isolated the second motor from the drive.

I’m not sure, but it seems whenever the engine is running there is an opportunity for some torque spilt to the wheels, whereas before it could be isolated from the wheels in generator mode.

I too don’t understand why they would scrap everything when version 1 pleases so many people and hits high maintenance & user satisfaction marks.

Should have scrapped….that hump in the middle of the back seat. Not being able to seat 3 in the back is a show stopper for me and many others.

Version 1 is too costly to manufacturer profitably.

Version 2 is all about cost reduction and optimisation to make it as commercially viable as the mainstream cars.

It should be viewed as a positive that GM decided to invest in making the Volt commercially viable rather that just letting it fade away in its current form as an experiment.

So far it looks like the Volt 2.0 will have two legs of the 5-5-5 stool: 5 seater, 50-mile AER. If they can get the third 5 (50 MPG) and somehow get the MSRP starting under $30k, they will have the best product in the segment *by a long shot*.

Getting more MPG isn’t important for the great majority of Volt owners. Read Voltstats and see that most use EV mode and not burn gas. A 50 mile EV range will save more money than a 100 MPG range extender!